'They were determined to strangle Pakistan at birth'

[Spectre]

Your rant addresses none of the points I made in posts 22 and 27 - what's the relevance of Aurangzeb or 1971 to India's illegal invasion and occupation of Junagadh, or to my general argument attempting to establish context for the actions of the Pakistani leadership in 1947? Even the isolated atrocities alleged to have been committed by the Tribals intervening in Kashmirto are and irrelevant point, because they were actions on the part of a few without Pakistani government sanction, and occurred when the actual policy decisions of taking an aggressive and offensive stance on Kashmir to protect Pakistan had already been made.

The central theme of my posts on this thread has been one of providing context and background for the decisions Pakistani leaders made in 1947, utilizing the OP as a starting point.

Perhaps you should take time out to actually comprehend the content of the posts you reply to, instead of blindly regurgitating the oh so predictable Indian rants about 'Muslim invaders, atrocities by the Tribals in Kashmir that grow by leaps and bounds with no actual evidentiary support each time they get told and of course the evergreen 'Tales of Pakistani Monsters in East Pakistan from 1971'.

It's like the Indian Establishment handed out a 'playbook' to people like you called,

'What to do when you have no response for a Pakistani's arguments: Pick one or more from the following - no need to be concerned bout their relevance to the discussion:
1. Muslim invaders who were uncivilized barbarians invaded and destroyed India
2. Tribal invaders raped and pillaged and burned a path of destruction through Kashmir in 1947
3. In 1971 Pakistani Monsters raped and killed millions and millions of people
4. Pakistan and Pakistanis are a failure on the world stage"

It is my personal opinion that both Pakistanis and Indians would do well to remember that neither of them are saints. Both of us did what we could to defend our interests and safeguard our core territories against any future vulnerabilities in those fateful days of 1947 - 1950. The difference was in the degrees.

Post 1950 barring the debacle of 1971 which was a own goal by Pakistanis rather than some genius master-plan by the Indians no country is in a position to change the maps of the region significantly. Pakistan is never going to commit that mistakes of 1971 again.

It would save a lot of heartburn, money and precious of lives of our soldiers if we can accept this reality and move on. I realize Pakistan would always have a soft spot for Indian Kashmiris but unfortunately can't do anything for them so it is better to stop feeding the flames and as for Indians we have to accept that Pakistan Kashmiris are perfectly happy on that side and want nothing to do with us.

The sad part is the government and people on both sides realize and have mostly accepted what I have just said above but Pride, Ego and Emotions all useless things in my opinion is making them turn an blind eye to reality.

India and Pakistan as allies could have been a force to reckon with economically with our immense human capital and S. Asia a region rivaling East Asia and EU but in reality due to Kashmir which we can do nothing about as both sides have nukes, we spend billions of tools of war while our poor starve.

Those hoping for any other solution except converting LOC to IB should wake up. Ain't gonna happen, any more would get the loosing side's leaders crucified, drawn and quartered.

P.S. Nothing to do with your post, but just a point I think needs to made again and again.

 

[Indika]

The sad part is the government and people on both sides realize and have mostly accepted what I have just said above but Pride, Ego and Emotions all useless things in my opinion is making them turn an blind eye to reality.

Your conciliatory tone will only encourage them further to post more crap. Forget about pride , ego and emotions just simple plain reasoning is good enough to understand no more changes will happen in subcontinent.
have goodthey will never change.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is my personal opinion that both Pakistanis and Indians would do well to remember that neither of them are saints. Both of us did what we could to defend our interests and safeguard our core territories against any future vulnerabilities in those fateful days of 1947 - 1950 ...

And as was the case in the other thread, there will be no quarrel on my end with that general observation. However, as I pointed out in my first response on this thread, the general perception in the West and the recent Western academic output on Pakistan is horribly, and unfairly, skewed against Pakistan and the overall narrative needs to be balanced with the Pakistani point of view. The crescendo of Indian commentators and contributors drown out the much smaller Pakistani rebuttals, and are ironically aided in propagating this skewed version of history by Pakistani hacks like Hussain Haqqani. The height of absurdity is looking at a 'balanced' discussion panel at a reputed Western think tank or media platform that has an American (Christine Fair) and a Pakistani (Hussain Haqqani) on the panel, purporting to offer objective, balanced and unbiased views on Pakistan.

The decision to eschew references to both countries being 'equal opportunity offenders' is a deliberate one on my part because the prevalent narrative is far too skewed in favor of India to allow for such niceties on the part of Pakistanis anymore. The focus of Pakistani academia, media and commentators needs to change to one that primarily presents the Pakistani point of view. And when I say that our academic output needs to be pro-Pakistani, I'm not suggesting facts be distorted, but that Pakistanis stop trying to come across as balanced and objective and diluting their views by also throwing in the Indian position every single time. Commentary and analysis on the role of India in East Pakistan and the atrocities committed by the Mukti Bahini does not have to be diluted and balanced by giving equal space to the atrocities committed by the Pakistani Army and Razakars - don't deny what happened, but stick to the central theme and the subject matter. The Indian position has more than enough visibility already.

