How is Pakistan ‘equal’ to India?

[Neo]

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

EDITORIAL: How is Pakistan ‘equal’ to India?

President Pervez Musharraf has said that India must accept Pakistan as its ‘equal’ for peace in the region: “I respect the Indian prime minister but it is regrettable that India wants to keep its domination in the region and wants Pakistan to be a weaker force. India should come out of its phobia (sic!) of being a greater nation and should talk to us at an equal level”. He said his government would not allow anyone to interfere in Pakistan’s internal matters and that India should set its own house in order before telling others what to do. The next observation by the president was even more interesting: “There are no separatist movements in Pakistan (sic!) but in India 21 separatist movements are taking place, thus India should not consider us a weaker nation”. In the same breath he said “talks with India on Kashmir were on the right path” and progress was being made. As a part of his foray into the country’s foreign policy, he also promised to ‘review’ Pakistan’s policy on Israel after the Lebanon invasion, as if this review would somehow tip the balance of power in the Middle East.

The president thinks India should treat Pakistan as an equal on matters of peace. This is fine if it is meant in terms of intrinsic rights and wrongs. But the hidden reference here is apparently to the ‘nuclear parity’ which the two states achieved in 1998. Apparently an atomic bomb complete with a credible delivery system is supposed to be ‘an equaliser’. Pakistan has always chafed under the feeling that it was militarily unequal to India which had three times more firepower than Pakistan. So Pakistan initially relied on its big-power links to overcome this numerical imbalance. It obtained weapons systems which were considered better in technology than India’s. Therefore when it fought wars with India there was always something that gave Pakistan an edge, whether it was better aircraft or better tanks. Of course, the fact that this didn’t matter in the final analysis because Pakistan never won any war against India was conveniently ignored by this doctrine.

Pakistan has always thought militarily because it is completely dominated by military men who think nothing of politicians who have made a hash of democracy whenever they have been in office. Indeed, politicians who have ruled Pakistan fitfully have usually come out of the crotch of the army as its protégées. They too were broken to thinking like the generals: get better weapons, get F16s or AWACS or anything to get an ‘edge over India’. The thinking was repetitive but the same. Add to that the parrot-like recitation of the ‘21 separatist movements’ in India and you have a dubious ‘national strategic doctrine’. General Musharraf may dislike General (Retd) Hameed Gul but, with a thousand apologies, we should like to remind him that he is simply regurgitating what that man has unloaded on the nation a thousand times before him? Where is President Musharraf’s originality?

We accept that smaller states with weak institutions have a more intense nationalism when they are under the onus of revisionism, but there should be limit to unoriginality. Every general-president who has lost a war to India has said the same thing. Therefore we should spell out the truth: Pakistan can’t defeat India and can’t wrestle Kashmir by force. But that is not the doctrine. Instead it is to ‘wound India with a thousand cuts’ until it weakens to such an extent that its ‘21 separatist movements’ rear up and bring it down from within. In other words, India is to be nudged for it to crumble from within so that Pakistan can simply tip it over at the right time. How ridiculous can you get?

There are many ‘third world’ things where Pakistan and India are indeed at par. The red tape, the delay of law, the abysmal state of their courts at the level of the lower judiciary, the persistent poverty of the masses, the almost zero level of infrastructure needed for a good modern economy, etc. But India’s size and India’s problems that once made it vulnerable in comparison with Pakistan are slowly disappearing and President Musharraf should worry about it if he feels adversarial these days to boost his image at home.

