Is a stable Pakistan in our interest?

[Energon]

to energon and all

I am still not able to understand what India should do to make Pakistan understand that terror is not the option? Are you saying that we should give in to there demands?

There is nothing India, or anyone else can do to make Pakistan understand right from wrong. Sadly this is something they have to do for themselves. It should be noted however that off late they have been getting explosive reminders.

What India can do in the mean time for its own sake is to get over the obsession with Pakistan. Jingoism, Pakistan bashing and chest thumping over past military victories is still a very integral part of Indian politics as shown by election speeches etc. This is a detractor to what is really important for India; such as law and order, literacy/education, infrastructure, social justice, equality, adequate nutrition and healthcare, state of the art anti terrorism forces to mitigate the threats, etc. etc. By doing this not only will the most important topics be brought to the forefront, but it will give the delusional columns of Pakistan (I'm not sure I want to use the term right wing because that suggests at least a real point of view) less fodder to munch on which will subsequently help the enlightened sections of the population.

What is the guarantee if we give to there demands they will become civil? A country is build by the people. What makes you guys think that they are still civil enough to have some hope towards a positive future?

Pakistanis may be obstinate, marred in false pride and slightly delusional, but they're not stupid; and this really isn't really very different from many Indians. Let's not forget that during India's dark years from the 60s to the early 90s, saber rattling with Pakistan was a national pastime promoted by incompetent and corrupt leaders to divert the attention of the masses from the otherwise abysmal and hopeless conditions of the state. All those wasted years and diversions led to poverty and destitution of unimaginable scales robbing hundreds of millions of a dignified human existence. It was only because of the lack of options that India had to open up its economy, but that allowed the formation of a critical mass of people with progressive aspirations to change tack.

The lack of civility as you call it, which was instilled in swaths of Pakistan's underclass for the sake of "strategic depth" was a concerted movement orchestrated by a few people in the military regime with a cash flow bonanza from abroad; it wasn't a populous shift. So to paint all of Pakistan with a broad brush and classify all Pakistanis as uncivilized barbarians isn't really accurate or fair. Furthermore, the promotion of this ridiculous notion for political purposes amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

Pakistan's potential middle class has never really had a say before, so it might be worthwhile to lend them an ear and possibly assist them to gain a foothold in Pakistan's decision making process. It is important however to realize first and foremost that the dreams and aspirations of middle class educated Pakistani civilians isn't very different from their Indian counterparts.

 

[Singh]

Related to the greater need for regional and economic integration.

India’s Neighbors​

The World Bank has put out a new book on accelerating growth and job creation in South Asia. Much is relevant to India’s economy, though the underlying message is broadly similar to other assessments. India needs growth through reforms, and poor governance is the roadblock. Ultimately, There is, however, some interesting material on India’s relation to other countries in South Asia:

The region is the least integrated of global regions and barriers to trade and investment among South Asian countries greatly exceed those with the rest of the world. The hostile political environment of the past has caused this, but the environment is changing with much stronger interest in cooperation…

Along with the removal of all trade and non-trade barriers, greater efforts to strengthen regional cooperation on energy and services can provide a substantial boost to growth in South Asia… The potential for energy trade in South Asia [is] a basis for removing the growing energy constraint to development in the region. Fast-growing India, and to a lesser extent Bangladesh and Pakistan, are energy-thirsty countries. Nepal, Bhutan and Afghanistan, all relatively poor countries, are endowed with huge water resources that might be fruitfully exploited for generating hydro-power for trading with the countries where power is lacking.

I have a few points:

Energy trading in hydro power is already present with Bhutan. As S A Aiyer reports, Bhutan is set to export 20,000 MW of hydro power to India by 2020. A large hydroelectric potential also exists in India’s own Himalayan areas, but remains largely untapped in Nepal. Gaining international technology transfers and funding to further clean hydro projects will go a long way towards addressing India’s persistent power shortage, and should be at the top of India’s agenda at Copenhagen.

Though SAFTA came into effect in 2006, South Asia remains far away from being a free trade zone. Inter-country trade in the region remains one of the lowest in the world. Moving towards a full free trade regime will not only to boost economic growth in all countries, but will also boost regional cooperation. It is incredible that trade with Afghanistan remains hobbled by trade constraints, even as that country’s development should be a national priority.

The divergence between fast-growing India and neighboring countries is becoming stark. Migration by Nepalis and Bangladeshis is already happening, with bad social and political results within India. If India continues growing at its present rate, and countries like Nepal fail to make a similar transition; widespread migration along the lines of the American-Mexican border are conceivable. Balanced growth throughout South Asia is necessary to generate opportunity at home and avoid these potentially destablizing population transfers.

The Broad Mind India’s Neighbors

 

[Energon]

While all the points raised by the author are valid, the inherent issue of stability remains an obstacle. Any meaningful economic integration with Pakistan is impossible as long as it remains unstable and a source of terrorism aimed toward India. I think the Af-Pak situation needs to be given full attention and support in the short to medium term.

But coming back to the rest of South Asia...
Extreme poverty, instability and lack of adequate governance has had a devastating impact on South Asia's human indices across the board, and the numbers speak for themselves. It is time for India to take the pragmatic approach and realize that this isn't a national issue but a regional one. In fact some of the root causes such as the colossal disaster vis a vis subsistence agriculture (subsistence, ha ha ha), ethnic tension and lack of social equality is something that precedes the nation states themselves.

