Does India Harbour Territorial Ambitions Towards Pakistan or Not?

[Redhawk]

Pakistanis claim India is an external threat to Pakistan. But why? Do Pakistanis feel that India has never been reconciled to Partition and the creation of Pakistan and seeks to reunify Pakistan with India by force? Not so! says Air Vice-Marshal (Ret'd) Abid Rao of the Pakistan Air Force. He maintains that even if Pakistan were to ask India to reincorporate Pakistan into India, the Indians would refuse. If this is true, why is India used as a bogey man in Pakistan? For what purpose is this done?

 

[tarunraju]

We just want Pakistan-occupied Kashmir back. Not a square-inch more. If we harboured territorial ambitions, we would have swallowed the non-nuclear armed Bangladesh by now.

We're glad that the British cleansed India of radical Islamic elements (essentially the Muslim elite and upper-middle classes), by carving out Pakistan. Else, India would have gone Yugoslavia's way in the 1980s, tops.

 

[Redhawk]

Why isn't the embedded video coming up from YT? Why only a link?

 

[tarunraju]

It's [noparse][YT]youtube_video_code[/YT][/noparse] And your URL doesn't lead to a video. It leads to search results.

 

[dastan]

@Redhawk

http://articles.economictimes.india...7_1_iaf-chief-arup-raha-capability-neighbours

^Can't get more credible than that

 

[Redhawk]

It's [noparse][YT]youtube_video_code[/YT][/noparse] And your URL doesn't lead to a video. It leads to search results.

Thanks, I'll correct that.

 

[Bhadra]

Pakistanis claim India is an external threat to Pakistan. But why? Do Pakistanis feel that India has never been reconciled to Partition and the creation of Pakistan and seeks to reunify Pakistan with India by force? Not so! says Air Vice-Marshal (Ret'd) Abid Rao of the Pakistan Air Force. He maintains that even if Pakistan were to ask India to reincorporate Pakistan into India, the Indians would refuse. If this is true, why is India used as a bogey man in Pakistan? For what purpose is this done?

[video]https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Abid+Rao[/video]

For that to be genuine question, you should have done some work or should have had a glimpse at history.

First of all division of India was agreed by the Congress party so there is politically imbedded intention or ambition to take back those territories.

The territories which form part of Pakistan had been only historically part of India long time back. Very few people in India desire to have those territories with present day conditions and populations.

Pakistan territory has only one geostrategic importance that it provides one a link to Afghanistan before one can reach energy rich CAR. In todays global environment, one can reach CAR from many sides - from China, From Tibet, From Russia, From Iran, From Turkey etc. If India can import oil from Latin America, they can import gas and oil from CAR from alternate sources.

Pakistan territory is not in any way strategically mineral rich territory with abundance of oil, gas , minerals or other vital strategic products. Capturing that territory and annexing it with India does not give any advantage. On the contrary, disadvantages of managing that burgeoning jihadi population are too many.

In 1948, it is Pakistan that invaded J&K and captured Indian territory. India has till now not taken back that territory. And it appears Indians are not keen to take back territory which they could have easily done in 1971.

It is Pakistan that invaded India in 1965 to Capture Indian Territory not India. India returned to Pakistan all important territory captured by Indian Forces.

The Siachin dispute between the two countries is a matter of Strategic nature rather than territorial. It is meant to deny a junction between China and Pakistan in a vital area.

Sir creek dispute is very minor in nature and is more of an ego problem rather than any territorial problem.

India liberated Bangladesh but did not keep it - the objective was not territory...

Territory is ingrained in Pakistan Mogul mind set who consider India as their fathers property and wish to rule from Delhi once again. That mind set which was responsible for creation of Pakistan still exists and shall continue to exist.

For India the only matter regarding territory is to protect their territory against that Pakistani mind set.

 

[Redhawk]

For that to be genuine question, you should have done some work or should have had a glimpse at history.

First of all division of India was agreed by the Congress party so there is politically imbedded intention or ambition to take back those territories.

The territories which form part of Pakistan had been only historically part of India long time back. Very few people in India desire to have those territories with present day conditions and populations.

Pakistan territory has only one geostrategic importance that it provides one a link to Afghanistan before one can reach energy rich CAR. In todays global environment, one can reach CAR from many sides - from China, From Tibet, From Russia, From Iran, From Turkey etc. If India can import oil from Latin America, they can import gas and oil from CAR from alternate sources.