India’s growth rate is steadily much higher than the ‘Hindu rate’ it used to have. It is also not dependent on external stimuli like security pacts and jihad against communism from 1950 to 1987 or support to the war against terror after 9/11 to take it out of its troughs. In fact its economy looks like dominating Asia together with China in the decade ahead. Its companies are in the multinational race and are buying up first world companies. Its education has always been better while Pakistan was handing its seats of learning to the clerics and their violent ‘youth wings’. Indian scientists and scholars are spread out in the world proving their excellence while Pakistanis are suffering discriminatory regimes put up by the first world to avoid getting hit by terrorist attack. India’s poverty may be on the decline, but in Pakistan, despite President Musharraf’s success in the economic sector, it may still be on the increase. India is expected to attract foreign investment in the coming months because law and order there is better than the one obtaining in Pakistan. India has developed a large middle class which attracts global funds looking for consumer markets. Unlike Pakistan, which spends 4.5 percent of its GDP on defence (not counting the military’s trespass into jobs that used to belong to the civil servants) while the biggest spender India is still safely below 3 percent, the point over which purchase of weapons may affect the quality of life of a country.

It is therefore regrettable that there should be the hint of menace in President Musharraf’s ‘message’ to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The world will not miss the contrast of the two personalities. No one likes braggarts, especially when they are using rhetoric to grab at whatever is left of the support they enjoy at home. If the president implies that India is interfering in Pakistan’s internal affairs, the world is more likely to disbelieve him and instead point to the internal dangers faced by Pakistan. As for President Musharraf’s ability to “disallow anyone to interfere in Pakistan’s internal matters”, the last time he tried in Waziristan to do exactly that he ended up making a deal that looked like capitulation.

Not long ago, President Musharraf was ‘original’. He talked about Pakistan as a ‘trade corridor’ and thought about it, not in terms of ‘strategic depth’, but as a ‘commercial hub’. Why should he revert to the defeated rhetoric of the generals of yore? This ‘equal of India’ spiel is fine if it is meant to refuse dictation but dangerous if it is avowed as a strategic doctrine. The last time we took it seriously we were ‘separated’ from East Pakistan; meanwhile, India’s 21 separatist movements have not stopped it from making progress.

Such rhetoric is passé. Let us get concrete about ourselves. *

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\25\story_25-10-2006_pg3_1

 

[muse]

Mr. Musharraf may want to stop asking Indian or others to treat Pakistan as an equal - He should concentrate on creating a Pakistan that does not need or depend on others instead it should be the kindof Pakistan it would be in the interest of others to treat as fairly as they can manage.

Everytime Mr. Musharraf asks that pakistan be treated like an equal, he magnifies the fact that he is the President of a nation that cannot claim to have earned equality -- Japan is tiny compared to China, does Japan go around being asked to be treated like an equal? Why not ? Because it is more than an equal, facts attest to it.
:flag:

 

[Goodperson]

Pakistan has always thought militarily because it is completely dominated by military men who think nothing of politicians who have made a hash of democracy whenever they have been in office.

Above line explains all about current affairs in Pakistan ( No pun intended)

 

[Neo]

Mr. Musharraf may want to stop asking Indian or others to treat Pakistan as an equal - He should concentrate on creating a Pakistan that does not need or depend on others instead it should be the kindof Pakistan it would be in the interest of others to treat as fairly as they can manage.

Everytime Mr. Musharraf asks that pakistan be treated like an equal, he magnifies the fact that he is the President of a nation that cannot claim to have earned equality -- Japan is tiny compared to China, does Japan go around being asked to be treated like an equal? Why not ? Because it is more than an equal, facts attest to it.
:flag:

Good post Muse!
Pretty much the same as the last paragraph of the article:

Not long ago, President Musharraf was ‘original’. He talked about Pakistan as a ‘trade corridor’ and thought about it, not in terms of ‘strategic depth’, but as a ‘commercial hub’. Why should he revert to the defeated rhetoric of the generals of yore? This ‘equal of India’ spiel is fine if it is meant to refuse dictation but dangerous if it is avowed as a strategic doctrine. The last time we took it seriously we were ‘separated’ from East Pakistan; meanwhile, India’s 21 separatist movements have not stopped it from making progress.

Such rhetoric is passé. Let us get concrete about ourselves.

I too agree that Musharraf should concentrate on Pakistan.