It is very, very important that India change its parochial attitude toward Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal, and engage them wholeheartedly in fair and balanced progressive initiatives. The destitute populations of South Asia numbering in the hundreds of millions are always at risk of falling into violent predatory movements of extremism, may they be religious, political or sectarian in nature. This is also a very good time to approach Sri Lanka in a new light and allay their fears of past nightmares. The reason I say this is up to India is because it is the most stable and more economically advanced nation state compared to the rest. If India aspires to be a modern state some day one thing she is going to have to learn is benevolent leadership, and realize that none of her dreams can be realized unless human upliftment is turned into a regional objective first.

 

[Singh]

Quoting excerpts from ISAS working paper no. 57 titled "India and Pakistan – The Economic Stand-Off" by "Sajjad Ashraf"


BENEFITS

Despite numerous odds that stand in the way of trade between Pakistan and India, it is generally acknowledged that liberalised trade would be beneficial for both countries that are presently forced to buy the same items from other countries at much higher rates. The liberalisation of trade would also put an end to smuggling and informal trade. Trade between countries and especially adversaries builds trust. “Commerce can build confidence. Small-scale steps are often the harbinger of bigger changes to come,”51 said the UN Secretary General in New Delhi. In the age of globalisation, there seems no other way.

Enhanced trade cooperation can also mean lower prices for millions of consumers. With high inflation during the last two years or so, the poor in Pakistan are likely to benefit more. A study done by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in early 2000s indicated that every agricultural product that is sold for Rs100 in Pakistan can be made available at less than Rs40 if procured from India.52 The difference could be even more now. Perhaps the only serious study conducted by the Pakistan Ministry of Commerce on Pakistan-India trade admits that, “Pakistani consumer would benefit from increased sourcing and from lower transportation costs of importing from India.”53 More recently, based on several studies conducted in Pakistan by respected universities, the World Bank Report concluded that “Pakistan stands to gain from liberalisation of trade with India.”54

Durrani supports this view calculating “…that for three years – 1992, 1993 and 1994 – if Pakistan had imported all its tea from the producing countries within South Asia, it could have easily saved in excess of US$110 million.”55 Some observers put the figure of lost legal trade and duties at US$1 billion. In some cases, nearly all the demand of some spices in the country is met through smuggling from India.56 Pakistan, some studies claim, loses US$500 million in custom duties to smugglers.57

India and Pakistan could continue to trade while maintaining a negative import list of key items that they wish to protect from each other for a definite period. Pakistan should not be overly concerned about competition from India because its products that are likely to face intense competition from India are the same that would also face maximum competition from China in the global markets. In open trade, Pakistan’s major sections of manufacturers and producers “would benefit because of increased competitiveness and market access to much larger Indian economy.”58

CONCLUSION

Normal neighbourly relations between India-Pakistan remain dependent upon the politics of violence and suspicion. Despite all the pitfalls, businessmen and common citizen believe that partnership is the key to fulfillment of the collective dream of making a prosperous South Asia. Being the two largest economies of the region, it is incumbent upon the leadership of the two countries to seize the moment.

The masses of the subcontinent, especially those of Pakistan, are unable to benefit from lower consumer prices owing to tightly controlled trade between India and Pakistan. The desire to resume trade is demonstrated in smuggling and third party trade, raising prices for the consumers and costing the state of Pakistan millions in untapped revenue.

Decision makers in Pakistan ignore, at the peril of national security, that economic relations are a vital component of the process of normalisation of estranged relations between India and Pakistan. The Cold War thaw occurred with the beginnings on the economic front. China-Taiwan relations, though politically divergent, are built on economics. I do not think that Pakistan would make a bigger compromise than China in trading with India.

At the leadership and official level, there is acceptance of the advisability of the normalisation of relations but regrettably there are doubts on both sides on the sincerity of the other. The basic ingredient of empathy is still missing in the dialogue of the interlocutors.

In the backdrop of this hostility, economic relations can hardly develop in isolation from the general, political, social and cultural environments. The development of economic relations will more likely be an element in the overall development of relations between the two countries. India needs to understand that, in Pakistan, promoters of peace with India find it difficult to argue with hardliners, the absence of any visible progress even on issues like Sir Creek or Siachein, despite nearly four years of the Composite Dialogue.

Pakistan finds itself in a strange bind. Oscillating relations with India, war and unsettled Afghanistan and, more importantly, choices made by Pakistan deny it the advantage of enlarging its regional trading arrangements. In fact, Pakistan completely negates one of the main points of its foreign policy pitch that it is located at the crossroads of the trade routes by becoming a barrier to regional trade growth. Pakistan needs to do some serious introspection on whether, in the changing global power equilibrium, its current India-centric policy that has failed will be useful for the future.

