The Thorn in the Garden | Terrorism in Indo-Pak relations.

[jaibi]

The Thorn in the Garden: Terrorism in Indo-Pak relations

​

Recently Geo ventured to air a programme in collaboration with the Indian media about a dialogue between key personalities from both sides and much to no one’s surprise it soon became a brawl. Both sides got flared up, the hosts from India and Pakistan who were suppose to be the moderators joined in and soon the usual discourse started: Kashmir, Terrorism, communal riots, and so on.


For the moment let us forego of other key points that were raised and focus on the key term: ‘State-sponsored terrorism’, the Indian side kept repeating the statement over and over again, ‘Pakistan is the world’s epicentre for terrorism.’ This phenomena of labelling Pakistan as the epicentre of world’s terrorism has an international impact but in my view it is the greatest hurdle for India and Pakistan to progress as states in terms of diplomacy. This issue is even bigger, now, than the Kashmir dispute even though, arguably, Kashmir was its birthplace.
Terrorism needs to be focused on in the dynamics of India and Pakistan and this article would focus on this aspect as neutrally as possible.


Indian side


The Indian side argues that Pakistan directly or indirectly hosts and trains the terrorist activities that take place on its soil(Blank, 2003). There is proof of this claim, certainly, in the nation-state paradigm(Fair, 2004; Riedel, 2008). Many terrorists have claimed to be Pakistanis or supported by Pakistan.


For India this just puts a full stop on the issue, unless and until Pakistan stops harbouring terrorism there can be no talks, there can be no progress.


For the Indian side its support of the Afghani sentiment against Pakistan is just what another regional heavyweight, China, has been doing for many decades. This also extends to probable Indian support to separatist insurgencies in Pakistan.(Ganguly, 2001; Varshney, 1991)
The very same reason justifies Indian accusation of defence technology and the arms build-up that has been seen during the recent times. Though much of it connects to China, India sees itself at a potential threat from two fronts and a front within her territory.


There has been considerable voice for peace talks but the attack on Mumbai, the escalation at the border and the Chinese adventures in her territory has created an environment of vulnerability and wounded pride amongst the Indians. The same atmosphere existed post-1962 which stirred another Indo-Pak adventure of 1965.


It should also be noted that in the 21st century India has repeatedly projected herself as an emerging power and her rows with Pakistan and more importantly her failed attempts to completely restrain Pakistan has been a problem.(Luce, 2010)


The Pakistani side


Being surrounded by an ocean is hard and it is even harder when you are surrounded by an ocean of hostility with a partially drowned boat. That explains Pakistan best; Pakistan has seen herself as a fortress(Nawaz, 2008), more importantly a fortress under siege.(Philip, 2005)
Understandably Pakistan has been raised on a defensive position and as such she sees herself as a lighter but meaner boxer. This holds true for all nations in the similar position: adapting an aggressive approach to defend themselves(Dixit, 2003; Ganguly, 2001; Kumar, 1992; Philip, 2005).


Naturally, in such a position all allies are welcomed. That is the reason why most of Pakistani foreign policy has been focused on defence(Hartley, 2012) and it is this premise that spills into the Kashmir issue: have enough to be able to counter Indian brute force(Kumar, 1992). For Pakistan, as India normalises relations, takes off pressure, being the ‘bigger’ country in Pakistan’s terms, so would Pakistan.(Dixit, 2003)


The Prisoner’s Dilemma

The situation seems like it is frozen does it not? Here are a few things to ponder for both sides.


Firstly, India needs to realise why Pakistan has proxies, it sees itself on a disadvantaged position and India has taken advantage of that, though rightfully or wrongfully, India is hardly a neighbour one would invite over, for Pakistan, at least. The Indian position that it is the ‘stronger’ party and should be able to have an upper hand causes this dilemma.


See, Pakistan has never denied India is the stronger party, it just states that Pakistan too is a party. Pakistan is not playing to win, she is playing to exist! To many Indians this seems to be a hard perception to get. Yet, it has very far reaching consequences for the region.