 

[ST1976]

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

EDITORIAL: How is Pakistan ‘equal’ to India?

President Pervez Musharraf has said that India must accept Pakistan as its ‘equal’ for peace in the region: “I respect the Indian prime minister but it is regrettable that India wants to keep its domination in the region and wants Pakistan to be a weaker force. India should come out of its phobia (sic!) of being a greater nation and should talk to us at an equal level”. He said his government would not allow anyone to interfere in Pakistan’s internal matters and that India should set its own house in order before telling others what to do. The next observation by the president was even more interesting: “There are no separatist movements in Pakistan (sic!) but in India 21 separatist movements are taking place, thus India should not consider us a weaker nation”. In the same breath he said “talks with India on Kashmir were on the right path” and progress was being made. As a part of his foray into the country’s foreign policy, he also promised to ‘review’ Pakistan’s policy on Israel after the Lebanon invasion, as if this review would somehow tip the balance of power in the Middle East.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\25\story_25-10-2006_pg3_1

Mr Musharraf has to understand that India ($3,800bn economy) got superiority over pakistan ($380bn economy) by birth in the same way US ($14,000bn economy and superior technology) got superiority over china ($8,500bn economy). and China ($8,500bn economy) got superiority over India ($3,800bn economy). Mr Musharraf is crying like that younger brother who is complaining why he is younger than his elder bro.

The president thinks India should treat Pakistan as an equal on matters of peace. This is fine if it is meant in terms of intrinsic rights and wrongs. But the hidden reference here is apparently to the ‘nuclear parity’ which the two states achieved in 1998. Apparently an atomic bomb complete with a credible delivery system is supposed to be ‘an equaliser’. Pakistan has always chafed under the feeling that it was militarily unequal to India which had three times more firepower than Pakistan. So Pakistan initially relied on its big-power links to overcome this numerical imbalance. It obtained weapons systems which were considered better in technology than India’s. Therefore when it fought wars with India there was always something that gave Pakistan an edge, whether it was better aircraft or better tanks. Of course, the fact that this didn’t matter in the final analysis because Pakistan never won any war against India was conveniently ignored by this doctrine.

i would like to ask, if Bangaladesh and Nepal doesn’t have nukes, how many times india threaten them to attack on them? if pakistan want to have nukes, that’s mainly problem of western countries otherwise geographical situation of both the countries is such that, if pakistan drop a bomb on delhi, people of Lahor and Islamabad will also die becoz of it’s gas. and if pakistan drop a N bomb on Mumbai, India will also do the same with karachi making the result zero. the only difference will the energy pakistan is spending in making those bombs by money andthe political harassment.

just to update your information, India did first nuclear test in 1974 and pakistan did the same in 1998.

Pakistan has always thought militarily because it is completely dominated by military men who think nothing of politicians who have made a hash of democracy whenever they have been in office. Indeed, politicians who have ruled Pakistan fitfully have usually come out of the crotch of the army as its protégées. They too were broken to thinking like the generals: get better weapons, get F16s or AWACS or anything to get an ‘edge over India’. The thinking was repetitive but the same. Add to that the parrot-like recitation of the ‘21 separatist movements’ in India and you have a dubious ‘national strategic doctrine’. General Musharraf may dislike General (Retd) Hameed Gul but, with a thousand apologies, we should like to remind him that he is simply regurgitating what that man has unloaded on the nation a thousand times before him? Where is President Musharraf’s originality?

We accept that smaller states with weak institutions have a more intense nationalism when they are under the onus of revisionism, but there should be limit to unoriginality. Every general-president who has lost a war to India has said the same thing. Therefore we should spell out the truth: Pakistan can’t defeat India and can’t wrestle Kashmir by force. But that is not the doctrine. Instead it is to ‘wound India with a thousand cuts’ until it weakens to such an extent that its ‘21 separatist movements’ rear up and bring it down from within. In other words, India is to be nudged for it to crumble from within so that Pakistan can simply tip it over at the right time. How ridiculous can you get?

