Why the existence of Pakistan is not in India’s interest

Discussion in 'Pakistan' started by Blackwater, Dec 24, 2012.

  1. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    20,983
    Likes Received:
    11,810
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat
    [​IMG]

    Pakistan has been a thorn in India’s left side for 65 years, and amazingly, India has tolerated its pain and irritation, against most odds of human nature. After four wars and multiple proxy wars waged by Pakistan, it still doesn’t count as much for India – a big elephant that is difficult to move. India’s Pakistan policy practices restraint and constraint against an enemy that hates it, that was born in conflict against India in brutal bloodshed, and even now hopes one day to overcome a weak India.

    Pakistan still has the energy and gumption to promote proxy wars in India via Nepal, Bangladesh, and, of course, Kashmir.
    Despite all the difficulties that Pakistan has faced and faces – internal political turmoil and terrorist threats, external issues in Afghanistan, an economy that is on the verge of collapse, and being condemned around the world for its export of terrorism – Pakistan still has the energy and gumption to promote proxy wars in India via Nepal, Bangladesh, and, of course, Kashmir. Which concept of rationality in the modern world can accept Pakistan’s belligerent and incongruent worldview, at a time when the civilized world wishes peace and economic prosperity against a threatening climate, growing population, an oncoming oil crisis, and worldwide economic woes?

    By all facts and accounts, Pakistan has been sapping India’s productive and psychic energy every day for 65 years. It is somewhat true that Pakistan has been bleeding India by a thousand cuts. Look at the billions of hours of productive time and newspaper print and headlines wasted on a Pakistan that is an affliction for India and perhaps the world. None of the energy spent on Pakistan counts towards India’s GDP or improved industrial productivity, nor does it improve the economic position of India. The industrial production of India, creativeness of its engineers and thinkers, and ability to gain a foothold in the world has been compromised because a Pakistan exists that threatens war on the subcontinent, distracts national pursuits for excellence, and thereby diminishes foreign investment and confidence in India. For India to grow and have peace and confidence, it must get rid of the Pakistan that obstructs it in many ways, even standing against it in its quest for a rightful position on the permanent Security Council, and one that tried vehemently to oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal.


    Pakistan is more dangerous as an independent state positioned to be taken over by terrorist elements supported by a manipulative ISI than under Indian control. In fact, the USA must find merit in the argument that it can better contain the terrorists and Taliban with India controlling them than they themselves. While the USA realizes that Pakistan is duplicitous with its terrorists, the USA is unable to see through the haze that can only be seen by those who have lived with Pakistan and in Pakistan’s neighborhood forever, such as India. Neither does Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai trust Pakistan, nor do the Iranian Shia’s have much love for Pakistan’s Sunnis, even though the Iranians acquired nuclear technology from A Q Khan. A Pakistan that doesn’t exist is safer for the world than a Pakistan that does.


    Pakistan is more dangerous as an independent state positioned to be taken over by terrorist elements supported by a manipulative ISI than under Indian control.
    Once every few years, Pakistan feigns interest for diplomacy and negotiations (cricket diplomacy, bus diplomacy, this or that) and often brings up ethnic and language similarity with India to suit its temporary interests – only to back off at the last minute and plot new proxy wars or battles against India. This is of no use to India; in fact, it is a hindrance in India’s quest to be a self-confident power in and of itself. Pakistan presumably hates India and starts an anxiety disorder each time it realizes that Kashmir may slip from it is grip. Now, in another deceptive move, Pakistan recommends that India withdraw from Siachen – a mistake India can ill afford to make after the mistakes of Haji Pir and the return of 93,000 POW’s. Withdraw from Siachen for what? Only for Pakistan and China to occupy it in a sudden move before the onset of a future China-Pakistan joint invasion of Ladakh? None of the satellite monitoring or UN observation systems will be effective at that time, and China and Pakistan will be staring down at Leh and the valley of Ladakh in free sport. The sooner that India can realize it cannot ever trust Pakistan on anything, the healthier it is for India. In that vein, the dialogue and negotiation with Pakistan that is thrust on India by the USA, only helps to prolong the inevitable and the burning pain. The only way to put Pakistan in its place is to possibly have no truck with it, perhaps even not trade with it. One reason that India often enters into negotiations with Pakistan is because its diplomats need to generate work for themselves to justify their existence; also, the USA quite often exerts pressure on India in its usual patronizing attitude to negotiate with Pakistan.