The exact situation also exists in the Arab-Israeli conflict, earlier in their history as Isreal was being formed the Israelis realised that the local populace might not be as accepting as they thought, political reasoning aside, the Israelis first line of defence was to ally Arab tribes with them along with Deuez tribes; these were their proxies(Abu-Lughod, 1971). Yet, today, Israel is the target of proxies and here is why: Israel is no more the challenger state.(Paul, 2006)
At the other end of the spectrum, Pakistan remains the challenger state(Huth, 1996; Paul, 2006).


To be clear, a challenger state, in political science and international relations, is a state that seeks to polarise or engage and therefore challenge the hegemonic or dominating power in the region. The effects of this arrangement get more severe when the challenger state is also relatively weaker(Huth, 1996).


The present Indo-Pak scenario in terms the ‘challenger-state’ can be seen in the Soviet-Sino rivalry. The Chinese were vary of the Soviet strength and thus actively sought to develop key regional alliances and at the tactical level had evolved a nuclear doctrine(Lüthi, 2010) much like Pakistan’s.


Bhara Mulk


Secondly, Pakistan needs to realise that India does not see herself as the ‘bigger state’. This needs to be taken in more of a cultural tone, India is called Bhara Mulk more like a big brother and in the South Asian culture it is the norm to expect the bigger or elder to be the giver or initiator, allowing for more concessions as they are ‘elder’. India does not see herself as that, she sees herself as the ‘bigger state’ but only in terms of size. The Indian mind takes to Pakistan’s military as a constant source of threat, the military in India, which largely sticks to the barracks, has a different perception of the Pakistani military build-up. India takes things in segmentations(Rosen, 1996): her military is subversive to the civilian government and thus only works militarily(Nielsen, 2007). The Pakistani military on the other hand is a political entity and it is not because of military coups but because since the start Pakistan has seen herself at grips with just existing, thus, the military concerns are taken very seriously (Nawaz, 2008).
This creates a problem, often Indians see the Pakistani military the direct threat to her stability but historically, the Pakistani military regimes have enjoyed better relations with Indian regimes than their civilian counterparts.(Ziring, 1997) The Pakistani military wants India to allow enough concessions to be able to think that they can exist and it also plays a part in Pakistan’s politics; historically, people have viewed the civilian governments, with some justification, as incompetent (Nawaz, 2008, Ziring, 1987; 1997) and therefore unable to properly handle diplomacy properly.(Ziring, 1997)


For Pakistan the proxies were the ace in the deck and rightfully so, the Indian side, besides their international image, has taken full advantage of Pakistan’s fissures. It can even be argued that the first real ‘proxies’ were introduced by India as the Mukti Bahini in 1971 (Groh, 2010) (Groh’s definition of proxies). Pakistan’s infamous Mujahideen were not directly controlled by the military and there was weariness due to their presence, especially in the early years of her inception(Nawaz, 2008).


The ‘mujahideen’ need also be taken in a historic account, the present face is very different from what they were, that’s a subject for another article but briefly, the north-western regions that became Pakistan were independent of the British control and government, the British actually encouraged them to keep Lashkars in order to balance them against each other and be a good wall against possible Russian aggression and Afghan proxies and we have historic proof that all enemies of Britian have tried to instigate a proxy war against them through this region and her culture (Kakar, 2006). Pakistan was handed this land and as the Kashmir drama was unfolding the newly created Pakistan military faced a dire shortage of conventional capabilities, much of the stores were to come from India and so was the money to be able to procure more finances the memories of the bloody partition had created a deep sense of emergency all over the country and this was not properly calculated by both the governments, they had envisioned a very different inception. In this environment when you are fighting for survival it is natural to use whatever means necessary and that is where the Mujahids come in.


There is some historic evidence to suggest that Pakistan wanted to take away support from the Mujahids as soon as possible because the British trained Pakistanis were weary of such fighters who are hard to direct, yet, in the same environment came the Pakhtun threat: Afghanistan came in to be another threat to Pakistan’s territorial integrity(Khan & Effendi, 2000). It is paramount for all readers to remember that this is the time when Pakistan is all alone, there is no China, the Americans have started to help but Pakistan’s lukewarm response to Korean effort has stalled their drive, American continues to try to appease India. Pakistan is alone, a young nation that would lose her founder father and his lieutenant shortly and within the first decade of her birth the party under which she formed would vaporise. That is the environment in which she grows.



