Time to come down to earth

[nForce]

@nForce,
Thank you for a candid response.
I think you are dead wrong on Kashmir. You fail to completely discount that Kashmir may be peaceful because Pakistani state--sometime in 2004 or around--decided to leave Kashmir alone. That radical shift by Musharraf earned him much wrath inside Pakistan and one of the attacks against him was made by some alleged Kashmiris.
If you think the Pakistani state cannot again turn back the heat inside Kashmir then you are wrong. As it is, without active Pakistani help, Kashmir has flared up very recently. Imagine active Pakistani help.
Think from that angle and try to have a 'long view' of the entire situation. India has a very long border with Pakistan. A greatly unstable Pakistan will inevitably lead to horrendous terrorist attacks inside India, especially if it is established, via media, that Indians are causing attacks inside Pakistan.

I really wish your kind of myopic thinking is not Indian official policy. Pakistan is cursed with a tribal, violent, and backward Afghanistan. You don't want that next to you with 180 million people.

Insightful indeed.Your comments suggest that Pakistani government uses terrorism as a state policy,an arm-twisting method for bringing India to the table,or for other gains.Probably that is the truth.Former military dictators like Musharraf have even agreed to that.
The issue with peace talks is nothing but the trust-factor.The question is ,"How can we trust a Pakistani government??"We have already seen Pakistan to employ religious ultras as a 'second army' against India.Our trusts have been broken once in the form of Kargil even when we were standing with arms open for peace talks.

You talk about chances of Pakistan resuming terrorist activities inside India,if we dont settle down.I ask,dont wee face that already??And what guarantee is there that there will not be any more terrorist activity even after we agree to the Pakistani terms and conditions.

I am not saying that a weak Pakistan and in the state of civil war is best for India,no it is not.But it is the best out of the situation.
The terrorism issue,fake currency issue and insurgency issues have been at an all time low since Pakistan got busy to destroy its own one-time creation.
I would very much like to see Pakistan as a peaceful neighbour,like Canada and USA,but that will take a lot of time,for it would take a lot of time for the trust to grow up.Even the present generation of Pakistan have been systematically taught to consider India as its enemy.Yes,I am pointing towards the radicalization of education.Each time I see a new Pakistani member here in this forum,and I find him pre-occupied with some idea about India,that it is a radical Hindu state,hell bent on wiping Pakistan off the map of the World.
If this is the idea of the youth in general in Pakistan,then you can very well forget about any real peace.The peace agreement on a piece of paper would not mean anything then.So,what can be done about that??

 

[Jade]

I never denied that making peace with India will be beneficial for Pakistan. I just question whether the gesture will be returned.
This is assuming that Kashmir can be resolved, which also seems unlikely.

Nobody has a better stake in stable Pakistan than India has. Peace between India and Pakistan is beneficial to both countries.
As regarding Kashmir, it is as sensitive to Pakistan as it is to India; however, Kashmir cannot be more important to Pakistan than its interest. If I were you, I would be more concerned about water issues. I would ask for re negotiations on water issues with India so that Pakistan benefit better than on talks on Kashmir, which can only have some peripheral benefits

If India can try to maintain equal relations with US and Russia, why can't other countries maintain equal relations with India and China?

NAM goes both ways.

Did US tried to stop Canada for having relationship with other countries?

 

[Geronimo2011]

What on earth makes you think India wants to make peace? Right now India is attacking Pakistan on all fronts short of direct military action -- by economic, diplomatic and insurgent means.

A Pakistan that is strong economically, militarily and diplomatically is a nightmare for India because
a) it validates the partition of 1947 -- something which Indian nationalists have never come to terms with.
b) it hinders Indian hegemony in south Asia and beyond. India does not want to share the throne in south Asia -- make no mistake about it.

Certainly there are elements in India that would favor peace, but every indication is that India's rise is matched by rising nationalism within India. As for the view that 'brotherly' south Asians would hold hands around a campfire against the 'evil Westerners' is too naive for comment.

I'll tell you in simple terms why India has no problems with peace and why its Pakistan that does..

India does not need anything from Pak.. And Pak does. And that mate is the crux of the situation.