Following the positive developments between Pakistan and India, Singapore, during the last four years or so, made significant investments in Pakistan. India has secured substantial investments from Singapore over time. An improvement in economic and political relations between the two estranged neighbours in the subcontinent can allow greater capital and goods mobility to Singapore companies, not only within the region but also through Pakistan into the vast Central Asian region. Better relations between the two countries send a powerful message especially to the strong and influential Singapore Indian community, many of whom hail from the land that is now Pakistan, of opportunities available in Pakistan and beyond. The general ‘feel good’ factor raises possibilities for companies to expand in a secure and politically less volatile market as a whole.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the backdrop of this situation, the following course of actions is recommended:
• Pakistan should understand that economic relations are a precursor to friendlier political relations.
• Pakistan could base its trade with India on a Negative List of items. It could leave the rest to market forces. Competition will eventually improve the quality of Pakistani products, reduce per unit cost and will open a huge Indian market for Pakistan products. Inefficient industry will need to adjust or face closure. The consumer will benefit.
• Pakistan should develop areas of excellence where it can have advantage. With economies of scale, it can beat competitors from India and elsewhere.
• Respond to India’s grant of the MFN status. Remove an irritant.
• Pakistan should open a road trade corridor between India and Afghanistan and let Indian companies come in to invest in the improvement of infrastructure to support economic integration of the region.
16
• Return, as a gesture of goodwill to Indian investors, some of the enterprises seized after 1965 such as the Oberoi Hotel. This will help build confidence in Indian investors to again look at Pakistan as a partner. Guarantee future investments.
• Being a larger economy and bigger state, India should walk an extra mile to assuage Pakistan’s concerns on non-tariff barriers.
• India should speed up improving infrastructure in handling land and rail trade.
• India could allow preferential rates of duty on some of products from Pakistan. This can reduce trade imbalance and promote regional integration.
• Now that Pakistan has allowed the setting up of CNG buses plant, the Indian government should facilitate this process of investments in Pakistan by private investors.
• Ease visa regime to facilitate travel between the two countries by their citizens.
• Encourage student exchange at institutions of higher learning.
• Refrain from covert interference by state and non-state actors in the internal affairs of neighbouring states.
• Friends of India and Pakistan should continue to nudge the two countries towards a political settlement.
• Investors from these friends of Indian and Pakistan can encourage projects that can be jointly sponsored between them and the two countries with consequent benefits of cooperation.

 

[ppgj]

There is nothing India, or anyone else can do to make Pakistan understand right from wrong. Sadly this is something they have to do for themselves. It should be noted however that off late they have been getting explosive reminders.

What India can do in the mean time for its own sake is to get over the obsession with Pakistan. Jingoism, Pakistan bashing and chest thumping over past military victories is still a very integral part of Indian politics as shown by election speeches etc. This is a detractor to what is really important for India; such as law and order, literacy/education, infrastructure, social justice, equality, adequate nutrition and healthcare, state of the art anti terrorism forces to mitigate the threats, etc. etc. By doing this not only will the most important topics be brought to the forefront, but it will give the delusional columns of Pakistan (I'm not sure I want to use the term right wing because that suggests at least a real point of view) less fodder to munch on which will subsequently help the enlightened sections of the population.


Pakistanis may be obstinate, marred in false pride and slightly delusional, but they're not stupid; and this really isn't really very different from many Indians. Let's not forget that during India's dark years from the 60s to the early 90s, saber rattling with Pakistan was a national pastime promoted by incompetent and corrupt leaders to divert the attention of the masses from the otherwise abysmal and hopeless conditions of the state. All those wasted years and diversions led to poverty and destitution of unimaginable scales robbing hundreds of millions of a dignified human existence. It was only because of the lack of options that India had to open up its economy, but that allowed the formation of a critical mass of people with progressive aspirations to change tack.

agree with you.

The lack of civility as you call it, which was instilled in swaths of Pakistan's underclass for the sake of "strategic depth" was a concerted movement orchestrated by a few people in the military regime with a cash flow bonanza from abroad; it wasn't a populous shift. So to paint all of Pakistan with a broad brush and classify all Pakistanis as uncivilized barbarians isn't really accurate or fair. Furthermore, the promotion of this ridiculous notion for political purposes amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

i don't think nitesh was intending what you are inferring from his post. civil enough is what he said. i don't think it amounts to saying uncivilized barbarians.

Pakistan's potential middle class has never really had a say before, so it might be worthwhile to lend them an ear and possibly assist them to gain a foothold in Pakistan's decision making process.

but they did not oppose it either. by being silent only means tacit support.

 

[nitesh]

There is nothing India, or anyone else can do to make Pakistan understand right from wrong. Sadly this is something they have to do for themselves. It should be noted however that off late they have been getting explosive reminders.

And till now they have not realised it and there is no sign of it coming by seeing the media reports

What India can do in the mean time for its own sake is to get over the obsession with Pakistan. Jingoism, Pakistan bashing and chest thumping over past military victories is still a very integral part of Indian politics as shown by election speeches etc. This is a detractor to what is really important for India; such as law and order, literacy/education, infrastructure, social justice, equality, adequate nutrition and healthcare, state of the art anti terrorism forces to mitigate the threats, etc. etc. By doing this not only will the most important topics be brought to the forefront, but it will give the delusional columns of Pakistan (I'm not sure I want to use the term right wing because that suggests at least a real point of view) less fodder to munch on which will subsequently help the enlightened sections of the population.