Nature of the Terrorists


Thirdly, Indian and Pakistani militaries and politicians as well as her academia and especially her media need to study about these militant organisations. There is much conjecture about them but in my opinion studying them from a sociological and psychological lens is absolutely paramount. It has been seen in history that these militant groups or proxies are quick to turn on each other and their parent. There is really nothing surprising about it, in fact, it should be expected. Such organisations do form for a particular function and directive; however, they do not receive continuous support. Someone from the military or even in supplies can elucidate of what a logistics nightmare it is to run a supply line and that is when there is no adversity towards it. In an environment of military and political adversity it is nearly impossible to arm and sustain these groups primarily on state resources.


So what happens is that the government helps to create what is called an ‘enterprise’ which is a loosely coordinated set of small groups that create a mobile, illegal and strong infrastructure of logististics and capital generation for the said group. (Afsar, Samples, & Wood, 2008; Mishal & Rosenthal, 2005; Napoleoni, 2005)Due to this reason, militants or terrorists are actually a very independent organisation. That is why it is so easy for them to turn on their parent, they are not dependent on them to survive and thus, they are nearly impossible to direct or control. This is textbook tactic of creating militancy, it has been used again and again and there are certain conditions that should be noted for such an operation to exists [the following is part of my ongoing research some papers are (Atran, 2010; Forest, 2006; Lee, 2011):


Sociological factors, the social arrangement must be so that the militancy can survive, for example, in the 1980s the Indian Sikh was large enough, close knit enough and economically mobile enough to be able to house a separatist militancy, another example would be of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. The engagement, controversial or not, of these ethnic communities by the host country enabled a countering of the militancy.


Psychological factors, there needs to be enough perception of and an affective repository (feelings) of threat to self and in-group; however, here is what needs to be understood: it is not necessary for this to be real, it is necessary to be perception and it depends on how strongly held this perception is. This process is purely psychological and has to do with our very neurology, as organisms we are ready to perceive and react to threats and not just to our physical being but also to our ‘self’ concept – our own belief, thoughts and perceptions of who we exactly are, and it should be noted that within this ‘self’ concept comes the ‘in-group’ identity. An ‘in-group’ is the group you identify with (think you are a part of it) and any threat to the in-group is a threat to the self-conept, which is taken as a threat to self(Jackson, Meltzoff, & Decety, 2005) (physical or emotional, the body does not differentiate between the two because the brain has the same response and perception of the two(Decety & Jackson, 2006). This is paramount, if a group feels relatively safe, feels their own identity is relatively catered then there are no problems(Merry & Brown, 1987) that go to the extent of militancy, do note that ‘relatively’ is no means of justification, discrimination is still bad for ethnic groups in all dominions. This is the reason why it is highly unlikely for there to be a African militancy in France (Algerians and immigrants), there would be small scale resistances and deviation from the majority group pressure in the form of gangs but not a militancy route.


On a slight detour I would like to explain briefly that the Muslim populace of the world has perceived the various political discriminations and oppressions against them as an ‘in-group’ threat and due to the mass media there has been considerable projection of the threat which is perceived as a large threat to identity and there rests a responsibility in both the Muslim and International community to address this problem, it is not one sided. The identity formation of various Muslim populations has been fraught with trauma and no milestones (successful dealing with an identity crisis).


Political factors Lastly there are political factors for such moves, essentially politics deals with the power distribution and resource sharing within a society and community. Whence the psychological and sociological factors are perceived as a problem in such a manner, a political angle starts, which is highly receptive to the populace. This is the reason why there is usually a surge in militancy; it is not a gradual process.


For any society to be able to deal with militancy it should know that it allows for the militancy to exist and must address these problems. For India successful resolution of the discrimination against Muslims and for Pakistan successful development of FATA, political disputed in Balochistan, would ensure an end to militancy regardless of the other state’s intention and that is not dependent on the other state.