Pakistan territory is not in any way strategically mineral rich territory with abundance of oil, gas , minerals or other vital strategic products. Capturing that territory and annexing it with India does not give any advantage. On the contrary, disadvantages of managing that burgeoning jihadi population are too many.

In 1948, it is Pakistan that invaded J&K and captured Indian territory. India has till now not taken back that territory. And it appears Indians are not keen to take back territory which they could have easily done in 1971.

It is Pakistan that invaded India in 1965 to Capture Indian Territory not India. India returned to Pakistan all important territory captured by Indian Forces.

The Siachin dispute between the two countries is a matter of Strategic nature rather than territorial. It is meant to deny a junction between China and Pakistan in a vital area.

Sir creek dispute is very minor in nature and is more of an ego problem rather than any territorial problem.

India liberated Bangladesh but did not keep it - the objective was not territory...

Territory is ingrained in Pakistan Mogul mind set who consider India as their fathers property and wish to rule from Delhi once again. That mind set which was responsible for creation of Pakistan still exists and shall continue to exist.

For India the only matter regarding territory is to protect their territory against that Pakistani mind set.

Well of course it is a genuine question.

 

[Bangalorean]

Nope, India harbours no territorial ambitions towards Pakistan. We don't want an inch of that land. As @tarunraju said, PoK is something we may want to reclaim, but considering the extent of radicalization and brainwashing in the population there, I am not too sure of that either. I would probably settle for an independent PoK which has a defence and foreign policy treaty with India. Something like Nepal and Bhutan.

 

[Ray]

India has no intention of capturing Pakistan.

The stark reason is that it will change the demography and that would have its own repercussions that may not be ideal to the Indian secular fabric and return it to the bickering and bloodshed that was the characteristic signature during the period of British India.

Further, it will be a great burden to have a land mass and people who are impoverished. India cannot afford to be drawn back into the poverty that it has emerged out of.

 

[Bhadra]

Well of course it is a genuine question.

Genuinity does not lie in frivolity as the question suggests.

Which country in the world will answer in positive to that question ? Not even China which has territorial ambitions all over the world.

Secondly, in view of globalisation and space acquiring new meanings, territory on earth is no more the most important asset for nations to acquire! Territory on Moon or Mars may be.

If it were to be so then India would harbour ambitions over Australia which is a larger territory ... !!!!

Even markets which are closely linked to territory is no longer controlled by the sovereign of that territory.. you have money to through and you can get anything you want from thousands of miles away or sell your goods anywhere. The world has inched forwards towards WTO ..

Today territory is multi dimensional extending up to Mars, space, air, sea, electronic waves, media, communications, transportation, ideas, innovations and IPR.

You think there are mad Indians who would like that mad 6th century Jihadi population called Pakistan to be part of India ??

Nope...

 

[Dark Sorrow]

I believe their is some interest in capturing and holding parts of Thar desert and Kashmir as their is speculation that oil and/or natural gas can be found their.
*Citation needed.

 

[Redhawk]

Genuinity does not lie in frivolity as the question suggests.

Which country in the world will answer in positive to that question ? Not even China which has territorial ambitions all over the world.

Secondly, in view of globalisation and space acquiring new meanings, territory on earth is no more the most important asset for nations to acquire! Territory on Moon or Mars may be.

If it were to be so then India would harbour ambitions over Australia which is a larger territory ... !!!!

Even markets which are closely linked to territory is no longer controlled by the sovereign of that territory.. you have money to through and you can get anything you want from thousands of miles away or sell your goods anywhere. The world has inched forwards towards WTO ..

Today territory is multi dimensional extending up to Mars, space, air, sea, electronic waves, media, communications, transportation, ideas, innovations and IPR.

You think there are mad Indians who would like that mad 6th century Jihadi population called Pakistan to be part of India ??

Nope...

It was a sincere question that came up after watching the video of the film snippet of the interview of AVM (Ret'd) Abid Rao of the PAF on Youtube. It is hardly a frivolous question.

 

[Ray]

Kashmir is a part of India and therefore acquiring it is natural.

The Simla Agreement endorses that aspect.

Territory captured in wars across the International Border has to be returned, but not so for territory captured across the Line of Control.

 

[Ray]

Kashmir is a part of India and therefore acquiring it is natural.