Leave election speeches there is nothing significant goes on ground related to Pakistan. The points you are raising is getting taken care. For enlightening there population first there education system has to change I hope you have gone through the links posted in the forum otherwise there is no hope.

Pakistanis may be obstinate, marred in false pride and slightly delusional, but they're not stupid; and this really isn't really very different from many Indians. Let's not forget that during India's dark years from the 60s to the early 90s, saber rattling with Pakistan was a national pastime promoted by incompetent and corrupt leaders to divert the attention of the masses from the otherwise abysmal and hopeless conditions of the state. All those wasted years and diversions led to poverty and destitution of unimaginable scales robbing hundreds of millions of a dignified human existence. It was only because of the lack of options that India had to open up its economy, but that allowed the formation of a critical mass of people with progressive aspirations to change tack.

Well this is there fault that they are not going on right track at least we agree here

The lack of civility as you call it, which was instilled in swaths of Pakistan's underclass for the sake of "strategic depth" was a concerted movement orchestrated by a few people in the military regime with a cash flow bonanza from abroad; it wasn't a populous shift. So to paint all of Pakistan with a broad brush and classify all Pakistanis as uncivilized barbarians isn't really accurate or fair. Furthermore, the promotion of this ridiculous notion for political purposes amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

This strategic depth is for Afghanistan not for Kashmir which is solely for water and given religious colors to get the population behind it and they followed it and they justify killings on the name of Kashmir so calling them supporter of terrorism is not false.

Pakistan's potential middle class has never really had a say before, so it might be worthwhile to lend them an ear and possibly assist them to gain a foothold in Pakistan's decision making process. It is important however to realize first and foremost that the dreams and aspirations of middle clases educated Pakistani civilians isn't very different from their Indian counterparts.

ha ha ha this is hilarious when did they opposed jihadis? If they don't directly support it they don't oppose it too

 

[Singh]

I believe Pak middle class is not cohesive at all.

Karachi - MQM supporters
Punjab - PML supporters
S.Punjab+Sindh - PPP supporters
NWFP - ANP/MMA supporters
Islamists - MMA supporters

MQM - anti-Pashtun
PPP - Sindhi/Shiite/Socialist
PML - partial to Taliban (have not condemned attacks iirce).
MMA - Taliban sympathisers
ANP - pro-Pashtun

 

[Energon]

ha ha ha this is hilarious when did they opposed jihadis? If they don't directly support it they don't oppose it too

This isn't a static phenomenon; people change based on exigent circumstances the world over, all the time. I've been working with Pakistani focus groups through a major policy center for a couple of years now dealing with issues ranging from medical care access to education. If you think that most of Pakistan's educated masses are jihadi supporters you are sadly mistaken. They are well aware of the cataclysmic effects of radicalization and militancy, they experience its effects more than anyone else. As I said, their desires and aspirations are really not all that different from their Indian counterparts.

However, the history of human civilization clearly shows that a society is created in the image of the people who have the greatest say, in the case of Pakistan it is a nation obsessed with phantasmagorical military strategy and a sordid siege mentality, an obvious result of a state with a dominating military which is the only truly functional national institution in the country.

The Pakistani educated middle class albeit not nearly as sizable as that of India's has no political representation to speak of. Furthermore due to the abysmal economic and security conditions in Pakistan a fair share of them have already left, or at least sent their children away. For anyone who is truly interested in mitigating the dangers emanating from Pakistan it is clear that these people have to be empowered.

 

[nitesh]

Energon what you are saying is your personal opinion based on what you have saw so what is your solution to make those people empowered?

 

[Energon]

Energon what you are saying is your personal opinion based on what you have saw so what is your solution to make those people empowered?

These are also major issues and topics of intense discussion making the circles of many policy groups and think tanks led by people who have advised heavily on the Kerry Lugar Bill. Mind you I'm not an integral member of any of this, nor am I a professional policy broker or academician in this field. All of this is way greater than me.

My point however is that in order to be objective, one must first realize that a cohort of people given similar circumstances (lets say middle class, educated, well traveled etc. South Asians) are more or less likely to have similar aspirations. Now they may not be able to act on those aspirations or achieve them because of ambient circumstances in a given country, but they are there nonetheless. Just because someone is Pakistani doesn't mean they are permanently impaired or that they are entirely unable to understand what is going on.

 

[IBM]

Ok, in my previous post. I have been absued by the owner of this topic to give logic answer not emotional. Here r few logical arguments, why India don't need stable Pak.

1) Stable Pak is dangerous for India and World(terriorist hub) and more difficult to negotiate.

2, Economical strong Pak, again not good for India as she can negotiate with india with there own terms and India can't put presure from IMF and World bank to them.

3) Military strong Pak, again not good for India as it posses threat and India can't do anything (someting happening now).

4) Politically strong Pak(Forget it) our friend Zardari darling is doing good job. hahhaah

Last but not least, there is a saying in english that "Weaker enemy is better than strong enemy. Where in later you have no option other than friendship and friendship with pak is suisidell...

 

[bengalraider]

My point however is that in order to be objective, one must first realize that a cohort of people given similar circumstances (lets say middle class, educated, well traveled etc. South Asians) are more or less likely to have similar aspirations. Now they may not be able to act on those aspirations or achieve them because of ambient circumstances in a given country, but they are there nonetheless. Just because someone is Pakistani doesn't mean they are permanently impaired or that they are entirely unable to understand what is going on.