 

[Meengla]

@nForce,
Again, you and I can continue with the accusations and with fair justifications from both sides. Let's not be so holier than thou.
But you are, again, wrong in assuming that Kashmir is peaceful because Pakistanis are busy fighting their 'own creations'. There may be some truth in that but not enough to start basing strategic, myopic policies by India. Also, as I said, there are enough Pakistanis here who can start the usual tit-for-tat about India's own dubious role inside Pakistan. Even a peacenik like me does not believe that India is above doing misdeeds.
Anyway, I just hope your kind of thinking that violence inside Pakistan is better for India because of some misguided conclusions you and others Indians reached that Pakistan is better off in perpetual turmoil is the official Indian policy. If so then very bad for the region. You discount the most powerful reason for peace inside Kashmir: Pakistan's strategic (yet reversible) pullback from involvement in Indian part of Kashmir.
Instead, as I tried to say, try to take advantage of Pakistan's very obvious break with Washington and war-weariness in a truly big brotherly way to establish peace. I believe this is a historical opportunity for India to do so.

 

[nForce]

@Meengla
If peace has to be attained,then it has to mean something.I dont really understand the point you are trying to make that 'we should hastily go for a peace treaty else Pakistan always has the capability to resume hostility'.That is no argument at all,or argument for the sake of argument only.

If there has to be peace,then it should not come with any strings attached.If the mutual hostility goes down sensibly from both the sides,then only there can be the mutual feeling of trust.Incidents like the Mumbai attacks are detrimental to processes like that.
Probably,trade is a good way for confidence building measures.Until and unless,we are ensured that nothing odd is going to happen,there is no point in having phoney treaties.
As I have mentioned before in my previous post,that an entire generation has been taught to consider India as the number one enemy.I can tell you with absolute authority that nothing of that sort has been done in India.So,what is being done or can be done to take care of the hostility among the general population??

 

[Meengla]

@nForce,
Here is one more presumption you have which is not fully valid: Pakistanis being raised to hate India. I think, Pakistan had to justify its very birth by making a big contrast with a 'Hindu' India and that did lead to quite a bit of official history being written to pose India as the big bully in the neighborhood. However, due to enormous growth in media, especially over last 2-3 decades, the anti-India 'hate' is much more diluted to 'fear-India' mindset: India doing a 'Cold Strike', India cutting off water, India doing a naval blockade etc.
That is a major shift. And it is a quite valid claim to make.
And now, with the Obama administration's blunder post OBL raid (which was, btw, not the raid itself but the humiliation of Pakistan via Obama officials), there are growing number of Pakistanis, even liberal ones, who view Washington as real big threat in the region. That is the very first time in Pakistan's long engagement with Washington since the 50's that Obama made it possible to truly lose Pakistan. With India matters can and will resolve because India is part of the region. With Washington...they can always cut and run.

 

[nForce]

@meengla

I think we can agree at one point that we need more confidence building measures to mend the gaps and to heal the wounds,if we ever wish to see the two countries having a friendly relation.
Kashmir has been a longstanding issue,and it has to come up some way or other.Your take on the matter??

 

[waz]

Additonally, it is time to act upon Article 256 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which prohibits the formation of armed militant organisations

Fantastic and straight to the point. This whole strategic policy has been nothing but a strategic folly.

The formation of these groups, although achieved some short term objectives, did nothing but ruin Pakistani civil society as a whole and destroy our image internationally. Even those fighters who waged war in Kashmir have now turned on Pakistan. Many of the Harkat outfits along with Jaish Muhammad are actively attacking Pakistani targets now and need to be eliminated. The masses of foreigners who came in the 80's for the Soviet war, now do their upmost to destabilise the state, in pursuit of a dream, with Pakistan being turned into a ultra conservative state that will fight the wars of these crazed individuals. They brought with them a disgusting ideology that was totally out of place with the gentle spirituality of Sufism that the vast majority of our people practiced, which has now been declared evil by them and is seen as just as much as an enemy as the US, Pakistan government etc.

I couldn't care less how pious people say they are or what Jihad they claim to be fighting, they just need to be got rid of period. On our balance sheet they are biggest liability and have no place in our society and should be purged.

 

[deckingraj]

Buddy, sometimes you go so wrong that i feel how come a person who believes in logic can say what you have said below....

What on earth makes you think India wants to make peace? Right now India is attacking Pakistan on all fronts short of direct military action -- by economic, diplomatic and insurgent means..

Here you are right...however that's what an adversary will do...Though i don't buy the insurgency argument yet for the debate to continue let me give that to you....In the last couple of decades there are ample reasons for us to belive that your establishment is also doing the same to us....Be it in the form of insurgency, be it in economically(fake ruppee), be it diplomatically.....We are returning the favor....So your argument that India is doing it just out of hatred is flawed...we are doing what you did to us...now you can say you did what we did to you and then i will say we did because of your own actions blah blah...In short the entire baggage will come....anyhow We are also victims of terrorism...and this is what Meegla said...unless and until we have peace both will suffer...I will do bad to you because of baggage and you will do bad to me because of the same baggage!!!!!