    This is not healthy.Among the most feared aspects of a war with Pakistan is the nuclear element. Now that India has allowed Pakistan to move ahead in this department in the 1970s and 1980s, and failed to implement Operation Brasstacks into a fully fledged invasion of Pakistan, India has to bite the bullet on this score. Though Pakistan threatens India with nuclear retaliation in an all-out war, that too must not hold India back against trashing Pakistan. Whatever others may believe, my opinion is simply that it is better for India to brave a costly nuclear attack by Pakistan, and get it over with even at the cost of tens of millions of deaths, than suffer ignominy and pain day in and day out through a thousand cuts and wasted energy in unrealized potential. This is not to say that the objective can’t be achieved without a nuclear war. In this respect, India’s no-first strike policy stands it in very good stead. In fact the process objective must be to achieve the strategic objective through conventional war. Without the elimination of Pakistan, India may never become a secure nation where the mind is held high without fear, and cannot ever hope to attract the type of foreign investment it needs for its economic growth. In addition, the psychological boost that India will get by eliminating Pakistan is unequal in and of itself—one which can propel India into the status of a future, stable, democratic, competitive, responsible, and secular nation.



    Neither does Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai trust Pakistan, nor do the Iranian Shia’s have much love for Pakistan’s Sunnis, even though the Iranians acquired nuclear technology from A Q Khan. A Pakistan that doesn’t exist is safer for the world than a Pakistan that does.
    Analysts tend to ask what will happen to a Pakistan if India defeats it in battle. The answer is not complicated at all: Baluchistan will become independent, but under Indian security arrangements; Kashmir will revert to India; Sindh and West Punjab will be de-weaponized and become special states under Indian protection; and the entire NWFP handed over to the Pathans for a Pakhtoonistan that includes Southern Afghanistan and Kandahar. This will have ramifications on Afghanistan, as well, which may then naturally divide into two for its own peace and stability; Afghanistan’s northern areas consisting of the Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazaras, need to form their own country because they have little in emotional and filial bond with the Pathans. This whole reorganization will change the boundaries of the region, but one that has to be undertaken which will be a welcome change to the current bloodshed, turmoil, and export of terrorism. Very often, major change is needed to change the status quo when minor changes don’t succeed.



    Much of this is against formal Indian foreign and security policy. The United Nations might also tend to balk at the destruction of a nation member, though it is likely that the West may not shed tears at this. But, this article is not being written to agree with Indian policies, or to present a framework within those policies, or to appease those who worship the Indian mentality. Quite to the contrary, a reformation in Indian policies is presented, and perhaps indicated, one that can give confidence and bring esteem to its people. It is in this light that a new paradigm is advanced. For instance, for long, the Indian policy has been to not engage in cross-border attacks, especially since Prime Minister Inder Gujral passed an ordinance to that effect in the late 1990s. But, such instructions are counter-productive, and Pakistan has taken full advantage of that policy by increasing its own cross-border infiltration. It is to be pointed out that Indian security policies are nothing to be proud of simply for the sake of pride in government. Policies that trample on sustainable Indian pride must be dismantled. The writer feels that the implementation of this new paradigm is ripe for action at this current time where Pakistan is reeling under internal imbalances. If a boxer will not knock out his opponent when the opponent is dizzy and imbalanced, then other opportunities are only guesswork.
    Eventually, for India to succeed, Pakistan must be out of the picture and cease to exist for peace on earth, and India must actively work towards that objective rather than waiting passively in spectator stands.



    Subsequently, India must realize that it has deep religious and philosophical opposition in countries beyond Pakistan to the West. Saudi Arabia finances and supports Pakistan in every way possible and depends on Pakistan for its nuclear shield; the Arab nations have deep links to Pakistan. Discussion on what India needs to do in countries west of Pakistan is best left to another article. However, it can be well understood that India needs to fully secure its western flank and neutralize all threats from the west in order to concentrate better on China and Tibet, and thus strengthen its hand on the eastern flank. Thus, India needs to confront the uncertain future boldly, be a force in the region, spread the message of humanitarian rights and equal opportunity, project itself in the interests of peace and equanimity in the region, and avail of opportunities long before it is itself divided and dismembered.