Neo this is certain that some policy makers of pakistan has given India many cuts on her body by pak sponsored terrorism but if we count the cuts on the body of pakistan becoz of growing terrorism inside pakistan also, it is again + and – equal to zero. if we look on the terrorism of kashmir which started from 1991, india is maintaining about 6.5% a year since 1991 while india faced all the kargil war, terrorism, and military gathering on border during same period. while that of pakistan is about 4.1% - 4.2% a year since 1991.

There are many ‘third world’ things where Pakistan and India are indeed at par. The red tape, the delay of law, the abysmal state of their courts at the level of the lower judiciary, the persistent poverty of the masses, the almost zero level of infrastructure needed for a good modern economy, etc. But India’s size and India’s problems that once made it vulnerable in comparison with Pakistan are slowly disappearing and President Musharraf should worry about it if he feels adversarial these days to boost his image at home.

India’s growth rate is steadily much higher than the ‘Hindu rate’ it used to have. It is also not dependent on external stimuli like security pacts and jihad against communism from 1950 to 1987 or support to the war against terror after 9/11 to take it out of its troughs. In fact its economy looks like dominating Asia together with China in the decade ahead. Its companies are in the multinational race and are buying up first world companies. Its education has always been better while Pakistan was handing its seats of learning to the clerics and their violent ‘youth wings’. Indian scientists and scholars are spread out in the world proving their excellence while Pakistanis are suffering discriminatory regimes put up by the first world to avoid getting hit by terrorist attack. India’s poverty may be on the decline, but in Pakistan, despite President Musharraf’s success in the economic sector, it may still be on the increase. India is expected to attract foreign investment in the coming months because law and order there is better than the one obtaining in Pakistan. India has developed a large middle class which attracts global funds looking for consumer markets. Unlike Pakistan, which spends 4.5 percent of its GDP on defence (not counting the military’s trespass into jobs that used to belong to the civil servants) while the biggest spender India is still safely below 3 percent, the point over which purchase of weapons may affect the quality of life of a country.

Neo I personally think if india manufacture 30MKIs in a year, it would give atleast 10 to pakistan also. this way india may get some foreign currency and also can keep pakistan cool. because one weakness the india has, it think of itself as a great nation and that’s why it wants better technology in defense and in all the fields. whether pakistan accept this or not.

It is therefore regrettable that there should be the hint of menace in President Musharraf’s ‘message’ to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The world will not miss the contrast of the two personalities. No one likes braggarts, especially when they are using rhetoric to grab at whatever is left of the support they enjoy at home. If the president implies that India is interfering in Pakistan’s internal affairs, the world is more likely to disbelieve him and instead point to the internal dangers faced by Pakistan. As for President Musharraf’s ability to “disallow anyone to interfere in Pakistan’s internal matters”, the last time he tried in Waziristan to do exactly that he ended up making a deal that looked like capitulation.

please tell me, how many times pakistan talk about Kashmir on international platform and how many times India talk about Baluchistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir? while separatists of baluchistan are always hopeful with india and don’t miss any chance to talk to indian foreign ministry team in any western country. if baluchistan and Pakistan occupied kashmir is internal matter of pakistan then why pakistan talk about kashmir which became the part of india by the law of that british government who made partition of that time india. and if pakistan think it is right if pakistan talk about Indian kashmir in UN and everywhere in the world then why pakistan question if few time india also talk about those states pakistan is occupying by force?

