Pakistan has to accept India as big brother

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What have you been smoking all this while?

The discussion is about the NOW. Read the article again. Durrani was speaking in Delhi today, his views are current- considering not some fictitious future world in which Pakistan is the lone superpower, but the hard reality of today.

Care to face up to it?

You seem to be going around in circles like Gubbi as well - to make it easier, even though no one has suggested otherwise, Pakistan is not equivalent to India militarily and economically - so what exactly do you propose this relationship look like, beyond cliches?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Size may or may not matter.

Social standing among the comity of nations definitely does. That is why today South Korea/Japan etc rank above Pakistan/India. India's stature is growing with time, while the same cannot be said about Pakistan. So many in India & Pakistan feel India-Pak will be a lop sided relation even if things improve.

What is a 'lop sided relationship' vs a 'mutual respect relationship'?

I am interested in seeing how you and gubbi specifically define this realtionship as you see it, since 'respect is earned'.

You are beating about the bush in responding to my question.

 

[Developereo]

Surely media should not dictate policy. However, it is media's resposibility to point out any policy u turns and corruption etc..its like the public's court...

I do think the issue is not just media..a u turn in policy will be questioned by the opposition as well...its tough to sell a bad thought out strategy in the first place but its even tougher to change that policy and sell it to the same audience. Again.

Its like in a corporate world you were a product manager who made a dud product and now wants to create a new one...and has obvious concerns whether the board will approve or show him the door !!!

I understand. Things are always harder in a democracy. I am not saying that's a bad thing.

Just that sometimes it is easier to do what's right for the long term, if you don't have to worry about reelection. Of course, this can be abused for the wrong reasons. In any case, another debate for another thread.

 

[lamayuru]

@AgNoStIc MuSliM:
"
Structured, long term institutional contacts - something that Gen. Pasha alluded to in inviting his RAW counterpart, and not some spur of the moment dash to the other capital immediately after some incident.
"
I was hoping you would spill the beans and just say that the Pakistan Govt backed down under pressure from the opposition and not wanting to be seen as anywhere close to appeasing India. Is it not a fact that your politicians publicly take pride in standing upto India? Same as the Begums of Bangladesh? Does that not place the two of you in the same league?

"
I agree - the offer to send Gen. Pasha was not vetted properly and offered by the Pakistani leadership in a conversation with the Indian leadership.
"

You will also have to give me that the decision to rescind his visit was even more ill thought. Your Govt could have said we are not appeasing India, we are assuaging their doubts, helping their investigation. But no! Sherry Rehman puts on a boisterous mask and says that the Govt will admit to its collusion in the attack if it were to send Pasha over.

 

[lamayuru]

What is a 'lop sided relationship' vs a 'mutual respect relationship'?

I am interested in seeing how you and gubbi specifically define this realtionship as you see it, since 'respect is earned'.

You are beating about the bush in responding to my question.

You see there are many levels at which one has to operate. There is me as an individual and a larger community of Indians.

If you were to ask me I would say the relationship has to have mutual respect as a cornerstone with some deference towards India, for eg if it was a private concern run very professionally I would say 50.1% voting rights to India and 49.9% to Pak.

But if you were to ask a larger Indian community, they might even say Pakistan is irrelevant.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@AgNoStIc MuSliM:

I was hoping you would spill the beans and just say that the Pakistan Govt backed down under pressure from the opposition and not wanting to be seen as anywhere close to appeasing India. Is it not a fact that your politicians publicly take pride in standing upto India? Same as the Begums of Bangladesh? Does that not place the two of you in the same league?

Strawman - I am responding to your point about what Gen, Durrani referred to, and how sending Gen. Pasha on a spur of the moment does not reflect what he is proposing.

What that has to do with the Begums of Bangladesh or a similar sentiment in India vis a vis Pakistan I fail to see. Why continue to offer any sort of cooperation, joint investigation etc., if the goal was to 'not appease India'.

You will also have to give me that the decision to rescind his visit was even more ill thought. Your Govt could have said we are not appeasing India, we are assuaging their doubts, helping their investigation. But no! Sherry Rehman puts on a boisterous mask and says that the Govt will admit to its collusion in the attack if it were to send Pasha over.

The decision to 'cancel' a visit that had only informally been proposed was not ill thought - again, the immaturity of the Indian politicians and media in highlighting a non issue could not have been forecast obviously.

For some reason Indians are hung up on his visit, or lack of, and I fail to see why, when there was nothing that he could have done that the Foreign Minister, who was already there, or a proper ISI or FIA/police investigative team could not have done or done better.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You see there are many levels at which one has to operate. There is me as an individual and a larger community of Indians.