A Pakistan that is strong economically, militarily and diplomatically is a nightmare for India because
a) it validates the partition of 1947 -- something which Indian nationalists have never come to terms with.

This just tells us why we have so many problems....You have been fed this idiotic line throughout your life by the establishtment...In fact this fear is the bread and butter of your Army....Give me one freaking example in past 62 years where we have tried to undo the 1947.....b/w name me any relevant leader who you believe have not come to terms with 47....I have no problems if you have the view that India can never be friend but the reasons for that thought should not be as blank as the above one....

b) it hinders Indian hegemony in south Asia and beyond. India does not want to share the throne in south Asia -- make no mistake about it.

Pakistan can never share the so-called throne with India, no matter what....You at max is going to be a small brother...India is the big daddy in South Asia and no one can do anything about it...The same way China is the big daddy of Asia and no matter what, we cannot compete with them....As simple as that....As far animosity is concerned even Cuba don't have good relations with US...Does that mean US is no longer big-daddy of the world????

Understand in today's world the real might is Economic might...You do whatever you can but you cannot match India's economy...We might touch China's economy but that is good 30-50 years from now that that is why I said China is the big daddy of Asia...

Certainly there are elements in India that would favor peace, but every indication is that India's rise is matched by rising nationalism within India. As for the view that 'brotherly' south Asians would hold hands around a campfire against the 'evil Westerners' is too naive for comment.

What are the reasons for that....Do you know the number of youth's in India?? They do not have the baggage of past....All they know is that there is a neighbour in west whom we don't enjoy good relations, however she is involved in terror activities....I am sure the similar arguments goes in youth of Pakistan...Though i can argue that international community back our view whereas Pakistan view is hardly backed by anybody...however that is irrelevant...

Pakistan and India need not be good friends...Normal relations is more than enough....

 

[Meengla]

@meengla
Kashmir has been a longstanding issue,and it has to come up some way or other.Your take on the matter??

My position is that which is yet to find wide-spread acceptance inside Pakistan: Shelve the Kashmir issue and build relationship with India or accept LoC = IB. In either scenarios, we need to make sure that Kashmir's special status and rights--of all Kashmiris, including the Pundits--safeguarded, rationale use of water by both sides, stopping of proxy wars, use the money from the peace dividends to better use resources, including water...
I think both countries need a 'reset' button to start from 1947 onward, but with an entirely different approach.
In the end, Pakistanis here need to realize, however malicious India may appear it is still a far better entity to deal with than the Americans are. The latter can always cut and run--like they did in Vietnam--but Indians cannot do that. India is the true 'conjoined twin' of Pakistan. A county with which we share more than with any other country in the world. Pakistan's ultimate goal should be the betterment of lives of people in Kashmir and the rest of the Pakistan. With that in mind make new policies. Think out of the box. As I keep saying, once peace with India is achieved, the rest is just the details.

 

[deckingraj]

I never denied that making peace with India will be beneficial for Pakistan. I just question whether the gesture will be returned.

Gesture will be returned??? Are you serious???? Tell me what period is in your mind when you say gesture will be returned or not??? If i look at the last decade, India have shown gestures many times...

- We went ahead with Bus yatra and in response we got Kargil...Here who failed to return the gesture???
- We went ahead with Agra summit with the same guy who was the architect of Kargil...and that too after our Parliament was attacked by terror groups inside pakistan...is this no gesture????
- Sharma-e-sheikh : Even Pak media praised our premier for going out of the way and that too after mumbai...Yet you say that gesture will not be returned???
- Even now mumbai attack has not reached its logical conclusion....Dossier after Dossier and yet nothing moved an inch....

Dude let's not put a blind eye to our actions and accuse the other side of not returning the gesture....Help me with your POV why you think other side will not/is not returning the gesture....

This is assuming that Kashmir can be resolved, which also seems unlikely.

Stop living in the age of 47 era...It is an open secret that GOI and GOP under Mush era were pretty close to solving Kashmir before political climate in Pak became volatile...

If India can try to maintain equal relations with US and Russia, why can't other countries maintain equal relations with India and China?NAM goes both ways.

Yup relations should be of equal and that goes both ways...If i am bringing in something on the table you need to bring on the table something equivalent...For example - hypothetically assume that i resolve Kashmir as per your aspirations what equivalent goodie are you going to offer me??? If you say the goodie is that i will stop supporting terror groups then i am sorry that is not equal...it is like one party black-mailing other....

