Parity with India: What is Pakistan's definition?

[pundit]

If one looks at the statements of Pakistani leaders, both civilian and martial, be it a Zia or Ayub Khan or a Gilani, they have all made one statement during their time in power.

Which is - they want Pakistan to be treated "at par/equal" to India.

India, of course, does not want to be treated on par with Pakistan. Which is why you have had the aggressive diplomacy egging nations to discard the India-Pakistan hyphenation totally.

So my assumption is that at a fundamental level some sort of parity is being sought by Pakistan and Pakistanis with India. The next logical question that comes to mind is - what is the context/basis of this demand and what is the definition of it's satisfaction.

To wit, parity on what?

Parity of population or parity of land area?

Parity on the size of economy or parity on the size of the defense forces.

And then what? What benefits are expected from this parity?

Just trying to grasp the Pakistani viewpoint. Just to be clear, I will not be counter arguing, but I will post my views on the topic at the end of this thread.

 

[DGMO]

My transalation of it is:

To ensure the status quo, a level playing field - anything that puts us at a disadvantage (or perceived disadvantage) vis-a-vis treatment given to India, should not be allowed.​

Clearly, recent developments like the Indo-US civillian nuclear deal is one such example. The 'parity' call seems to derive mainly when the US is involved. It's a message for the US, or rather a plea not to abandon us.

What Pakistan doesn't want is the US cosying up too much to India, at the expense of the Pak-US 'relationship'.

There are other facets, but I don't see much talk of 'parity' when Russia announces a deal of some sorts. Pakistan simply wants the US to not forget us as its 'traditional cold war ally', and do its very best to keep India and the US from bonding on a solid strategic level.

However, with India's growing economic and diplomatic clout, our influence is slipping in the dictation stakes (and has been for a while). The benefits that India offers the US, as well as the EU means that preferential treatment will be offered to them. That's reality.

We need to drastically put our house in order from a governance and economic point of view to 'deserve' such treatment. It's childish to say 'he has a lollipop, I want one too'.

 

[somebozo]

India wants to play big brother in south asia and only country which had been a major nuisance is Pakistan. I bet in every private meeting Indian diplomats beg the american for larger share in Afghanistan however it is the parity of Pakistan as bordering nation which is holding their goal. Same is the story in middle east..these are simple two examples but one can find atleast a dozen. Pakistan in a nutshell has serious impacts over Indian maneuvers as well politics in South Asia. The Pak-China alliance is only making it worst for the Indian.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It's childish to say 'he has a lollipop, I want one too'.

But at the same time asking for the rules of the game to be clearly defined is not out of line at all. In the case of the NSG waiver for India, what you have is an arbitrary and discriminatory exemption with no rules or roadmap outlining how other nations might also avail of the same.

I would argue that Pakistan's call for parity is centered more around clearly defined and equally applied rules governing international relations, than merely demanding a 'lollipop' because someone else has one.

We don't tolerate different rules for the rich vs the poor in society, so why would we tolerate them in the international community?

 

[Tin Man]

This is exactly the kind of response he was looking for. He isnt "confused" or trying to understand the "pakistani perception". It looks like an attempt to reassure himself about indian stability and perhaps laugh at the few flame threads he can get. I see right through you.

 

[DGMO]

But at the same time asking for the rules of the game to be clearly defined is not out of line at all. In the case of the NSG waiver for India, what you have is an arbitrary and discriminatory exemption with no rules or roadmap outlining how other nations might also avail of the same.

I would argue that Pakistan's call for parity is centered more around clearly defined and equally applied rules governing international relations, than merely demanding a 'lollipop' because someone else has one.

We don't tolerate different rules for the rich vs the poor in society, so why would we tolerate them in the international community?

I'm not defending the NSG waiver, but one can point to the AQ Khan episode as being a spanner in the works. It was a convenient excuse to deny us the same treatment.

However, we need to rise above that and show we have stronger alliances elsewhere. Our subsequent deals with China in the nuclear sphere, and convenient announcements is a loud enough message to the US and others of our alternative options.

We're aware of the US hypocrisy, we've been dealing with it for decades. Why don't we move beyond that? If the US doesn't define the rules, then we've shown we can lean on China and do the same. They opened a can of worms with the NSG waiver, they can't cry at a later date.

The use of the lolipop analogy is simply to demonstrate that it puts us in a poor light. It for me shows a lack of dignity if we continue to beg for services, when time and again we are refused.

 

[KS]

But at the same time asking for the rules of the game to be clearly defined is not out of line at all. In the case of the NSG waiver for India, what you have is an arbitrary and discriminatory exemption with no rules or roadmap outlining how other nations might also avail of the same.

I would argue that Pakistan's call for parity is centered more around clearly defined and equally applied rules governing international relations, than merely demanding a 'lollipop' because someone else has one.

Like History is written to favour the Victor,Rules are established by the powerful and they may be changed by the powerful for the powerful.

The rules are well defined - you dont profilerate weapons/technology to others what was initially meant for your country and your country alone.