If you were to ask me I would say the relationship has to have mutual respect as a cornerstone with some deference towards India, for eg if it was a private concern run very professionally I would say 50.1% voting rights to India and 49.9% to Pak.

A private concern run 'professionally' would have voting rights based upon the initial capital put in by the respective nations. To ask for greater voting rights in such a concern when you have equal or less capital invested just won't fly.

But is that your idea of a 'lop sided relationship', that regardless of India's contribution to a 'concern' or project, she get greater voting rights?

Surely a relationship between nations is not so narrowly define - how else might this 'lop sided relationship' play out?

But if you were to ask a larger Indian community, they might even say Pakistan is irrelevant.

Which is fine too from Pakistan's perspective since that would also imply that India would cease meddling in Pakistan and trying to undermine it globally, but so far that remains a distant dream.

 

[lamayuru]

@Developereo:
"Perhaps you slept through geography class?"
Perhaps I did. Care to explain what you have to offer with your 'strategic location' that China does not already have? Are you saying China has only one friend in the world? That they cant find alternates to Pakistan?

Do you even think China & Pakistan will be friends if what is happening in Pakistan spreads to Xinjiang/East Turkmenistan/Uighurs?

"
AIPAC listed 2nd most powerful group on Fortune list
A forthcoming edition of Fortune magazine ranks the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as the second most powerful interest group in Washington.
"

I was disputing your US fighting India hypothesis as just that. A silly scenario pulled out of nowhere.

"
The US may have no nuclear trade with India: Rediff.com news
"
Is this even news to you? You said Indian media is rife with BS. Why selectively quote it then?
In any case the way in which US treated Pakistan, has alerted India to this reality and if Obama with gets busy de-nuking the world, India has firmed up nuclear supplies with France, Russia, and some African states. Australia and Canada are also on the radar. I cant comment on how far things will go but US may not be too important to us - nuclear tech wise. We are already building our own reactors, we want fuel.

 

[gubbi]

The we are talking real-politik, not respect, and to that end then what reason is there for Pakistan to extend India any courtesy or this 'big brother' sentiment?

And same question to you as well - what do you interpret 'respect' as? When you argue that Pakistan is not India's equivalent Militarily or economically, and therefore does not 'earn respecct' are you then arguing that India should support terrorism in Pakistan ala East Pakistan and Baluchistan? Are you arguing that India should seek to undermine Pakistan both domestically and globally?

Beyond merely regurgitating a cliche of 'respect is earned' what exactly are you implying India's attitude towards Pakistan should be in the present?


No one has been 'equating India and Pakistan' - people have called for the relationship between the two to be based on 'mutual respect'.

And if you thing mutual respect is 'anathema' what should this relationship look like exactly?

There is no such thing as mutual respect in real-politik unless you are two opposing poles in a bipolar world. You know that. One gets into talks or alliances based on one's level of strength. Earning respect is a cliche, agreed, but very true, nonetheless.
That being said, why should India consider Pakistan on a mutual respect basis? You talk about India sponsored disturbances in Baloachistan and apparently FATA/NWFP and that 'Nabka' in '71. However you conveniently forget the role Pakistan has been playing in India since beginning with incursions in Kashmir in '48 all the way to back stabbing in Kargil in '99 - at the very same moment when Vajpayee was shaking hands with Nawaz on the Indo-Pak boder under the angry glare of Mush, and all the LoC roe violations to push in militants.
When one cannot trust Pakistani authorities (either due to their arrogance or apparent incompetence to control 'rouge' elements within) where does the question of mutual respect arise?
Being the aggrieved party over the years, and stomaching all the terrorist activities sponsored by some elements in Pakistan (which your authorities cannot control) India today with her economic and conventional military clout is in a position to dictate terms to Pakistan. And dictate she will! Contrary to your nationalistic pride and ego, people in authority (they are there in those positions for a reason) in Pakistan do understand the reality of real-politik and will be swayed as the current flows.
In every relationship, there's always the one who wears the pants. Now if both insist on wearing the pants, there's gonna be trouble, now we don't want THAT do we? Given the ground realities today, Pakistan is in no position to wear pants.
India will respect Pakistan only when Pakistan realizes where she really stands.

 

[lamayuru]

@AM:
"A private concern run 'professionally' would have voting rights based upon the initial capital put in by the respective nations. To ask for greater voting rights in such a concern when you have equal or less capital invested just won't fly.

But is that your idea of a 'lop sided relationship', that regardless of India's contribution to a 'concern' or project, she get greater voting rights?