 

[Developereo]

Nobody has a better stake in stable Pakistan than India has. Peace between India and Pakistan is beneficial to both countries.

I believe India is increasingly of the opinion that it can ride out the bumps in the Pakistani relationship and there is no need to compromise on anything.

Did US tried to stop Canada for having relationship with other countries?

A better example would be Cuba. The US makes it pretty clear it wants its immediate neighbors to chose 'with us or against us'.

 

[OrionHunter]

Lastly, the nation must be told that we are the poorest of the poor countries. We are a resource-starved country. We call ourselves an agricultural country, yet we do not have water. Pakistan was born poor.

Pakistan isn't a poor country. It has some of the best of software engineers, scientists and doctors. What is needed is direction - the correct one. A polity which thinks of the nation first, always and every time and strong democratic institutions with an apolitical Army will change things for ever. As it is, Pakistan in spite of its problems, has achieved a growth rate of almost 4%. Think what it could have achieved if there was a will in the political class to change things around. But will that happen in the near future? I hope it does.

A strong and stable Pakistan is imperative if we want South Asia to progress and even rival the EU block. Where there is a will, there is a way!

 

[EjazR]

@Develepereo

You can't expect India to have sweet talks with Pakistan when terrorists acts are perpetrated against it now do you? Even besides that wether its the BJP after Kargil or UPA after Mumbai, all govt. have gone out of their way to establish talks and move towards a peaceful resolution of the solution. The main problem is that PA/ISI leadership has felt that by allying with the US or China they will be able to counter India. This is a failing proposition. If Pakistan tries to seek harmony with India in South Asia instead of confrontation then it will hurt Pakistan more.

I have said this earlier, Pakistanis instead of seeking confrontation and relying on the biased history created in the Zia era with subjects like "Pakistan studies" and statements like Two Nation theory is ideology of Pakistan should refresh their mind with what the sources say about the vision seen by people like Jinnah and Iqbal.

Just x-posting on what Iqbal said in his 1930 Speech, Allama Iqbal said

Thus, possessing full opportunity of development within the body politic of India, the North-West Indian Muslims will prove the best defenders of India against a foreign invasion, be that invasion one of ideas or of bayonets. The Punjab with 56 percent Muslim population supplies 54 percent of the total combatant troops in the Indian Army, and if the 19,000 Gurkhas recruited from the independent State of Nepal are excluded, the Punjab contingent amounts to 62 percent of the whole Indian Army. This percentage does not take into account nearly 6,000 combatants supplied to the Indian Army by the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan. From this you can easily calculate the possibilities of North-West Indian Muslims in regard to the defence of India against foreign aggression. The Right Hon'ble Mr. Srinivasa Sastri thinks that the Muslim demand for the creation of autonomous Muslim states along the north-west border is actuated by a desire "to acquire means of exerting pressure in emergencies on the Government of India." I may frankly tell him that the Muslim demand is not actuated by the kind of motive he imputes to us;

In fact, he has a full section on Indian defence (that included present day Pakistan and Bangladesh) and discussed how India should defend itself. An early strategic thinker of India if you will.

He mentions the importance of the Indian Army being under civilian control agreeing with the Nehru report in this regard. Dismissing the argument given by the biased Simon report that India can't defend itself because it is divided by caste and religion, that it does not have competent officers and that the security of India is of paramount British concern and that smugly states that THEY are its neutral guardians. Iqbal says

[[7c]] Now I venture to ask: who is responsible for the present state of things? Is it due to some inherent incapacity of our martial races, or to the slowness of the process of military training? The military capacity of our martial races is undeniable. The process of military training may be slow as compared to other processes of human training. I am no military expert to judge this matter. But as a layman I feel that the argument, as stated, assumes the process to be practically endless. This means perpetual bondage for India, and makes it all the more necessary that the Frontier Army, as suggested by the Nehru Report, be entrusted to the charge of a committee of defence, the personnel of which may be settled by mutual understanding.

[[7d]] Again, it is significant that the Simon Report has given extraordinary importance to the question of India's land frontier, but has made only passing references to its naval position. India has doubtless had to face invasions from her land frontier; but it is obvious that her present masters took possession of her on account of her defenceless sea coast. A self-governing and free India will, in these days, have to take greater care of her sea coast than [of her] land frontiers.