    Thus, the ideal planning option for India is to invest heavily on liberating Pakistan, invest massively in engineering enterprise and education that can advance indigenous armament production, and double or triple its ship building programs and shipyards in which it has exceptional expertise and capability; and it must plan this in ten years, for the plan to be effective to carry a punch. These actions will ipso facto stimulate Indian industry, GDP growth, and bring employment and happiness to its people. Very few educated people understand that money printed but used for stimulating indigenous manufacturing industries actually stimulates the economy, while inflation is checked by means such as control of interest rates and free trade with South East Asian nations. For India to throw its money into foreign nations for expensive defense procurement does not sound like wisdom in action, though one cannot deny that importing defense equipment may be necessary on occasion. India actually begs for enlightened leadership that has moral fiber and a spine to go with it. It is time for the politicians to stop squabbling, for the generals to relearn service in the name of the nation rather than being involved in corruption scandals, and for the nation to get its priorities right and initiate industrial, agricultural, and trade reform. Eventually, for India to succeed, Pakistan must be out of the picture and cease to exist for peace on earth, and India must actively work towards that objective rather than waiting passively in spectator stands.

    http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/why-the-existence-of-pakistan-is-not-in-indias-interest/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 24, 2012
  2.  
  3. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    20,983
    Likes Received:
    11,810
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat
  4. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,285
    Likes Received:
    2,116
    Location:
    The Republic of India
    Good article, but it re-iterates what has already been said in hundreds before. The existence of Pakistan is not in the interest of a world which wishes to eliminate terror. The US which is a bed-fellow with the Pakistanis must play a decisive role in eliminating and breaking Pakistan up. However, it does not wish to do so because no Pakistan means a resurgent and super-assertive India which is against American interests. This equation is a tough one and we have to solve it carefully.
    However, I fully agree with the essence of the article, we have to beat Pakistan to the punch. It's either us or them, this must be the attitude, then and then only can India even hope to be the power it dreams of being.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2012
    Mad Indian likes this.
  5. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    I have not read the whole article but a few flaws already.

    1. Sindh cannot be independent without an independent Jinanhpur. Where will the Muhajirs go ?
    2. What about Baloch areas in Afghanistan, and Iran. Pashtuns dominate northern Balochistan, what about them ?
    3. Seraikistan is not there, what about exploiting the Seraikistan faultline ?
    4. We don't want Mirpur or Punjabi speaking Kashmir
     
  6. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,273
    Likes Received:
    11,280
    Location:
    BANGalore
    @Singh, they will fight it out. Anarchy of independent states mean safety for India.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  7. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    How is present scenario bad for us ?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  8. datguy79

    datguy79 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    937
    Location:
    Canada
    A few other issues:

    - I doubt India wants to set a precedent wherein it is acceptable to go to nuclear war. (Hint: Chinese leaders are crazy and hell-bent on military conquest somewhere down the line.)
    - I like how the author simplifies the Pashtun issue. Yes the Pashtun are concentrated in the east and south but preferential government policies with regards to land have allowed them to move all over the country over the past century. So it is not as easy as the author makes it to be. Also why should northern Afghanistan have to endure the presence of 50 million+ pashtuns in a theocratic and non-functioning Pashtunistan?
    - If such a thing ever happened, India has to man up and incorporate Pakistan Punjab. Time to show your secular colours. I suppose if Pak Punjab had a low population you would all be clamoring to get it. India has more than enough Hindus to maintain a hindu majority state for centuries to come, and by that time I hope religion stops being such a big issue.
     
  9. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,273
    Likes Received:
    11,280
    Location:
    BANGalore
    They are united. They have a semblance of strategic depth. A Pakistan confined to Punjab without access to sea is game over.
    No Balochistan, No Pakhtunland, No Sindh. In all probability their will war. Before that civil war and what not.

    India can have it easy.
     
    Mad Indian and jalsa like this.
  10. Decklander

    Decklander New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,654
    Likes Received:
    4,043
    Location:
    New Delhi
    The present set up is bad for us as the assets of four provinces get united to develop and buy weapons against us. A small province will have very small economy and so will not be able to divert money for weaponisation or creating nukes and missiles when it will have no depth to defend.
    They will be forced to seek peace with thr neighbours. Balochistan has largest area and best resources. Punjab has least resources and largest population, Sindh has them in nearly equal terms. Once you make Pak Punjab Landlocked with Pashtoons & Sindhies who hate them on oneside and India on the other, what option will they have?
     
    Mad Indian, jalsa and Dovah like this.
  11. Dovah

    Dovah Untermensch Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    3,273
    Location:
    Modindia
    This could make their nuclear threshold go even lower don't you think?
     
  12. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,273
    Likes Received:
    11,280
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Depends on the strategy. The OP hints more on Indo-US cooperation covert I guess. Unless India openly is at war. Well it also depends on who starts the war. India has never started war. Pakistan has started some form of conflict once every decade or so. We are due for the next one. India should not let to of the opportunity to break them apart. Nukes or no nukes.
     
  13. Dovah

    Dovah Untermensch Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    3,273
    Location:
    Modindia
    What is the chance that the Pakjabis will wrest control of their arsenal after a partition, conventional forces would be divided proportionately I think.