Surely a relationship between nations is not so narrowly define - how else might this 'lop sided relationship' play out?
"

OK. I think I was only trying to be fair. But you are going one up. If India and Pakistan were to sit at the same table, how would you rather define the partnership?
In all fairness:
GDPs
or
purchasing power in INR
or
Pakistan's favourite
Any economic ratio per capita

I would not agree with any of that. How much good will does Pakistan command in the world? How many extra checks do your nationals have to go through to get into foreign airports. What is your soft power? What country do you consider your equal? There is either US/China who are the boss or Srilanka/Bangladesh who your state agencies use for their strategic purpose.

But which country do you see as your equal? Your progressive leaders have been wanting to emulate Turkey for a while now, but its been 60 yrs!

 

[Developereo]

Care to explain what you have to offer with your 'strategic location' that China does not already have? Are you saying China has only one friend in the world? That they cant find alternates to Pakistan?

Access to the Indian ocean. Access to Iranian oil. Much easier access to the Middle East instead of going through the CARs.

An atlas is really not that scary, if you want to open it.

Do you even think China & Pakistan will be friends if what is happening in Pakistan spreads to Xinjiang/East Turkmenistan/Uighurs?

China and Pakistan will work together to contain the insurgency and reach a peaceful resolution.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Zhaohui said Pakistan had been helpful in dealing with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) militants and curbing violence in Xinjiang where nearly 20 million Muslims lived.

I was disputing your US fighting India hypothesis as just that. A silly scenario pulled out of nowhere.

Once again, it must be getting late for you. I said US would discard India on its scrapheap of used allies. Nothing about fighting.

Is this even news to you? You said Indian media is rife with BS. Why selectively quote it then?
In any case the way in which US treated Pakistan, has alerted India to this reality and if Obama with gets busy de-nuking the world, India has firmed up nuclear supplies with France, Russia, and some African states. Australia and Canada are also on the radar. I cant comment on how far things will go but US may not be too important to us - nuclear tech wise. We are already building our own reactors, we want fuel.

I was responding to your claim that "India got the [US] deal".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no such thing as mutual respect in real-politik unless you are two opposing poles in a bipolar world. You know that. One gets into talks or alliances based on one's level of strength. Earning respect is a cliche, agreed, but very true, nonetheless.
That being said, why should India consider Pakistan on a mutual respect basis? You talk about India sponsored disturbances in Baloachistan and apparently FATA/NWFP and that 'Nabka' in '71. However you conveniently forget the role Pakistan has been playing in India since beginning with incursions in Kashmir in '48 all the way to back stabbing in Kargil in '99 - at the very same moment when Vajpayee was shaking hands with Nawaz on the Indo-Pak boder under the angry glare of Mush, and all the LoC roe violations to push in militants.
When one cannot trust Pakistani authorities (either due to their arrogance or apparent incompetence to control 'rouge' elements within) where does the question of mutual respect arise?
Being the aggrieved party over the years, and stomaching all the terrorist activities sponsored by some elements in Pakistan (which your authorities cannot control) India today with her economic and conventional military clout is in a position to dictate terms to Pakistan. And dictate she will! Contrary to your nationalistic pride and ego, people in authority (they are there in those positions for a reason) in Pakistan do understand the reality of real-politik and will be swayed as the current flows.
In every relationship, there's always the one who wears the pants. Now if both insist on wearing the pants, there's gonna be trouble, now we don't want THAT do we? Given the ground realities today, Pakistan is in no position to wear pants.
India will respect Pakistan only when Pakistan realizes where she really stands.

More cliches, this time about 'wearing pants'.

All that rambling aside, what does this India-Pakistan lopsoided relationship specifically look like to you?

 

[lamayuru]

@AM:
For some reason Indians are hung up on his visit, or lack of, and I fail to see why, when there was nothing that he could have done that the Foreign Minister, who was already there, or a proper ISI or FIA/police investigative team could not have done or done better.

Nope. It is just a diplomatic stick which India can use, and surprisingly it was Made in Pakistan.

---------- Post added at 08:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ----------

@Developero:
I was responding to your claim that "India got the [US] deal".

You misquote. I said India got the deal.

 

[Developereo]

You misquote. I said India got the deal.

in response to my post about the limits of Indian lobby's influence in Washington.

 

[lamayuru]

@Developero:
Access to the Indian ocean. Access to Iranian oil. Much easier access to the Middle East instead of going through the CARs.

Ever heard of Kazakhistan China pipeline? China and India definitely want access to CARs which have energy. What has Pakistan to do in this? Other than competing with Iran for sea access?