[[7e]] I have no doubt that if a Federal Government is established, Muslim federal States will willingly agree, for purposes of India's defence, to the creation of neutral Indian military and naval forces. Such a neutral military force for the defence of India was a reality in the days of Mughal rule. Indeed in the time of Akbar the Indian frontier was, on the whole, defended by armies officered by Hindu generals. I am perfectly sure that the scheme for a neutral Indian army, based on a federated India, will intensify Muslim patriotic feeling, and finally set at rest the suspicion, if any, of Indian Muslims joining Muslims from beyond the frontier in the event of an invasion.
The committee of defence referred here in the Nehru report basically refers to administration of the army under the authority of an elected Indian Legislature.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, the contours of security relations between present day Pakistan are in complete opposite of what Allama Iqbal had articulated. IMHO, this is a fundamental reason why Pakistan is in crisis. It is off balance and out of its equilibrium. And allying with the US or China or Russia will not help if the fundamentals are not changed.

This also means fundamentally rethinking ideas of supporting groups like LeT and JuD. The role of the Army in Pakistani civilian affairs. And most importantly where should PAkistan's stategic alliance be. A SAARC security umbrella where Pakistan and other SAARC countries are partners would be much more beneficial to the security of Pakistan than an alliance with the US or China. Interestingly, the vision of Iqbal not only pertained to the security of present day India, but also present day Pakistan. The only question is will decision makers in Pakistan listen or not.

 

[Developereo]

So your argument that India is doing it just out of hatred is flawed...we are doing what you did to us...

That is the problem. It is a cycle and, with Kashmir pending, it will continue.

b/w name me any relevant leader who you believe have not come to terms with 47

Nehru and his daughter Indira.

Pakistan can never share the so-called throne with India, no matter what....You at max is going to be a small brother...India is the big daddy in South Asia and no one can do anything about it...The same way China is the big daddy of Asia and no matter what, we cannot compete with them....As simple as that....As far animosity is concerned even Cuba don't have good relations with US...Does that mean US is no longer big-daddy of the world????

Understand in today's world the real might is Economic might...You do whatever you can but you cannot match India's economy...We might touch China's economy but that is good 30-50 years from now that that is why I said China is the big daddy of Asia...

I meant India does not want anyone questioning it's supremacy in south Asia. I agree that Pakistan will be hard pressed to match India's economy but there is no reason why it can't try. Size doesn't mean anything: look at Japan, Germany and, of course, the US itself.

What are the reasons for that....Do you know the number of youth's in India?? They do not have the baggage of past....All they know is that there is a neighbour in west whom we don't enjoy good relations, however she is involved in terror activities....I am sure the similar arguments goes in youth of Pakistan...Though i can argue that international community back our view whereas Pakistan view is hardly backed by anybody...however that is irrelevant...

That is the important factor. India is a darling of the West and it is getting drunk on all the attention, which makes it less interested in regional peace. India believes it can live with hostile neighbors at home as long as it is liked by the big players overseas.

Gesture will be returned??? Are you serious???? Tell me what period is in your mind when you say gesture will be returned or not??? If i look at the last decade, India have shown gestures many times...

- We went ahead with Bus yatra and in response we got Kargil...Here who failed to return the gesture???
- We went ahead with Agra summit with the same guy who was the architect of Kargil...and that too after our Parliament was attacked by terror groups inside pakistan...is this no gesture????
- Sharma-e-sheikh : Even Pak media praised our premier for going out of the way and that too after mumbai...Yet you say that gesture will not be returned???
- Even now mumbai attack has not reached its logical conclusion....Dossier after Dossier and yet nothing moved an inch....

Well, that's the part where India plays both sides. Smile up front and dagger in the other hand. Despite all these diplomatic overtures, India has never relented in its other attacks mentioned earlier.

Dude let's not put a blind eye to our actions and accuse the other side of not returning the gesture....Help me with your POV why you think other side will not/is not returning the gesture....

Like you mentioned, there is a complete lack of trust on both sides.

Stop living in the age of 47 era...It is an open secret that GOI and GOP under Mush era were pretty close to solving Kashmir before political climate in Pak became volatile...

That 'solution' was to make the LoC permanent, which is what India wants anyway. It completely ignores the wish of the Kashmiri people themselves. Musharraf basically tried to commit treason.

Yup relations should be of equal and that goes both ways...If i am bringing in something on the table you need to bring on the table something equivalent...For example - hypothetically assume that i resolve Kashmir as per your aspirations what equivalent goodie are you going to offer me??? If you say the goodie is that i will stop supporting terror groups then i am sorry that is not equal...it is like one party black-mailing other....

Well, you just articulated my point. India is of the opinion that it doesn't need anything from Pakistan, so it doesn't need peace.