Usual but Necessary

[sancho]

You keep telling us about the many muscles India are flexing, and yet the article is not about muscle flexing - and you contradict yourself, if indeed China is the greater threat, why then the majority of Indian forces arrayed against Pakistan?

Because the threat from Pakistan is not gone, but a new and more difficult threat has emerged! That's why "new" capabilities in the north east are beeing raised. The important point to see the reality of Indian threat perception (that many Pakistanis sadly don't want to see) is, that forces from the north western borders were reduced in the recent years and diverted towards China, that most new procurments are aimed on countering China, while there are only replacements and modernisations going on on the borders towards Pakistan. The same replacements and modernisations that are beeing done by Pakistani forces as well, so not a big deal. Infact India is raison more bases and forces in the south, or the costal areas, than towards western borders.

The article makes the point that policy makers understand that this trilateral equation is one that must be fostered, even as it acknowledges that the three are at present internally focused and their perceptions of concepts such as "credible minimal deterrence" are not similar.

I think it was illusion8 that correctly said, that a trilateral approach doesn't make sense, because the issues Pakistan and India have, are unrelated to the issues China and India have. The issues with Pakistan have way deeper roots than the issues with China. Infact, the issues with China are actually minor problems, because both countries have more joint policies, than issues with each other.
China acknowledges that we are getting more powerful and reacted by military build up, we answered in the same manner, but both can demilitarize the border area again solve the problem. The issues between Pakistan and India on the other hand started during the separation of both countries and as long as we keep that point of view in the mind of the public of both sides, we won't be able change anything, because mistrust will remain during every talks.

Btw, I would be interested in your point of view on the question peep raised:

So, WHAT IS PAKISTAN BRINGING TO THE TABLE ?

He might have presented it a bit harsh, but it's a fair question. We always here about Kashmir, Siachin..., as key problems, but what does Pakistan really offer in return to India, for removing forces from tactical locations like Siachin, where we have the upper hand?

 

[illusion8]

He might have presented it a bit harsh, but it's a fair question. We always here about Kashmir, Siachin..., as key problems, but what does Pakistan really offer in return to India, for removing forces from tactical locations like Siachin, where we have the upper hand?

The greatest thing that Pakistan can bring to the table is terrorist infrastructure elimination against India, but sadly they don't acknowledge it as a problem at all and have done precious little to address that issue - so a bilateral peace approach is a no go. India is willing to discuss everything with Pakistan but only when Pakistan satisfactorily removes this major impediment that breaks down the discussion every time. The terrorism issue is enough to derail any kind of meaningful dialogue.

Both countries even went to the extent to put aside both important issues of Kashmir and terrorism and move ahead with other issues, but ignoring the over grown elephant in the room will not lead us anywhere.

The way Pakistan is dilly dallying the 26/11 trial makes India to not take them seriously at all and not worthy of any meaningful discussion.

 

[sancho]

The greatest thing that Pakistan can bring to the table is terrorist infrastructure elimination against India, but sadly they don't acknowledge it as a problem at all and have done precious little to address that issue - so a bilateral peace approach is a no go. India is willing to discuss everything with Pakistan but only when Pakistan satisfactorily removes this major impediment that breaks down the discussion every time. The terrorism issue is enough to derail any kind of meaningful dialogue.

Both countries even went to the extent to put aside both important issues of Kashmir and terrorism and move ahead with other issues, but ignoring the over grown elephant in the room will not lead us anywhere.

The way Pakistan is dilly dallying the 26/11 trial makes India to not take them seriously at all and not worthy of any meaningful discussion.

I agree and no offense to the Pakistani members here, but the constant denial of obvious things was and will remain a problem when we want to solve problems.
I recently saw an interview with Pervez Musharraf, where he was asked about earlier statements of him, that he was 100% sure that Bin Laden was not in Pakistan. Where he stumbled to admit that he was wrong, but when the interviewer than added that the US believes more of the heads of Al Kaida would be hidding in Pakistan, he again started to deny and that there is no prove...
These kind of denials only lead to further hate and misstrust on both sides, especially when they were done in the public, instead of using political backchannels. In case of 26/11 even the fact that several foreign countries and since this year even foreign courts had showed the links to certain people within Pakistan, things will be denied.

Another problem is, the power and influence of Pakistani military and intelligence, compared to Pakistani politicians. It is difficult when you try to talk to politicans to solve problems, when Musharraf is running around and freely admitting that he and other official Pakistani forces violated the borders and so on, where you can't other than think, who is really in control, the government over the forces or the otherway around?
The worst that could happen for the peace process between Pakistan and India, but for both of our countries is, that such extremists / nationalists, who only fuel the hatred on both sides. The best on the other hand would be, if on both sides there would be more younger politicans (30 to 50), that doesn't still live in the past and see the benefits of long term peace, because it might might help to go into talks with less bias from the past in minds and more vision of the future.

 

[Bang Galore]

Quote Originally Posted by peep
So, WHAT IS PAKISTAN BRINGING TO THE TABLE ?

This is the million, nay billion dollar question that remains unanswered. What is it that Pakistan can offer India? I'm not sure there is anything Pakistan brings to the table except to try & stop being a nuisance. That too is something that Pakistan seems to have no control over, not anymore. If India were to attempt to sign a peace treaty (as opposed to making peace- an impossibility in my view), that treaty would be worthless because Pakistan simply cannot live up to its side of the bargain. i don't know if anyone watched Musharraf's interview with Javed Ansari on Headlines Today but all he was doing was asking India to be magnanimous as the greater power. It is funny how Pakistanis claim that they are equal in every way but when concessions are being spoken up, start talking about India being the larger power. Pakistan seems to want to get something for nothing, no reason why India must oblige. Nice try, no Cigar.

