@AM:
"
do get around to further explaining with specificity what exactly this 'lop sided' Indo-Pak relationship should look like?
"
Bola to! If you are hung up on the word "lop sided" let me back away from it. Now I said ::ALREADY::, when Pakistan and India come to any table. How can they be equals?
Its the same thing - the question is not about whether the two nations are equal in XYZ category, it is about how you specifically see the relationship, assuming inequality.
Gubbi has pointed out you are no saints.
What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? No one is a saint. Gubbi and you are pointing out the obvious and something irrelevant.
You have been pushing around basically anyone you could, I guess that means only Afghanistan, but had you been surrounded by weaker states you would not have been kind to them. Why I say this, look at your internal (intra province) squabbles for power. The Pakistani Punjabi far outstrips virtually everyone else in devouring state privileges and natural resources. It is the nature of the beast - as Gubbi pointed out.
Afghanistan was not pushed around by us - please try and at least be slightly more informed than Indian media catchphrases. The Afghans were the ones that started interfering in Pakistan from its inception - refusing to accept it as a nation, sheltering and supporting the Baluch insurgents during their multiple insurgencies, trying to incite a 'Pashtunistan movement', carrying out bombings in Pakistan, and later colluding with the Soviets in conducting terrorism and supporting insurgents.
We went into Afghanistan, along with the CIA and Saudis, to stop the Soviets. Later on, while we did support one particular faction in Afghanistan in their civil war India, Iran and Russia were supporting another rather Brutal faction, so even in the one place where you allege 'pushing neighbors around', Pakistan's involvement was only to bring about stability out of the chaos of the Afghans civil war and deny India the influence to carry out a repeat of the terrorism and proxy war in engaged in East Pakistan.
And again, what exactly does this have to do with the question posed about how you specifically define this 'lop-sided relationship'?
Now what makes a state weak or strong, that is what this is all about is it not? You have rejected my ideas of using comparative GDPs as opposed to what capital the partners invest in a venture.
It is not about what makes a nation strong or weak - we are assuming India is strong and Pakistan is weak - this is about how you specifically define the relationship between them assuming that. I rejected your idea's on comparative GDP's because that is not what should govern the allocation of 'voting rights' in any commercial JV - its stands to reason that voting rights will be based on the capital both partners invest. If Pakistan believes that the project is of strategic importance,she may insist that JV be strictly 50-50, in terms of capital invested and control retained. India would be free to reject such a proposal as a sovereign nation, as would Pakistan any proposal that she saw as counterproductive.
So when 2 countries sit down what kind of capital can this be? Surely no multi-lateral or bi-lateral countries forum involves hard cash as an upfront investment to determine voting rights. You go with your social standing in the comity of nations. The web has a lot of voices so can be assumed to be representative and fair. Try and search India and you might get G-8+5 and P-5, they both represent the highest tables of the world economically and in global influence and India is bidding to both; Where is Pakistan with respect to all this? You are still struggling to form a nation, how far have you come from 1947?
Why should it not be hard cash (not literally), if two nations are looking at commercial joint ventures? And why should India get greater voting rights when her capital investment is equal or perhaps lower than the other partner/partners? That would mean a party with less to lose financially has the overwhelming decision making power. No one will buy that line, and the argument flouts good economic sense.
Forget even what I said. If you really want an equal partnership, give me one good reason/parameter as to why? Isn't it true that had you been stronger today, you would have been speaking from where I am.
Why should I speak from where you are? I see your and Gubbis position as arrogant and egotistical, and I see your insistence on using social standing, instead of the input from the respectvie partners into a JV, as a measure for 'voting rights' as a blatantly flawed and arrogant position.
No sir, I think myself better than that. I would not suggest such a thing in a relationship with with Afghanistan, or Sri Lanka for example.
Quick Question: In a bilateral engagement between Pakistan and Afghanistan to the exclusion of all else will you treat Afghanistan at power? Since that is the only country in the world that can justifiably make you proud of your achievements. But watch your back, they may catch up quite fast, since there isn't much catching up to do anyways.
Ahhh - the self-proclaimed peacenik's true colors come out, though they were becoming obvious far earlier in any case.
The question is not of treating Afghanistan as a 'power' (whatever that means), it is about having a relationship based on mutual respect. Which would mean that she gets a share on issues of mutual concern based on her contribution. Currently for example we are negotiating the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement - Afghanistan has concerns and we have concerns, and we'll work out a compromise based on addressing those concerns. The key being one side not pushing the other to compromise on her national security interests.
Nice flame hidden in there by the way - I dare say Afghanistan has a lot of catching up to do with Pakistan.
P.S. Even if in a HYPOTHETICAL world, such a forum was to be based on financial investment. Pakistan may not count for much. India could sweep all voting rights. Financially wrt Pakistan India is very favorably placed.
As I mentioned earlier, in a bilateral relationship, Pakistan may not even enter into an agreement that does not provide equal voting rights. That would be our choice as a sovereign nation, and India can go sit in a corner and suck her thumb about it.
Bye for now.