Pakistan violated that rule and is now paying for it.Why bring India into it ?

We don't tolerate different rules for the rich vs the poor in society, so why would we tolerate them in the international community?

With all due respect,who asks for your permission and whether you tolerate it or not is the least concern for anybody.

P.s: As our economy increases and with it our influence,such arbitrary exemptions(NSG,MTCR memberships for example) will be coming more frequently to us and the best thing Pakistan can do to counter is to pull up your socks and develop your economy instead of wasting time on just cribbing,holding onto an imaginary phrase called 'balance-of-power'.

 

[Spring Onion]

oh not again a phobic question when you have same attitude despite your so called power

my answer is just read the bellow and move on and stop opening threads based on your paranoia


India expresses concern over close China-Pakistan ties
Hindustan Times : Audio Video

video clip :
http://www.hindustantimes.com/newmultiplayermedia.swf


India on Friday expressed its doubts over the growing China-Pakistan intimacy; just days ahead of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to the subcontinent. Jiabao is expected to visit India around mid December and then proceed to Pakistan. India's Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao at a seminar on Sino-Indian relations said that Chinese role in Pakistan Kashmir and its nuclear programme were some of the issues that weighed on New Delhi's relationship with Beijing. Rao pressed for greater respect for India's sensitivities and raised the issue of stapled visas given by China to Indian citizens from the restive Himalayan region of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

[LAKHNAVI]

If one looks at the statements of Pakistani leaders, both civilian and martial, be it a Zia or Ayub Khan or a Gilani, they have all made one statement during their time in power.

Which is - they want Pakistan to be treated "at par/equal" to India.

India, of course, does not want to be treated on par with Pakistan. Which is why you have had the aggressive diplomacy egging nations to discard the India-Pakistan hyphenation totally.

So my assumption is that at a fundamental level some sort of parity is being sought by Pakistan and Pakistanis with India. The next logical question that comes to mind is - what is the context/basis of this demand and what is the definition of it's satisfaction.

To wit, parity on what?

Parity of population or parity of land area?

Parity on the size of economy or parity on the size of the defense forces.

And then what? What benefits are expected from this parity?

Just trying to grasp the Pakistani viewpoint. Just to be clear, I will not be counter arguing, but I will post my views on the topic at the end of this thread.

In my honest opinion it gives pakistani's pride orrather pakisyanis feel pride in being compared with India but we Indian's really feel bad / let down and insulted when we are compared with pakistan.
dont take this as a troll but search your heart and tell where does your country stands in comparision with India , economically, international ggodwill and stature.

 

[sensenreason]

I'm not defending the NSG waiver, but one can point to the AQ Khan episode as being a spanner in the works. It was a convenient excuse to deny us the same treatment.

However, we need to rise above that and show we have stronger alliances elsewhere. Our subsequent deals with China in the nuclear sphere, and convenient announcements is a loud enough message to the US and others of our alternative options.

We're aware of the US hypocrisy, we've been dealing with it for decades. Why don't we move beyond that? If the US doesn't define the rules, then we've shown we can lean on China and do the same. They opened a can of worms with the NSG waiver, they can't cry at a later date.

The use of the lolipop analogy is simply to demonstrate that it puts us in a poor light. It for me shows a lack of dignity if we continue to beg for services, when time and again we are refused.

Ever wondered why Europeans formed the EU when individually some of the western and northern europeans are richer than US & Japan on a per capita basis.

The reason is simple - Size of population.

Population determines gross economic strength. Gross Economic strength largely determines military prowess. Combine the two with foreign policy you by and large get the picture of a country's power.

The reason I bring this up is important because, the key component of influence in the world is the amount of money and resources you can put on the table. The resources obviously are more with larger players.
Largers players have advantages of scale that allows them to generate additional funds.

Ofcourse, how you use your resources is also important. Japan and Israel are instructive as examples.One which underplays its military prowess and thus has little influence compared to its economic strength while the other has the opposite.

In life, each disadvantage comes up with an opportunity.Smaller nations in size are easier to control, manage and govern and hence can transfor themselves more easily.If we take ethnicity as an example, country with five ethnic groups in a single geography has it much tougher than one which has two ethnic groups in a certain geography.

If we take India, US, China and Pakistan as examples.

India-China dynamic is similar to China-US.(In terms of power)
India-Pakistan dynamic is similar to India-US (In terms of power)

Ofcourse, given that there are factors that like geography that can complicate these hyphens.

Given, these factors I find that Pakistani obsession with 'equality' with India is a self-defeating past time and strategy of Pakistani elites.Im sure everytime, India or an Indian achieves something there is a Pakistani leader/general/elite member who will then take it on himself to 'equate' it.

 

[DGMO]

Ever wondered why Europeans formed the EU when individually some of the western and northern europeans are richer than US & Japan on a per capita basis.

The reason is simple - Size of population.

Population determines gross economic strength. Gross Economic strength largely determines military prowess. Combine the two with foreign policy you by and large get the picture of a country's power.