I agree with you that the middle class elite of Pakistan might want friendly relations with India now that they realize the damage the Jihadist network has wreaked on their nation, but i disagree that they have always wanted peace. the middle class of Pakistan is simply trying to save it's skin now, they know today that if the jihadis take over their cushy lives in Islamabad shall not be any different from the lives of tribals in the mountains of the Hindu kush. there was a scenario i read somewhere( i fail to remember) where faced with an impending collapse of the Pakistani central authority the wealthy elite of Punjab and sindh invited the IA into Punjab and sindh to protect themselves.I believe this is much in the same vein, faced with an impending collapse of civil society as they know it the elite of Pakistan are trying to buy time for themselves from the very country they despised and actively plotted against buy giving donations to militants fighting in Kashmir . these people were always for jihad against India what they were against was jihad against themselves and their lifestyles this is what they have come up against now, they only reason they want friendly relations with India is to have an escape route out.

 

[AkhandBharat]

Will the glitter of a Nobel outshine common sense on Pak?

Every prime minister believes that peace with Pakistan is simply a matter of time -- after which an applauding world shall hang the Nobel Prize around his neck. Is it Dr Manmohan Singh's turn to add his name to the list, asks T V R Shenoy.

'Pro pace et fraternitate gentium'. Those five words seem to dance before the eyes of presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers once they have settled down in office.

Roughly translated, the Latin means 'For the peace and brotherhood of mankind'. It appears, as you might guess, on one side of the Nobel Peace Prize medal. Winning the right to hang that little gold trinket around one's neck seems to convince politicians that they can overturn the logic of history with a personal touch.

In the specific context of India it has led almost every prime minister to believe that peace with our beloved western neighbour is simply a matter of time -- after which an applauding world shall hang the Nobel Prize around his (or her) neck.

Jawaharlal Nehru in the first of many follies, prevented the Indian Army from cleaning up the invasion of Kashmir, tossing the problem to the United Nations at Lord Mountbatten's suggestion. At Tashkent in 1966 and at Simla in 1972 Indian prime ministers refused to press home the advantage that their soldiers had won. Morarji Desai spurned an Israeli feeler to destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee took the bus to Lahore. Is it Dr Manmohan Singh's turn to add his name to the list?

In July, the prime minister met his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani at Sharm-el-Shaikh in Egypt. The result was a curious joint statement that hinted at Indian involvement in Baluchistan yet said not a word about the Lashkar-e-Tayiba and its ilk acting against us.

The then foreign secretary, Shiv Shankar Menon admitted that the joint statement was 'poorly drafted'. This is bureaucratic code for 'I had nothing to do with it so don't blame me!' Three months later, speculation is still rife in Delhi about who exactly provided the wording for the document. (Rumours abound about a call from Washington.)

The Sharm-el-Shaikh statement was a bit hard to digest even for Congressmen. Yet it now seems that it was not a flash in the pan but part of a strategic effort. The prime minister made public overtures to Pakistan on a visit to Jammu and Kashmir. (It would have been nice to hear about equal efforts to restore the Kashmiri Pandits to their homes!) He followed those up with more after his return to Delhi when he spoke at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit.

I have a simple question. Why?

Is there anything at all over the past sixty-two years to demonstrate that Pakistan will respond to India's calls for peace? Let us get two facts clear. First, Pakistan exists only because its people thought they could not live in peace with 'Hindu' India. Second, over six decades the Pakistani army has developed a vested interest in creating and maintaining tensions with India.

As regards the first, Pakistan has always been a little more honest than a self-deluding India. Even while Atal Bihari Vajpayee was in Lahore after that bus trip, a Pakistani appeared on television asking a pertinent question: 'If Pakistan and India can live as 'brothers' why did we have Partition at all?' And after General Musharraf returned home after the failed Agra summit he publicly admitted at a press conference that 'We hate each other!'

Pakistan has denied its Indian roots to the extent where some of its history books start only with the Arab invasions of lower Sind, and many of its people trace their roots to Arabia, or Iran, or Turkey -- anything but India. To speak of fraternity is only to fool ourselves.

As for the Pakistani army, it is in its own interest to foment enmity. It claims a special position in Pakistan by presenting itself as the only body standing against India. Its officers live off the fat of the land, they run everything from banks to industries to schools to farms -- all because the protectors of Pakistan must enjoy special privileges.

Stoking discord may or may not be in the interests of Pakistan as whole but it serves the Pakistani army perfectly well.


How many readers could identify the chief of staff of the Indian Army without looking it up? His counterpart in Pakistan is as prominent a figure as its president or its prime minister -- and probably more powerful than both put together -- thanks to differences with India.

Apologists like the candle wavers at Wagah will undoubtedly argue that the 'people of Pakistan' want peace. I do not believe this but, for the sake of argument, what difference does it make how they feel? The Pakistani army runs policy, not the Pakistani people.

Coming back to Dr Manmohan Singh's bid for peace, it is possible that he does not want to put pressure on Pakistan when the Taliban and Al Qaeda seem to have turned on the Pakistani establishment. And I am absolutely certain that there is a great deal of American 'diplomacy' too just now.