Secondly, the ‘non-state’ actor is very much a reality, at least empirically, the State-sponsored terrorism theory has accepted this factor; a lot of times the state has nothing to do with the actions of the proxy and often it goes against the intent of the sponsor. This is because the only winner in such circumstances is the proxy, not the belligerents. They get economic, social and political rewards and can continue to be a parasite in the relationship of the states.


Conclusion and Implications


For there to be progress India needs to realise that Pakistan has much more to lose and has political justifications to be allowed more concessions from India. India is not under as much pressure as Pakistan and arguing about it does not help, this is a fact. Pakistan is not in a position to allow concessions as it has more to lose in the bargain and needs more to be able to survive whereas India wants to thrive, those two are completely different dimensions and thus India needs to come down on Pakistan’s point of view. Indian efforts to pressurise Pakistan further, no matter how justified, make things worse.


Secondly, Pakistan is next door to India, that cannot be ignored, so is China, not thinking in regional domination but stability, India would need to successfully deal with the two and Pakistan is closer to home than China.


Both Pakistan and India, Pakistan especially, needs to take both nations as independent entities, which means they are influenced by one another but existing for much more. Thus, resolution of the Indo-Pak rivalry or perhaps confining it to amazing cricket matches is in everyone’s best interests and therefore should be a priority for both. The end result should be peace; how exactly needs to be thought of on the table. Both nations need to give the other some level of trust and despite being caught in the prisioner’s dilemma it would be in everyone’s interest to be able to do so, that, as I said must be mutual and India needs to realise, like it does politically but also for her media and people, just as Pakistanis do, that non-state actors or militants or terrorists are not tools, they are independent entities, very much like states that have their own self interest so courting them against one another would always hurt.


Lastly, both nations should also realise that militancy might be supported externally but internal factors allow it to thrive, it is much like an infection. Though the pathogen might come from outside, the overall health of the body and the dressing of the wound ensure how much damage it would cause and for how long would the infection stay and dumping anti-biotics in the body might not always work.

References

Abu-Lughod, I. A. (1971). The Transformation of Palestine: essays on the origin and development of the Arab-Israeli conflict: Northwestern University Press.
Afsar, S., Samples, C., & Wood, T. (2008). The Taliban: An Organizational Analysis: DTIC Document.
Atran, S. (2010). Who Becomes a Terrorist Today? Perspectives on Terrorism, 2(5).
Blank, S. (2003). India’s Rising Profile in Central Asia. Comparative Strategy, 22(2), 139-157.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2006). A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Current directions in psychological science, 15(2), 54-58.
Dixit, J. N. (2003). India-Pakistan in War and Peace: Routledge.
Fair, C. C. (2004). The Counterterror Coalitions: Cooperation with Pakistan and India: DTIC Document.
Forest, J. J. (2006). The making of a terrorist: Recruitment, training, and root causes: Praeger Security International.
Ganguly, Š. (2001). Conflict unending: India Pakistan tensions since 1947: Columbia University Press.
Groh, T. L. (2010). War on the Cheap? Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Proxy War. Georgetown University.
Hartley, K. (2012). The economics of defence policy: a new perspective: Routledge.
Huth, P. K. (1996). Enduring rivalries and territorial disputes, 1950-1990. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 15(1), 7-41.
Jackson, P. L., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2005). How do we perceive the pain of others? A window into the neural processes involved in empathy. Neuroimage, 24(3), 771-779.
Kakar, M. H. (2006). A Political and Diplomatic History of Afghanistan, 1863-1901 (Vol. 17): Brill Academic Publishers.
Khan, A. H., & Effendi, M. Y. (2000). The Durand Line: its geo-strategic importance: Area Study Centre, University of Peshawar.
Kumar, D. P. (1992). Kashmir: Pakistan's proxy war: Har-Anand Publications.
Lee, A. (2011). Who Becomes a Terrorist?: Poverty, Education, and the Origins of Political Violence. World Politics, 63(2), 203-245.
Luce, E. (2010). In spite of the gods: The rise of modern India: Random House Digital, Inc.
Lüthi, L. M. (2010). The Sino-Soviet split: Cold War in the communist world: Princeton University Press.
Merry, U., & Brown, G. I. (1987). The neurotic behavior of organizations: Gestalt Institute of Cleveland Press.
Mishal, S., & Rosenthal, M. (2005). Al Qaeda as a dune organization: Toward a typology of Islamic terrorist organizations. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 28(4), 275-293.
Napoleoni, L. (2005). Terror incorporated: tracing the dollars behind the terror networks: Seven Stories Press New York.
Nawaz, S. (2008). Crossed swords: Pakistan, its army, and the wars within: Oxford University Press, USA.
Nielsen, S. C. (2007). Civil-Military relations theory and military effectiveness. Handbook of Military Administration, 237.
Paul, T. V. (2006). Why has the India-Pakistan rivalry been so enduring? Power asymmetry and an intractable conflict. Security Studies, 15(4), 600-630.
Philip, C. S. (2005). The Idea of Pakistan, 2005, Lahore: Vanguard Books.
Riedel, B. (2008). Pakistan and terror: The eye of the storm. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 618(1), 31-45.
Rosen, S. P. (1996). Societies and military power: India and its armies: Cornell University Press.
Varshney, A. (1991). India, Pakistan, and Kashmir: Antinomies of Nationalism. Asian Survey, 31(11), 997-1019.
Ziring, L. (1997). Pakistan in the twentieth century: a political history: Oxford University Press Karachi.