The reason I bring this up is important because, the key component of influence in the world is the amount of money and resources you can put on the table. The resources obviously are more with larger players.
Largers players have advantages of scale that allows them to generate additional funds.

Ofcourse, how you use your resources is also important. Japan and Israel are instructive as examples.One which underplays its military prowess and thus has little influence compared to its economic strength while the other has the opposite.

In life, each disadvantage comes up with an opportunity.Smaller nations in size are easier to control, manage and govern and hence can transfor themselves more easily.If we take ethnicity as an example, country with five ethnic groups in a single geography has it much tougher than one which has two ethnic groups in a certain geography.

If we take India, US, China and Pakistan as examples.

India-China dynamic is similar to China-US.(In terms of power)
India-Pakistan dynamic is similar to India-US (In terms of power)

Ofcourse, given that there are factors that like geography that can complicate these hyphens.

Given, these factors I find that Pakistani obsession with 'equality' with India is a self-defeating past time and strategy of Pakistani elites.Im sure everytime, India or an Indian achieves something there is a Pakistani leader/general/elite member who will then take it on himself to 'equate' it.

Sound post, and I agree in the main with those points. Indeed, the point about geographical size you raise is a common theme when examining BRIC.

Although I'd want us to look beyond India, our strategic mindset is tied to India in so many ways. The Armed Forces dictate foreign policy, and with the key issues in our neighbourhood (Afghanistan, Iran, China, Kashmir, Water, etc), India is interwoven amongst all those points for us. So it's hard for the policy makers to detach themselves from such an Indo-centric mindset.

Therefore, we will see the cry for parity continue. But we can ill afford to from an economic point of view. Your point about utilising resources like Japan, Israel is the way we need to go about it. But as I said earlier, it's about governance. And we lack it in spades.

 

[indian_reality]

Amazing demand!

Pakistan has a gun pointed to its head and is threatening the US for more weapons,money and aid else it will shoot itself!

US is afraid of the germs that might come out of Pakistan's corpse in case it shoots itself and is doing it's best to keep it from pulling the trigger.

The vision with which Pakistan was founded is in tatters.The only thing that holds the country together is its anti-India fixation.Jinnah(who was a far better statesman than likes of Nehru) would have been very disappointed today with Pakistan.

 

[muSALMAN Khan]

India wants to play big brother in south asia and only country which had been a major nuisance is Pakistan. I bet in every private meeting Indian diplomats beg the american for larger share in Afghanistan however it is the parity of Pakistan as bordering nation which is holding their goal. Same is the story in middle east..these are simple two examples but one can find atleast a dozen. Pakistan in a nutshell has serious impacts over Indian maneuvers as well politics in South Asia. The Pak-China alliance is only making it worst for the Indian.

If India wanted to play like a Big Bro in South Asia.
It easily can.
Combine the strength of all South Asian countries and then match it to India.
Be it economically or militarily.
Even the overall combination is very less compared to India.

India has regularly stated that it wants to grow through co-op.

Our competetion is with China.
The great thing is that,we accept China as a superior nation right now,gratefully and are already so very involved in a race against China.
Thats what makes us grow,take it as a desire to act like a Big Bro in SA or as you want.
But if we wanted to be the Big Bro in SA,we can easily be one.

 

[MST]

India, of course, does not want to be treated on par with Pakistan. Which is why you have had the aggressive diplomacy egging nations to discard the India-Pakistan hyphenation totally.

Well that de-hyphanation has already happened. India is now hyphanated with China weather its good or bad i don't know.

I would argue that Pakistan's call for parity is centered more around clearly defined and equally applied rules governing international relations, than merely demanding a 'lollipop' because someone else has one.

We don't tolerate different rules for the rich vs the poor in society, so why would we tolerate them in the international community?

It will be very Naive to say that the International System is just all the time. Discrimination and Injustice are very much part of International System as they are part of our normal lives. Those with money and muscle most of the time get the preference.

My 2 cents is that Pakistan should realize its own position minus India and work on its strengths to prosper instead of seeking parity. Just like a short guy can't seek parity of height with a tall guy but he can surely get richer

 

[DGMO]

.The only thing that holds the country together is its anti-India fixation

I'm afraid that's BS. If you think that's the case, then you're seriously mistaken. Just look at our media compared to yours, whether press or TV. It becomes clear who is fixated with the other country. To claim it's 'holding us together' is laughable in the extreme.

Even Kashmir hardly gets the common man going like it may have done so at one point. It's absent from most newspaper headlines, and you'd be surprised to see it getting much coverage from one of the many private TV channels (even PTV has minimal coverage these days).

Just take a look at Dawn, Express Tribune and Daily Times and tell me how much anti-India rhetoric is going on.

India doesn't matter to the aam aadmi. We're not fixated with you, from what I see in your media, the fixation (mostly negatively tinged), lies on your side.

I know we're deviating from the thread, but I wanted to set that one stratight.