If history offers any pointers, this too is a futile exercise. Pakistan will squeeze all that it can from the United States -- and then plant the bulk of all military aid on the Indian border. What else can you expect from a country with a minister so moronic that he will claim that India has joined hands with the Taliban to plot against Pakistan?

Rehman Malik, the Pakistani interior minister, who made that absurd statement, may be delusional but not more so than anyone in Delhi that entertains hopes of lasting friendship with Islamabad.

For the record, I do not want Pakistan to break up because of all the chaos that such a thing would cause, especially with the prospect of Pakistani nuclear arms falling into Muslim fundamentalist hands. Nor do I want any form of union with any part of Pakistan; given its six decades of servility and dictatorship, Pakistanis have no concept of living in a democratic society.

All I expect of any government in Delhi is to maintain a watch on the borders. I do not expect peace with Pakistan, much less 'generosity' by India.

Will the glitter of a Nobel gold outshine common sense?

The Latin tag on the Nobel Peace Prize medal is inscribed around a peculiar image designed by Gustav Vigeland -- three men, the one in the one seemingly forcing the other two into an embrace. In today's context you could interpret the trio as India, the United States, and Pakistan.

Will the glitter of a Nobel outshine common sense?: Rediff.com India News

 

[tarunraju]

After the Nobel Peace Prize went to Obama earlier this year, I totally lost faith in it. So should any sane world leader.

 

[Known_Unknown]

This article should hopefully open the eyes of the peaceniks.

The dialogue process is just too inadequate to meet the challenges from Pakistan, writes former R&AW chief A K Verma.


Talks with Pak will only end in frustration: Rediff.com India News

A continuous pressure emanates from a segment of Indian elite for maintaining a dialogue process with Pakistan, directly or indirectly, for a solution of Indo Pak problems.

No doubt dialogue is always advisable between any two contending parties and in the case of India and Pakistan has led to many confidence building measures like the Indus Water Treaty, cross border travel facilities and certain agreements in the nuclear field. But such dialogues over several decades carried on directly or indirectly by government representatives or by what are known as think tanks in the two countries have not been able to make any headway on the core issues, one, to whom Kashmir belongs and, two now, the total elimination of terror.

In the government to government dialogues there were spikes which built up a mood of hope and expectations but these ultimately got crushed by the hard rock of reality which is the perceived bedrock of Pakistan.

The dialogue between think tanks and other similar groups belonging to the media, academia and other well wishers have rarely reached anywhere on account of a variety of reasons. The access of such luminaries to wide segments of society, polity and the common man, in the rural and urban sectors, has remained extremely limited. Often their judgments are crony based, self serving or even addressed to the interests of those who fund them.

A host of powerful groups that control the destiny of the State or constitute public opinion in Pakistan remain well beyond their reach. Apart from the military establishment of serving officers, such clusters should include extremists, radicals, terror spinners, students, hard core religious orthodox and bigoted clergy and the ordinary folks in city slums and rural hinterland who all seek to have an opinion of their own on Kashmir, India, religious nationalism and puritanism, and their desired options, which fail to be given due prominence.

Successful dialogues between government to government in which some measure of progress was achieved in the core issues number only three in the bilateral history of the two countries. The first was at Simla where Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, prime minister of Pakistan in 1972, assured then Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi [ Images ] about recognising Indian claims on Kashmir.

To be fair to Bhutto, on returning to Pakistan, he started preparing the people of Pakistan through his speeches to expect a change in the Pakistan's position on Kashmir. Public reactions indicated confusion, consternation and finally complete opposition to whatever Bhutto had in mind.

Bhutto had to discredit himself with Indira Gandhi. He also stood discredited with the people of Pakistan. Some believe that his journey to the gallows commenced in fact from this point.

The second attempt was by Zia-ul Huq, then president of Pakistan, in 1988. The general had come to believe that confrontation with India was costing heavy to the people of Pakistan in terms of absence of development and economic progress and that a compromise should be sought with India on key issues. He got his corps commanders from whom real power emanates in Pakistan to support his thinking.

A new dialogue commenced between the two countries through high level representatives, away from public glare and unknown to the normal channels of communications. The dialogue resulted in some spectacular meeting of minds on Siachen, general reduction in the level of armed forces of the two countries, contours of an outline of a possible solution of the Kashmir question etc.

At Indian insistence Pakistan forwarded to India the proposed new delineation of actual contours along the Sal Toro ranges in Siachen, on a GHQ survey of Pakistan map.

As steps were being taken to translate these ideas from the top secret back channel to the official domain, the corps commanders in Pakistan probably realised what an enormous shift in the balance of power between the two countries would come about on the concessions being made and how the military establishment in Pakistan will turn out to be the ultimate loser in the process.

It is difficult to say what steps the corps commanders took to stall the process which already had developed a momentum of its own but the whole world knows that Zia died in a mysterious air crash in August that year. The cause of the crash has never been disclosed.

Surprisingly, the existence of this dialogue has been totally denied by subsequent Pakistani governments. There is now not a scrap of paper in the government archives in Pakistan to provide proof that such a dialogue did take place. The only solid evidence is the GHQ Survey of Pakistan map received from Pakistan.