Not long ago, President Musharraf was ‘original’. He talked about Pakistan as a ‘trade corridor’ and thought about it, not in terms of ‘strategic depth’, but as a ‘commercial hub’. Why should he revert to the defeated rhetoric of the generals of yore? This ‘equal of India’ spiel is fine if it is meant to refuse dictation but dangerous if it is avowed as a strategic doctrine. The last time we took it seriously we were ‘separated’ from East Pakistan; meanwhile, India’s 21 separatist movements have not stopped it from making progress.

the only way to solve all the problems between india and Pakistan is associated with pakistan's attitude towards India. this is commonly asked in India that if pakistan want to counter India everywhere in the world, want to be even an arm of china against India, then when why India would loose any mark against Pakistan. even Mr Musharraf’s proposal of indepence of 5 district of Azad Kashmir and 8 of Indian kashmir was on the table of thought but again the question is, why India would listen an enemy Pakistan.

i personally ask you Neo, if Pakistan want to counter india by all means, then why not india would just think to counter Pakistan? if pakistan want to compete india in terms of economic performance, it is welcomed. but if this is almost clear that all the proposals of Mr Mush’s and all is just to make india weak so that pakistan can get some advantage over India, then why india would loose any mark against pakistan? if anyhow india has to fight with pakistan, then this is easy to tackle terrorists with the fencing done on line of control, isn’t it?

if pakistan wants something from india, pakistan has to behave like friend of india not enemy. no china or UN(which can be blocked by just one veto which russia has used many times for india) can help pakistan against India. even if you go to UN, first you will say ur name and this way you will loose "first impression" and then you will talk about a "muslim state" (kashmir) and this way you will loose ur last impression also. while the environment in india is such that right now, that if pakistan prove she want to solve kashmir problem so that she may become a good friend of india, I can guarantee, it may take upto 10 to 15 years, but the problem can be solved in the way pakistan will also be happy. if pakistan wants something from india, then pakistan has to show herself close(or friendly) to india, not to china or other country.

otherwise today F-16s blks 52, then tomorrow blks 70s then again some better arm, pakistan will keep loosing her money year by year for countering “threat of India”. the arms pakistan is buying today will get old after a decade and pakistan will get nothing except “feel good”.

Such rhetoric is passé. Let us get concrete about ourselves. *

last but not least, this is the best way for making complete peace in the SA region.

 

[Neo]

Saturday, October 28, 2006

COMMENT: Equalling India —Abbas Rashid

For us, the real challenge then is to redefine our objectives. Instead of forever trying to equal India in terms of military power, we should seek to overtake it in terms of development and the quality of life we offer to our citizens

President Musharraf has let it be known in no uncertain terms that he does not take kindly to India considering Pakistan a weaker nation and has made the point that it ‘should talk to us on an equal level’. It is true that India’s tone has been particularly abrasive in recent weeks and the president may simply be reacting to that. And while India is clearly much the bigger country with a huge advantage in terms of resources, this does not mean that Pakistan should accept India’s dictates or not defend what it sees as its core interests. But the question is what exactly should we be equalling India in?

In the president’s articulation, equality appears to be a synonym for power rather than, for instance, equality in terms of development. But, we should keep in mind that we already spend around 3.9 percent of GDP on defence (official figure). India with its much stronger economy is able to maintain a considerably larger military machine by spending 2.29 percent of GDP (official figure). Given that equation an arms race between the two countries would spell disaster for Pakistan.

We should recall the consequences for the Soviet Union of the arms race between the United States and itself. The drain imposed by the defence spending on the smaller economy contributed significantly to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Our problem surely is not to equal India in terms of force but to ensure that we have the strength to withstand pressure and influence, be it from India or any other source, aimed at undermining our national interests or objectives.

And this strength, contrary to the thinking of the military mind, does not just come from military force. It comes as much, if not more, from the level of socio-economic development of the people and a genuine sense of ownership and participation in the enterprise of the nation-state. Paradoxically, Pakistan and India are relatively equal going by this measure as only a few places separate them on the Human Development Index.

Clearly, this should not be a cause for celebration on the part of either. The ruling elites of both countries must bear the shame of acquiring the dubious distinction of presiding over a region that is home to the largest number of the absolute poor on the planet. Between one-third to one-fourth of the citizens, if we can call them that, in both countries live below the poverty line in conditions of medieval deprivation. And, this at a time when both boast of nuclear status and have huge military budgets.