---------------------------------------------------------

@Aeronaut @Slav Defence @Dillinger @Hyperion @Armstrong @Ayush @Capt.Popeye @hinduguy @niaz @fatman17 @Donatello @S.U.R.B. @Secur

 

[jaibi]

@Dillinger @Aeronaut @Ayush

 

[jaibi]

@Zarvan @onionkiller @Spring Onion @Marshmallow
@Leader @Oscar @nuclearpak @Icarus @Rafi @Areesh @balixd @HRK @Arabian Legend @Yzd Khalifa @JUBA @DESERT FIGHTER @Imran Khan

 

[Zarvan]

@jaibi Sir their is not terrorism in reality it is use of proxies against each other by agencies and establishment of both countries what India need to do is solve Kashmir problem other wise this so called terrorism will continue and as Jinah said our heroes are their villain and their heroes are our villain

 

[scorpionx]

Sadly,Religious discrimination is a fact in India and relentless dubious efforts from various political parties to keep this problem smoldering has caused enough damage to Indian Society. It's a pity that despite the economic growth India enjoyed over the last decade a large number of educated youths have found themselves in reactionary groups engaged in bleeding their very own country.

At the same time you have to understand the Indian mindset against the issue of terrorism and the foreign hand behind it. An average Mumbaikar does not have to do anything with Indian suppression in Kashmir or a general civilian enjoying a laser show might not even know where Babri mosque exactly situated. But when they bleed to death and slowly the Investigation reports comes out the religious hatred starts tickling in mind.The acrimony towards Pakistan grows more when the missing links get filled up.

Relationship with Pakistan would have been extraordinarily at its zenith if We had seen an outright investigation against the rogue elements who were the main perpetrators behind parliament attack or the carnage of 26/11. Sadly as an average Indian,what we saw was a process to complete hushing up things,keeping things strictly under carpet with blunt denying any involvement by the states spokesperson.

Economy of both the Countries are in its most perilous stage with state currency falling and declining exports. Billions of dollars are being spend in military purchases while the basic infrastructure is in 18th century level even compared to countries like China and Vietnam. But still we have failed miserably to understand the gravity of the basic issues of our own countries.

Instead of sticking the lines like "No talks till terrorism gets stopped" or "No peace till Kashmir gets settled" it would have been much easier and wiser for leaders both Civilian and the army of both the countries to give the kashmir issue a break.Increase trade,transit and establish peace in our own provinces first and let each other to live amicably for a while. Then the dialogue procedure would commence in its due course.