One of the visible manifestations of the good that the dialogue created was the suo motto release of four Indian Sikh soldiers who had defected to Pakistan earlier that year, misguided by Khalistani propaganda.

The coordinates of the area where the release was to take place and the date of the release were determined by the Pakistani representative and communicated to his Indian contact who passed on the information to the BSF which picked up the four defectors from the identified spot.

The recapture of these soldiers was just a bonus handed over by the Pakistani side to establish their bonafides. Khalistan was not discussed at all during the dialogue.

This episode is reflective of the hard and solemn reality of Pakistan. Power resides absolutely in the hands of the military establishment there. No price, no sacrifice, is considered too great by them to preserve their interests.

If a subjective, speculative and cynical conclusion can be drawn, it will be that the dialogue process got two top powerful personalities in Pakistan to lose their lives.

The third episode is equally telling, demonstrating that the combined powers of the head of State and head of the military establishment fall way short of challenges thrown up by public prejudices and religious propensities.

President General Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] discovered this when he ordered surrender of unlicensed weapons and registration of madrasas in Pakistan soon after seizing power. The underlying clash was between the military might and Islamic might. The former threw in the towel and beat a hasty retreat.

So, when Musharraf promised to the US and India that he would not allow the territory of Pakistan to be used for cross border operations, the discerning knew that it would be a hollow promise as it indeed proved to be

The military and the extremist establishments were just not willing to abide by his diplomatic undertakings, underlying once again the acute limits of the dialogue process and the capability of any power centre in Pakistan to take unconventional decisions.

The Kerry Lugar enactment of the United States Congress, just signed into a law by the US president, imposing conditonalities on US civilian aid to Pakistan of $1.5 billion yearly for five years, provided an occasion to the world to glimpse again Pakistani reluctance to mend its ways.

The law, among other things, seeks to ensure two red lines for the Pakistan establishment; one, the military should remain under civilian control, and two, the territories of Pakistan should not be allowed to be used for terror against neighbours.

The reactions of the military and the public in general, including the elite, indicated that they had felt revolted by such conditions. In other words, the ruling structure and public opinion in Pakistan, by and large, spell out the message that they are unwilling to modify their ways, even if this US aid brings a great deal of succour to their faltering economy.

Apparently, starvation is preferred to withdrawal of a policy of terrorism against neighbours. What hope can, therefore, be entertained for any dialogue process to reach any meaningful end?

Such a mindset is not a product of recent history. At least a millennium has gone by producing factors, contributing to the psychology of this frame of mind. There are Pakistanis who believe Pakistan started incubating when the first Muslim stepped on the shores of the Indian subcontinent. Muslim encroachments and pillaging expeditions into India and subsequent establishment of Muslim ruling dynasties in India sparked off dreams that the whole of India should rightfully be ruled by Muslims.

Nobody in his right senses could agree to such an absurd proposition but such formulations have been voiced again recently by leaders of terrorist organisations in Pakistan like the Lashkar-e-Tayiba. For them creation of Pakistan is just an intermediate milestone in the march of history.

Events in Pakistan since its constitution when its founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah [ Images ] had envisaged Pakistan as a secular State, to present times when radical Islam seems to be in strategic control of the country, holds out many lessons for our own country.

National frontiers cannot hold back spread of ideologies. Radical Islam has already crossed the borders into India. It is a phenomenon that, starting from a little spot in the deserts of Arabia, has spread across continents, ravaging and destroying empires, countries, religions and people.

As Pakistan sinks deeper into the clutches of Talibanised and jihadi Islam, its threat to India as a nation with a composite culture and multi-ethnic society is assuming monumental dimensions.

Today, Islamic radicalism using terror as a tool constitutes the most serious danger India faces, larger than the Naxal threat which has been publicly described by the government as the top-most threat to India.

Compulsions of politics prevent Islamic terrorism from being identified in its true colours. How can dialogue be a success with a party that sponsors jihadi extremism against India?

Pakistani cannot withdraw from its involvement with terrorism as it has converted it into a multinational enterprise, with theatres of operations spread through all those areas in the world where Islamic interests have been under pressure. The target is not just establishing an Islamic Caliphate in Delhi but also all around the world.

With the rate of growth of their populations in mind, the Islamic radicals have said that time is on their side and, sooner or later, Europe will become Euro-Arabistan, England Londonistan and so on.

Al Qaeda has invited the US to convert to Islam or run the risk of decimation. All incidents of Islamic terrorism in any part of the world have been found to have links with Pakistan in one way or other.

As new potential terrorists are discovered and apprehended in US and Europe, Pakistani links surface again and again. Therefore to imagine that terrorism against India will be given up will remain an unrealistic hope.

The same applies to the Kashmir issue also. Besides, the Pakistani leadership is also on record for stating that a solution of the Kashmir question will not end their confrontation with India.

Pakistani enmity for India is abiding. It is reflected glaringly in its educational, military and nuclear doctrines. Not only the madrasas but also the government approved text books in schools and colleges demonise India, indoctrinating the young minds with hatred for India.

One can ask the NGOs and think tanks that pitch in time and again for resumption and continuance of the dialogue process how many of them have asked for revision of text books to replace the animosity and hatred they teach, with a call for a friendly, compassionate and neighbourly fellow feeling.