In fact, President Musharraf, in the same interview brought up the issue of the country’s nuclear status by referring to the Pakistani bomb. Whatever the imperatives of deterrence, our nuclear programme can only be one element of our national power. Let us not forget that the Soviet Union had over 20,000 nuclear warheads when it collapsed as a sovereign entity. In the absence of major advances in the realms of education, health and population planning, no country can really hope to be strong. That, essentially, should be the concern of our ruling elites as much as it should be that of India’s.

But, as President Musharraf seeks to engage India, he would do well to know the adversary better. The cold reality is that as matters stand, the world does not treat Pakistan and India as equals. It is important to understand this because in the process of our difficult negotiations with an intransigent Indian ruling elite we will make mistakes if our strategy is based on a premise that does not hold.

We found that out the hard way most recently in our attempt to leverage Kargil to extract concessions from India over Kashmir. Despite the tactical success and the bravery of our men in uniform and of those without, Pakistan could derive no advantage from the operation, simply because the world — almost to a state — supported India’s position and we were forced to withdraw. There has been considerable debate on the issue of who knew what and when did they know it and who decided that it was time to came up with an exit strategy. The question to ask is what led the planners to believe that international reaction to this move would be any different to what it actually was.

India has a huge market, an extensive industrial base and a reservoir of trained and technologically savvy manpower that places it in a different league. India, like Pakistan, remains a highly inequitable society. Perhaps, even more so. But, gradually, with much more success than we have had, India has been putting in place strong institutions that are likely to hold it in good stead in the years to come. Pakistan needs to do a lot better in this context and strive to equal, if not excel, India in the realm of human development and prosperity.

It would take some doing. Consider, for instance, the institutions of excellence that India has managed to develop in the field of education, the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), among others. It is true that large sections of the education system in India still remain well below par. But the institutional framework that it has in place represents an effective functioning system of human resource development on a large scale.

For us, the real challenge then is to redefine our objectives. Instead of forever trying to equal India in terms of military power, we should seek to overtake it in terms of development and the quality of life we offer to our citizens. That indeed would be a race worth running. Perhaps, in the not too distant future neither country will be hovering close to the bottom of the Human Development Index, as they do today.

Tailpiece: One Indian institution that has built up a reputation over the years is the Indian Supreme Court. Here is hoping that between the President of India and it a way may yet be found to prevent a travesty of justice in the case of Afzal Guru who has been condemned to death by the court for his alleged role in the attack on the Indian parliament on December 13, 2001.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\28\story_28-10-2006_pg3_2

 

[Srirangan]

Musharraf is such a cry baby. I hope Bush gives'em another lollypop ..

 

[mahi]

Mr. Musharraf may want to stop asking Indian or others to treat Pakistan as an equal - He should concentrate on creating a Pakistan that does not need or depend on others instead it should be the kindof Pakistan it would be in the interest of others to treat as fairly as they can manage.

Everytime Mr. Musharraf asks that pakistan be treated like an equal, he magnifies the fact that he is the President of a nation that cannot claim to have earned equality -- Japan is tiny compared to China, does Japan go around being asked to be treated like an equal? Why not ? Because it is more than an equal, facts attest to it.
:flag:

shukar hai ki koi to pkistani asliyat ko samajhta aur accept karta hai.....mubarik ho

 

[Janbaz]

Musharraf is such a cry baby. I hope Bush gives'em another lollypop ..

Srirangan brother!
Well India got a lollypop indeed in the form of a nuclear
deal after US was smart enough to supply their "most allied
ally" with with F-16's. India got a lollypop without even asking.
Looks as if President Bush knows the needs and wants of our
eastern neighbours.

 

[Srirangan]

Thanks for the lollypop.

Now let's get back to the topic..

 

[Janbaz]

Jokes Srirangan brother! No offence intended! Yes back to the topic we go!

 

[Srirangan]

Of course! I don't really mind humor, as long as it in good taste.