 

[Foo_Fighter]

@jaibi thanks for a very balanced and very well articulated report. I agree with most of the article and specially from the conclusion section this bit "Pakistan is not in a position to allow concessions as it has more to lose in the bargain and needs more to be able to survive whereas India wants to thrive, those two are completely different dimensions and thus India needs to come down on Pakistan’s point of view. Indian efforts to pressurize Pakistan further, no matter how justified, make things worse.". I believe both India and Pakistan are in a catch 22 situation here since no one would budge over the Kashmir issue for a foreseeable future.

People forget that our great gradfathers were once in school together, badmashi together and fought for freedom from British together. It is time too look beyond accusing and harming each other and try to initiate economic mutual relationship. We have more to gain together than by trying to slit each others throat.

 

[jaibi]

@jaibi Sir their is not terrorism in reality it is use of proxies against each other by agencies and establishment of both countries what India need to do is solve Kashmir problem other wise this so called terrorism will continue and as Jinah said our heroes are their villain and their heroes are our villain

Yes, Zarvan but the problem is who stops first? India says Pakistan and Pakistan says India so we're stuck and that's the problem.

 

[onionkiller]

imo only solution of the kashmir is status quo. India and pakistan have reached at that stage, no country can withdraw from there position. border should be sealed by both country. and pakistan must realise china factor now, bcoz china is main concern than pakistan now. India is going to be a much strong economy and military nation. and America is a factor also bcoz counter weight to china. hope u got my point sir ji.

 

[Zarvan]

Yes, Zarvan but the problem is who stops first? India says Pakistan and Pakistan says India so we're stuck and that's the problem.

Until Kashmir issue is solved Sir no one will stop Sir Kashmir is key to ultimate peace between India and Pakistan but that will never happen

 

[jaibi]

@jaibi thanks for a very balanced and very well articulated report. I agree with most of the article and specially from the conclusion section this bit "Pakistan is not in a position to allow concessions as it has more to lose in the bargain and needs more to be able to survive whereas India wants to thrive, those two are completely different dimensions and thus India needs to come down on Pakistan’s point of view. Indian efforts to pressurize Pakistan further, no matter how justified, make things worse.". I believe both India and Pakistan are in a catch 22 situation here since no one would budge over the Kashmir issue for a foreseeable future.

People forget that our great gradfathers were once in school together, badmashi together and fought for freedom from British together. It is time too look beyond accusing and harming each other and try to initiate economic mutual relationship. We have more to gain together than by trying to slit each others throat.

Yes, very rightfully said, and that is the tragedy, isn't it? My grandfather was in the PAF he told me of officers from both sides exchanging letters after the war analyzing and congratulating each other. Post-90s generation has seen too much enimty between the two nations and it is surprising how people forget how our first generation actually conceived our relationship.

 

[jaibi]

Sadly,Religious discrimination is a fact in India and relentless dubious efforts from various political parties to keep this problem smoldering has caused enough damage to Indian Society. It's a pity that despite the economic growth India enjoyed over the last decade a large number of educated youths have found themselves in reactionary groups engaged in bleeding their very own country.

At the same time you have to understand the Indian mindset against the issue of terrorism and the foreign hand behind it. An average Mumbaikar does not have to do anything with Indian suppression in Kashmir or a general civilian enjoying a laser show might not even know where Babri mosque exactly situated. But when they bleed to death and slowly the Investigation reports comes out the religious hatred starts tickling in mind.The acrimony towards Pakistan grows more when the missing links get filled up.

Relationship with Pakistan would have been extraordinarily at its zenith if We had seen an outright investigation against the rogue elements who were the main perpetrators behind parliament attack or the carnage of 26/11. Sadly as an average Indian,what we saw was a process to complete hushing up things,keeping things strictly under carpet with blunt denying any involvement by the states spokesperson.

Economy of both the Countries are in its most perilous stage with state currency falling and declining exports. Billions of dollars are being spend in military purchases while the basic infrastructure is in 18th century level even compared to countries like China and Vietnam. But still we have failed miserably to understand the gravity of the basic issues of our own countries.