Never has sympathy stirred the hearts of Pakistanis when attacks by Pakistani terrorists have killed innocents, women and children in India. Enmity with India makes Pakistan focus its military and nuclear doctrine entirely against India. Increasing Islamisation of the rank and file of Pakistani military and nuclear establishment makes reconciliation with India almost impossible.

There are good reasons to believe that some in Pakistan are itching to unleash the nuclear arsenal on India. It will simply be unwise to think that the logic of deterrence that operated during the Cold War can be the guiding lights for the irrational minds that govern Pakistan.

Several other issues harden the Pakistani posture with anti India feelings. Regarding India as hegemonistic lands Pakistan in a perpetual conflictual stance. Search for parity with India in strength and influence amounts to a vain effort to prove geography wrong.

Plans of a modus vivendi remain unattainable because of the unquenched thirst for revenge in the Pakistani armed forces which suffered successive defeats in wars with India.

The causes of defeat remain incomprehensible to the military mind which then turns to the delusional solace that devotion to religion will turn the tables against the adversary.

Since wars have failed to produce the desired results and have even led to the division of the country, a strategy of subversion, sabotage, terrorism and proxy war has been substituted, that despite mounting international and bilateral pressure Pakistan is refusing to give up.

Growing Islamic radicalisation in Pakistan makes a change of policy there infinitely more difficult. Use of terror has created its own rules of the game. The initiatives have now passed beyond the hands of the State and the controller himself is being threatened.

The short objective of the proxy war and terrorism against India was to initiate another two nation theory movement in India. Unless Pakistan moves away from the two nation theory it will be just futile to expect any change in Pakistani policies and practices. Till then Pakistani assurances should be rejected as too often in the past Pakistan has betrayed the trust reposed in its words, written or otherwise.

The dialogue process is just too inadequate to meet the challenges from Pakistan. First, they have to be fought at the ideological level and then at the field level. What the response at the field level should be needs to be thought out in advance and appropriate measures kept ready, to be launched at a moment's notice on any new transgression.A majority of citizens of the country are likely to respect a bold and blunt policy.
A K Verma

 

[nitesh]

My point however is that in order to be objective, one must first realize that a cohort of people given similar circumstances (lets say middle class, educated, well traveled etc. South Asians) are more or less likely to have similar aspirations. Now they may not be able to act on those aspirations or achieve them because of ambient circumstances in a given country, but they are there nonetheless. Just because someone is Pakistani doesn't mean they are permanently impaired or that they are entirely unable to understand what is going on.

I was expecting you will write something like this the whole nonsense of educted people having similar aspirations and all do read thi8s:

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Tackling extremism

Many of the pseudo-intellectuals of HT are also highly educated, including the nuclear scientist and computer and telecom engineers who were recently arrested along with other HT activists during a police raid in Islamabad. It came as no surprise to me that nuclear scientists were among those accused of belonging to HT, considering that this is exactly why I was sent to Pakistan as far back as 1999. In the year 2000, I had also personally met Pakistani Army officers in London, who had been training at Sandhurst. HT had recruited them to its cause, and then sent them back to Pakistan.

In return, I heard from them about how they think and feel about Pakistan’s problems, and their aspirations for the future of their country. We discussed the need to tackle extremism on an ideological level, and the steps Pakistan would have to take towards a more democratic and pluralistic society and government. The reactions I received were mixed, but they spoke volumes for those who populate Pakistan’s universities.

Students from Sindh tended to be hugely receptive to my message, whilst those in Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, from where the majority of British Pakistanis hail, expressed much greater hostility towards the West. In Quetta, the prevailing preoccupation was with ‘Punjabi hegemony’; here I encountered popular revolutionaries with little time for religious extremism but a hardened resolve to secede from Pakistan, in some cases through violence.

Ironically, the most violent opposition to my efforts didn’t come from Pakistani students at all — it came from a British-Pakistani member of HT who decided to punch me one evening in a cafe in Lahore. I later learned that he, like several others, had left the UK to recruit students in Pakistan, and to do this had started teaching at a private university in Lahore.

one more so called educted one:
'Rename Buckingham Palace as Buckingham Masjid'

background of person: Anjem Choudary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Energon]

^^ You have merely shown examples of some terrorists being highly educated, particularly the ideologues, a well documented fact; how does that prove that most educated people are terrorists?

Ideologues of most extreme movements tend to be well educated, as do some of their pseudo-intellectual minions, again a well documented fact. The upper and some middle leadership of the Indian Maoist movement is testament to this fact. That in no way means that all educated people are extremists, the statistics are vastly against your conclusion.

 

[nitesh]

^^ All the statistics in the world are with you haan? How you can prove that what ever you are saying is correct with actions on ground.

 

[Singh]

^^ All the statistics in the world are with you haan? How you can prove that what ever you are saying is correct with actions on ground.

Future is unpredictable, so of course he can't prove a future event but having a stable Pak is beneficial for all [with riders attached] and we ought to strive for the same.

 

[ajtr]

in current geopolitics and geo -strategic situation its better for india to have unstable pakistan at our borders which is fighting with itself for its survival.with china breathing down at our neck we dont want stable-pak-china combo.its better not to engage with 2 enemeis at a time.so better keep pak unsable and engage china.