    If and when such an opportunity presents itself India should grab it, but our strategy should be clear on what collateral damage is acceptable.

    Also the 'freed' states might be passively hostile to India, a la Bangladesh. Not to mention the China factor.
     
  14. Decklander

    Decklander New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,654
    Likes Received:
    4,043
    Location:
    New Delhi
    Chanakya had stated that you must chew bit by bit. First Librate balochistan, than Sindh. Pakistan will collapse on its own. The King of Kalat had sent a signed instrument of accession to Nehru which he refused. Can you believe the cost which India is paying for the stupidities of Nehru? Nepal also agreed to be part of India in 1956 but Nehru refused. The fifth seat in Permanant security council was first offered to India but Nehru gave it away to China. This is our true History and a statement that this nation must call Nehru the biggest idiot and blunder of this nation.
    And who forced Nehru on this nation? The rate expat indian now called Bapu and father of the nation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2012
    Mad Indian and gokussj9 like this.
  15. gokussj9

    gokussj9 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Location:
    USA
    WOW!! I had only heard about security council thingy but refusing the accession of Kalat and Nepal, Just WOW!!
     
  16. Dovah

    Dovah Untermensch Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    3,273
    Location:
    Modindia
    The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

    But,

    Obama supports adding India as a permanent member of U.N. Security Council

    I'm not really sure what to believe.

    But the question is how?

    1.Ferment civil unrest.

    Possible but not much would come out of it since Pakis won't hesitate to massacre the Baloch.

    2. Direct action/War.

    The same question of their nuclear threshold arises again.
     
  17. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,273
    Likes Received:
    11,280
    Location:
    BANGalore
    @Decklander, Sir, we were never offered a seat on the SC. It's a myth propagated.

    Your statement on Kalats accession to India as well as Nepals offer to accede is news to me. Can you provide some reference reading on this.

    And finally and most importantly, Gandhi is NOT the Father of the Nation. The GoI in an RTI reply recently said India does not have a policy of giving any such titles. So basically it remains a title given by Netaji Bose which has stuck with him out of "love and respect" more than anything else especially because Congress ruled for the better part of the first 50 years.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  18. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,273
    Likes Received:
    11,280
    Location:
    BANGalore
    The fifth seat could not have been offered to us coz when th UN was formed in 45, Formosa aka Taiwan aka Republic of China was already a member of the SC. There was no vacant fifth spot that could have been offered to us.
     
  19. Virendra

    Virendra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    2,923
    Location:
    Delhi, India, India
    Pakistan would splinter when the separatist movements like in Sinch, Baluchistan etc would find organized political leadership.
    This could come around only when the PA stops killing the existing leaders and the GoP's weakening leaves further political vacuum in the restive provinces.
    In present circumstances, I find these hard to come by. May be 10 years down the line we can see some change.
    About the nuclear threshold, we don't know who will end up with what share of the pie (not the geography) when Pakistan breaks up. Partition itself is a very volatile event.
    So the post-partition nuclear capabilities and thresholds can only be speculated about.

    Regards,
    Virendra
     
  20. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    To bring in the much needed reality into the thread - we could not do anything when their caricature of an interior minister came here and trolled the hell out of us, but then that does not stop from breaking their country into 4 or 5 pieces...:dude:
     
  21. Decklander

    Decklander New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,654
    Likes Received:
    4,043
    Location:
    New Delhi
    Pls go thru the links in detail. It is also part of official history of partition.
    Kalat, Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Also the links regarding Nepal,
    The Hindu : Malkani's line on Nepal sparks row
    Nepal Genealogy - WorldGenWeb Project

    Refarding the SC seat you people have debated here already and do not wish to add anymore to it.
    http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ow-nehru-turned-down-permanant-unsc-seat.html
    India’s security council seat was given up. « Back to Bharat
    The Nehruvian approach

    I had read an article that when Nehru's mother was pregnant, a sage on the banks of river Ganga saw her and called Motilal and asked him to either get the child aborted or kill his wiife by giving her Zaher (Poison) as she was carrying a demon who will bring untold miseries to India. Motilal's wife overheard a bit of the conversation as she was some 5-7 steps away from the sage, and after the sage went away, she asked Motilal as to why sage had used the word Zaher? motilal said that sage did not use zaher but jawaher as this child will a daimond for this nation. That is how Jawaher got his name even before being born.
    Imagine that prophecy has come so true.
    Nehru is not only responsible for the partition of India and defeat in 1962 but in his bid to be bigger than Churchill & Roosevelt as a statesman of international standing he started Non alighned movement and did all stupid things for which all our generations since independence have been paying a price all across the region which was part of India when Nehru was born.
     

Share This Page