Instead of sticking the lines like "No talks till terrorism gets stopped" or "No peace till Kashmir gets settled" it would have been much easier and wiser for leaders both Civilian and the army of both the countries to give the kashmir issue a break.Increase trade,transit and establish peace in our own provinces first and let each other to live amicably for a while. Then the dialogue procedure would commence in its due course.

Actually the problem is that, and it's not my agreement with this strategy, mind you, is that Indian upper eschelons know of Pakistan's precarious situation. If we engage every militant group then there would a much severer reprecussion here; Pakistan is picking her battles. Indian attacks on sovereignty strenghten Pakistan's hardliners and extremists.

Secondly, much of Indian media discards the non-State actors, and I think that is due to a misunderstanding about their structure and function. I routinely look up at journals and it is amazing that articles on terrorist structures and sociology are cited by almost no Indian/Pakistani scholars yet our news is dominated with them.

There needs to be a proper understanding.

 

[Foo_Fighter]

Zarvan for one I agree with you that Kashmir is the ultimate hurdle before any peace that can be initiated. Right now all the peace talks are thrown out of the window as soon as they are finished. So, in your opinion what is the final resolution on Kashmir dispute? In my opinion LoC should be finalized as final International border so both Pakastani and Indian governments could work for the betterment of their respective areas rather than foolishly looking at others part which will never become a reality. BTW I reiterate that it's my personal opinion and various other Indian might agree or disagree with me.

Until Kashmir issue is solved Sir no one will stop Sir Kashmir is key to ultimate peace between India and Pakistan but that will never happen

 

[jaibi]

imo only solution of the kashmir is status quo. India and pakistan have reached at that stage, no country can withdraw from there position. border should be sealed by both country. and pakistan must realise china factor now, bcoz china is main concern than pakistan now. India is going to be a much strong economy and military nation. and America is a factor also bcoz counter weight to china. hope u got my point sir ji.

It's actually not correct, Pakistan remains India's first concern because of the degree of threat and diplomatic implications of Indo-Pak relations on China.

Kashmir would only be resolved when both parties at least agree to come to the table without knives. That is the problem.

Until Kashmir issue is solved Sir no one will stop Sir Kashmir is key to ultimate peace between India and Pakistan but that will never happen

I agree with you Zar, we need to solve Kashmir.

 

[scorpionx]

@jaibi:

Two things need to get cleared first hand. When Pakistan would successfully achieve solid proof of Indian involvement in Baluchistan unrest or arming the TTP,the very next thing Pakistan got to do is to expose it in front of the world with names,batch numbers,bank account numbers anything.

At the same time, Pakistan needs to understand India's sentiments. The Post 26/11 reaction from Pakistan has done enough damage to itself. Pakistan must have to understand that this kind of mass killing only bolsters India's claims so far it is voraciously preaching in front of the world.

 

[jaibi]

Scorp refer to this:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...heory-taliban-do-they-need-foreign-money.html

Refer to this for your first point. It's actually not really easy to hold them account for what is being done. I have always used 'probable' for both countries as there is not substantial proof at least in the public domain.

Actually, Scorp, we've lost 50,000 people, half a million, and we are neurotics now. It is not against anyone but for us to be outraged on 300, 3000 or even 30,000 deaths should not be expected, sadly, I'm not proud to say this but we've been at war for nearly a decade and we have been severely traumatised as a nation; that is the reason it's hard to gain empathy from us. On this forum as well as the world our half a million dead are called to be our own reapings.

I'm not defending this, just telling you. Pakistanis should realise the sentiments of Indians but it should be reciprocated.

@jaibi:

Two things need to get cleared first hand. When Pakistan would successfully achieve solid proof of Indian involvement in Baluchistan unrest or arming the TTP,the very next thing Pakistan got to do is to expose it in front of the world with names,batch numbers,bank account numbers anything.

At the same time, Pakistan needs to understand India's sentiments. The Post 26/11 reaction from Pakistan has done enough damage to itself. Pakistan must have to understand that this kind of mass killing only bolsters India's claims so far it is voraciously preaching in front of the world.