The Simla Agreement endorses that aspect.

Territory captured in wars across the International Border has to be returned, but not so for territory captured across the Line of Control.

It was a sincere question that came up after watching the video of the film snippet of the interview of AVM (Ret'd) Abid Rao of the PAF on Youtube. It is hardly a frivolous question.

Yes, it was the first time I heard such a statement coming from a Pakistani Military officer, high ranking or otherwise.

Informative and good for a reference.

 

[Redhawk]

This is Air Marshal (Ret'd) Asghar Khan of the PAF who makes some very good points.

 

[rock127]

Pakistanis claim India is an external threat to Pakistan. But why? Do Pakistanis feel that India has never been reconciled to Partition and the creation of Pakistan and seeks to reunify Pakistan with India by force? Not so! says Air Vice-Marshal (Ret'd) Abid Rao of the Pakistan Air Force. He maintains that even if Pakistan were to ask India to reincorporate Pakistan into India, the Indians would refuse. If this is true, why is India used as a bogey man in Pakistan? For what purpose is this done?

Seems like you have just started to explore India-Pak stuff.

If India was so interested in capturing Paki land it would have never given back lot of their land captured during various wars specially 71.India could have captured even Bangladesh but it didn't.The policy of India is clear.India want a long term peace and development in the whole region and for that not just gave back lot of Paki land but 100,000 POW alive as well in their comprehensive,historical and decisive war and didn't capture PoK.

The problem is very BASIC for newbees who know nothing about India-Pak.The thing is that Pakistan is created on hatred and bloodshed and a fake identity by extremists.These extremists are Pak Army/ISI who would go jobless in case they don't create a FAKE terror of "India" and rule their jahil(uneducated) herd.The identity of Pakistan is NOT Islam ... it's hatred for India or "Hindooooos".Interestingly Pakis are just coward converts and think they are thekedar of Islam.

However we still claim PoK but would not raise any fake war or proxy war for it rather just defend India Kashmir.We have lot of issues of our own.

Pakistan is a FAILURE and killing Muslims and a blot on Islam.

 

[Redhawk]

Seems like you have just started to explore India-Pak stuff.

If India was so interested in capturing Paki land it would have never given back lot of their land captured during various wars specially 71.India could have captured even Bangladesh but it didn't.The policy of India is clear.India want a long term peace and development in the whole region and for that not just gave back lot of Paki land but 100,000 POW alive as well in their comprehensive,historical and decisive war and didn't capture PoK.

The problem is very BASIC for newbees who know nothing about India-Pak.The thing is that Pakistan is created on hatred and bloodshed and a fake identity by extremists.These extremists are Pak Army/ISI who would go jobless in case they don't create a FAKE terror of "India" and rule their jahil(uneducated) herd.The identity of Pakistan is NOT Islam ... it's hatred for India or "Hindooooos".Interestingly Pakis are just coward converts and think they are thekedar of Islam.

However we still claim PoK but would not raise any fake war or proxy war for it rather just defend India Kashmir.We have lot of issues of our own.

Pakistan is a FAILURE and killing Muslims and a blot on Islam.

Wrong! I've hardly just started.

 

[ezsasa]

Hypothetical :

There is a greater chances of pakistan having territorial issues in their western border than on their eastern border. It is just a matter of Iran and Afghanistan settling down. Iran with its negotiations with Americans and Afghanistan settling down on their internal issues.

If this isis threat continues unchecked, pakistan is likely to react by giving first presence to protect Sunni dominated areas of Pakistan.
Iran's hand will be forced to protect the Shia dominated Baloch.

As far as afghans are concerned, dispute over Durand line is yet to start. Dispute will not be about the region per say but about the control over poppy production in the area. This is far fetched ofcourse, afghans have to settle down first, of which there are no hints yet.

India need not even get involved in both the stated scenarios, both the scenarios are on cards it is a matter of when.

 

[salute]

India has no intention of capturing Pakistan.

The stark reason is that it will change the demography and that would have its own repercussions that may not be ideal to the Indian secular fabric and return it to the bickering and bloodshed that was the characteristic signature during the period of British India.

Further, it will be a great burden to have a land mass and people who are impoverished. India cannot afford to be drawn back into the poverty that it has emerged out of.

still one thing remains that is kicking out millions of bangaladeshi and pakis living in india back to their countries.