To follow a problem's complexity one often has to step back a bit. If you have read the book, you would understand that she addresses Pakistan Army's world-view from 1947 and places it in context of two-nation theory. But the thing is that Army is not in a closed loop. It is renewed in every generation, and that is how the mind-set goes through a change. The important thing therefore is the society at large, not the army itself.
Pakistan's raison-d-etre shall never go away. Army would never forsake the relevance of its founding principle. The mistrust among Pakistanis of 'Hindu Baniya' shall linger for a long time to come. What we can do is to take off the edge in our mutual discourse. For an attempt to do that both sides must understand each other.
In its essence, Pakistan was a reaction to the manifestations of Hindu psyche, which in itself was a reaction to history. Pakistan took shape ideologically in 1930s, particularly the latter part. You would find the relevance of my point in that period's history. In any case Muslim majority areas saw no point in being part of Bharat Mata. Mother India as an idea did not appeal to us, because we thought of it as a canard. The idea of Pakistan took root because of mitrust. I hope you are catching my drift here.
I am going beyond Dr. Fair's book and its premise. Pakistan Army is not a problem. It is Pakistan's obsession with survival that makes us the way we are.
You have never heard of Irshad Ahmad Haqqani. He was a very influential intellectual from city of Kasur in Pakistan's Punjab. He had a leftist bent, and an Islamist past. Though his political ideas did not mean much to me, him being educated in United India, his perspective was of immense importance to me. He could analyze things from a more 'neutral' perspective for having a multi-faceted approach. I will not go into detail of hows and whys of my last statement. But what I want to convey to you is that the gist of his views on Pakistan-India relations was that "India could not provide leadership" because "Hindus failed to act like a bigger, more responsible, group" (because of their own historical experience). This view will sting you, I know; but when I really think in the back-ground of my experience, reading, and perspective, I can not find much wrong with this view.
Having said the above, I hope you can understand that Pakistan's stance today is the product of very complicated historical processes. It is as much a victim as a problem. Our relations are not dependent upon how much India is able to push Pakistan - it would be a fail approach. Our relations are dependent upon how much we are able to understand each other and willing to accommodate.
If our respective statesmen start today with this approach, it would take two decades to bring about a change in thinking and approach and the results. In this, I do not see Kashmir as anything central. It is an unnecessary complication.
I do not know to what extent any of PDF Indians will agree with me - I have had to condense a lot in just a few sentences and left a great deal unsaid. But as well as I can see, this is the best way forward.
@
Joe Shearer, sir I hope for you to give your perspective on this post of mine - never mind the thread though.