 

[Contrarian]

Indeed, the question is simple:

In return for concessions from India, what can Pakistan offer.

Simply reducing/removing terrorism is no big deal. Tomorrow India can also raise and then reduce terrorism in Pakistan were that to be equal to ceding land or demilitarization.

It has to be something far more substantial than reducing terrorism in India.

 

[illusion8]

I agree and no offense to the Pakistani members here, but the constant denial of obvious things was and will remain a problem when we want to solve problems.
I recently saw an interview with Pervez Musharraf, where he was asked about earlier statements of him, that he was 100% sure that Bin Laden was not in Pakistan. Where he stumbled to admit that he was wrong, but when the interviewer than added that the US believes more of the heads of Al Kaida would be hidding in Pakistan, he again started to deny and that there is no prove...
These kind of denials only lead to further hate and misstrust on both sides, especially when they were done in the public, instead of using political backchannels. In case of 26/11 even the fact that several foreign countries and since this year even foreign courts had showed the links to certain people within Pakistan, things will be denied.

Another problem is, the power and influence of Pakistani military and intelligence, compared to Pakistani politicians. It is difficult when you try to talk to politicans to solve problems, when Musharraf is running around and freely admitting that he and other official Pakistani forces violated the borders and so on, where you can't other than think, who is really in control, the government over the forces or the otherway around?
The worst that could happen for the peace process between Pakistan and India, but for both of our countries is, that such extremists / nationalists, who only fuel the hatred on both sides. The best on the other hand would be, if on both sides there would be more younger politicans (30 to 50), that doesn't still live in the past and see the benefits of long term peace, because it might might help to go into talks with less bias from the past in minds and more vision of the future.

The entity that really matters in Pakistan is the PA - no one else - especially when it comes to foreign policy and especially when it comes to FP towards India, proof of that is Kayani, Musharraf etc make it a point to regularly meet up Government heads of China, Russia, US etc. It's the Army that drives Pakistan policy while India gets to waste time talking to a powerless political setup - which does not carry any decision making authority and needs a green signal from the military for any decisions.

Any discussions or their conclusions with the civilians will be a waste of time - prime example is Kargil where Nawaz was talking peace and bus diplomacy and Musharraf was violating the LOC and sending in troops to take over Kargil peaks. The US always instructs, funds and relies on the Pakistani army and so does China because they know they are the people that matter, even the Russians are aware of that - when there was thaw in relations with Russia Pak army and intelligence head honcho's made regular trips to Moscow to work out strategies - Kayani went personally to Jordan to meet Hagel and that was that - Hagel later did not find a need to make a trip to Pakistan to meet the civilian government.

The point I am making here is India's been engaging the political groups and wasting time all along, if India can break ice with the Pak Military and get them to give assurances to address their and our concerns about terrorism or anything else then there is a way forward which might be beneficial for both - otherwise I don't see any meaning in a dialogue with the civilian government.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

.............
The point I am making here is India's been engaging the political groups and wasting time all along, if India can break ice with the Pak Military and get them to give assurances to address their and our concerns about terrorism or anything else then there is a way forward which might be beneficial for both - otherwise I don't see any meaning in a dialogue with the civilian government.

There is nothing that stops India from making the correct moves that enable it to communicate effectively with the Pakistan Army, if it sincerely wanted to do so.

 

[illusion8]

There is nothing that stops India from making the correct moves that enable it to communicate effectively with the Pakistan Army, if it sincerely wanted to do so.

No Idea why they don't, a guess, it probably has to do with the animosity factor or the Indian army. They don't want to set a precedent whereby a civilian government engages with a military and indirectly increase the Army's power in Pakistan....but honestly they should to go ahead.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

No Idea why they don't, a guess, it probably has to do with the animosity factor or the Indian army. They don't want to set a precedent whereby a civilian government engages with a military and indirectly increase the Army's power in Pakistan....but honestly they should to go ahead.

I agree that if India were to get serious with settling issues with Pakistan, developing direct pathways to the Pakistan Army, as the seat of real power, would be a needed step. Why beat around the bush?

 

[illusion8]

I agree that if India were to get serious with settling issues with Pakistan, developing direct pathways to the Pakistan Army, as the seat of real power, would be a needed step. Why beat around the bush?

I guess that's why we are failing in all our dialogues, India is definitely not talking to the right people.

 

[kurup]

Lot of people in their right mind on all sides of border want reunification.

I don't know about the other side of the border but if anybody in India wants reunification , they are not in their right mind .

 

[IND151]

so let me just recapitulate ..

talks between ind and pak should be based on : India coming down from the heights of Siachen, India demilitarizing Kashmir, India talking about water crisis in pak and thereby stalling all ongoing construction projects on Indus and its tributaries, India talking about Sir Creek as per the wishes of pakistan... Can some one plz tell us what is pakistan bringing to the table ?

I am 10000% sure that stop supporting militant groups on its soil just can't be one ( a demonstrated FACT ). So, WHAT IS PAKISTAN BRINGING TO THE TABLE ?

And, What can we possibly achieve from a trilateral summit which we cannot from a bilateral talks ?

well this is very important, Pak demands favorable solutions on Kashmir problem and wants IA to withdraw from Siachin

But if they are not offering something equally valuable in return, the dialogues will lead nowhere' India will simply refuse to accept Pak's demands