I have no issues with being 'conciliatory' and recognizing the failings on both sides at a personal level (which is probably why expatriates from both countries usually get along pretty well outside of India and Pakistan), but Pakistanis need to leave that 'conciliatory attitude' at the 'interpersonal relationship level' and focus solely on unabashedly representing Pakistan and the Pakistani POV everywhere else.

 

[Spectre]

And as was the case in the other thread, there will be no quarrel on my end with that general observation. However, as I pointed out in my first response on this thread, the general perception in the West and the recent Western academic output on Pakistan is horribly, and unfairly, skewed against Pakistan and the overall narrative needs to be balanced with the Pakistani point of view. The crescendo of Indian commentators and contributors drown out the much smaller Pakistani rebuttals, and are ironically aided in propagating this skewed version of history by Pakistani hacks like Hussain Haqqani. The height of absurdity is looking at a 'balanced' discussion panel at a reputed Western think tank or media platform that has an American (Christine Fair) and a Pakistani (Hussain Haqqani) on the panel, purporting to offer objective, balanced and unbiased views on Pakistan.

The decision to eschew references to both countries being 'equal opportunity offenders' is a deliberate one on my part because the prevalent narrative is far too skewed in favor of India to allow for such niceties on the part of Pakistanis anymore. The focus of Pakistani academia, media and commentators needs to change to one that primarily presents the Pakistani point of view. And when I say that our academic output needs to be pro-Pakistani, I'm not suggesting facts be distorted, but that Pakistanis stop trying to come across as balanced and objective and diluting their views by also throwing in the Indian position every single time. Commentary and analysis on the role of India in East Pakistan and the atrocities committed by the Mukti Bahini does not have to be diluted and balanced by giving equal space to the atrocities committed by the Pakistani Army and Razakars - don't deny what happened, but stick to the central theme and the subject matter. The Indian position has more than enough visibility already.

Sir, I think you have completely missed my point.

Why does 1947 and Past at large come into picture? Easy! Because of annexation of Kashmir by India and actions taken by Pakistan to reverse it. This is the root cause of The 1971 support to MB, Siachin, Indian meddling in Baluchistan, Pakistan meddling in Punjab, Kargil. Take our Kashmir and every thing is solvable. Hell as favor to Pakistan for taking Kashmir out of the table, Indians will concede on major points like Indus Water Treaty etc.

My post argues for leaving behind Kashmir as a major discussion point in favor more productive discussions. As i have said There will be No Give on Kashmir by India. In this scenario, what are the options for Pakistan:

1. Moral/ Covert Material Support to Separatist : Essentially continuation of the old policy which has bore no results. As Einstein said: Doing a same thing again and again accepting a different result is insanity

2. War With India: MAD. Enough Said

3. Highlighting Kashmir Issue at UN/other Multilateral Forums: Again continuation of the same policy which has bore no results.

4. Low Key conflicts like Kargil/Covert Ops: Again Indians will overwhelm and reverse the gains due to their numerical superiority.

It would be vicious cycle from which there is no escape for both us.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sir, I think you have completely missed my point.

Why does 1947 and Past at large come into picture? Easy! Because of annexation of Kashmir by India and actions taken by Pakistan to reverse it. This is the root cause of The 1971 support to MB, Siachin, Indian meddling in Baluchistan, Pakistan meddling in Punjab, Kargil. Take our Kashmir and every thing is solvable. Hell as favor to Pakistan for taking Kashmir out of the table, Indians will concede on major points like Indus Water Treaty etc.

Ah, but I didn't miss your point. I understand your position, but what I am trying to get across is that your kind of argument is precisely the one I want to avoid. Getting into these discussions of 'challo, bhai, what's done is done, both sides messed it up and the best thing is to just move forward' dilutes the Pakistani historical narrative because it leaves it improperly presented and propagated. I'm not trying to improve the lot of our two countries over the long term by building bridges and moderating attitudes as you are. You're looking at the current situation and lessons from history and arguing for a better future on the basis of an acceptance of hostile acts committed by both sides - and there is absolutely a place for that discussion, just not here and not now.

I'm not arguing in favor of war, or another Kargil, or that Pakistan absolutely needs to claim all of Kashmir - I'm merely arguing to promote the Pakistani point of view and Pakistani narrative on certain historical events where I believe Pakistan is unfairly maligned. Why should the distortion of facts and historical events by Western academics like Christine Fair, with the specific goal of maligning Pakistan and presenting it as monstrous caricature devoid of humanity be allowed to go unchallenged? Building bridges and moderating attitudes and correcting the historical narrative on Pakistan are not mutually exclusive - they just have to be separated so that one doesn't suffer because of the other.