Is a stable Pakistan in our interest?

[Flint]

US has done far more to keep Pakistan together than any other country in the world. From weapons sales to economic aid to supporting Pakistan in international forums, US has always supported Pakistan. The second biggest US embassy in the world is located in Pakistan. Expecting US to work for India's interests, especially looking at the past 60+ year history and disregarding their own is the biggest fallacy for any Indian. Especially since it continues to be quite malleable to US interests and basically follows their ****tats in issues concerning them.

What is really funny though is that most Pakistanis are by far more anti-American than anti-Indian.


P.S.: I request all those who make a statement either way to actually discuss WHY they think that way. Otherwise its just emotional rhetoric with no sound basis.

So true. They have propped up Pakistan since the 50s. Its the USA's various military alliances (SEATO, CENTO) which allowed Pakistani army to survive in the face of IA to begin with.

 

[Singh]

Why did the British build railways, canals, adminstrative services in India ?
The more the GDP of British India the more money will go in the Angrez's pockets.

Lets use Chankyan (Urdu sp. ) philosophy. A stable democratic Pak and a stable IndoPak relationship.

1. Greater Indian influence we are after all 80% of the economy and with peace will be the supreme power
2. Greater Markets we are a nation of entrepreneurs hungry for newer markets and Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan are keen markets
3. Greater Investment opportunities Indian companies would love to invest in Pakistan, as the conditions are similar.
4. Cheaper Land, Resources and Labour for setting up Cost-Competitive Industries whilst India shifts to high value addition industries
5. We can turn Haryana, UP and Punjab into Industrialized provinces and convert Sindh and W.Punjab into our granaries.

India will increase its GDP rapidly, Pakistan will be able to arrest its economic decline. No arms race. Pak is a winner, We are a double winner and finally the Brown Indians will dominate the Fair Arabs/Persians (depending on sect Sunni/Shia)

 

[sky]

I think destabilized pakistan is in our interest..

You may have a point,however as a new member i think you should try to be a little constructive in your post's.If you think a destabilized pak is in india's interest ,please explain why?

 

[Singh]

To Understand Pakistan​

1947 Is The Wrong Lens The hurt that moves Pakistan is from a wound more recent—1971

Khurram Hussain

On a recent trip to India, I was moved by the genuine concern people have about Pakistan. As a Pakistani living in the United States, I am subjected daily to serious exasperation, courtesy the American media. Americans do not understand Pakistan because they do not care. And there is no real knowledge without caring. Indians certainly do care. Pakistan has been on the Indian mind since the moment of their co-creation. India and Pakistan are like two ends of a thread tied in a fantastic Gordian knot; their attachment magically survives their severance. And how the love grows! The recent Jaswant Singh controversy over Jinnah only partially unveiled how Pakistan is critical to the ideological coherence of Indian nationalism in both its secular and Hindutva varieties. But behind this veil, Pakistan has always been internal to Indian politics. It should come as no surprise then that establishment Indians (bureaucratic and political elites, intellectuals, media types, and the chattering classes) are well-versed in the nuances of Pakistani society. Indians understand Pakistan like no one else does, or can.

Still, there is this curious blind spot: no one in India appears to remember 1971. Worse, no one seems to think it relevant. For all their sophistication, Indian elites continue to understand Pakistan primarily with reference to the events of 1947. Anything else is incidental, not essential. The established Indian paradigms for explaining Pakistan, its actions and its institutions, its state and society, have not undergone any significant shift since the Partition. The tropes remain the same: religion and elite manipulation explain everything. It is as if the pre-Partition politics of the Muslim League continues to be the politics of Pakistan—with slight non-essential variations. More than 60 years on, the factors may be different but little else has changed.

This view is deeply flawed. It reflects a serious confusion about the founding event of contemporary Pakistani society. The Partition has a mesmerising quality that blinds the mind, a kind of notional heft that far outweighs its real significance to modern South Asian politics. The concerns of the state of Pakistan, the anxieties of its society, and the analytic frames of its intellectual and media elites have as their primary reference not 1947 but the traumatic vivisection of the country in 1971. Indians have naturally focused on their own vivisection, their own dismemberment; but for Pakistan, they have focused on the wrong date. This mix-up has important consequences.

First, Indians tend not to remember 1971 as a Pakistani civil war, but rather as India’s “good” war. It is remembered as an intervention by India to prevent the genocide of Bengalis by Pakistanis. The fact that the Bengalis themselves were also Pakistanis has been effaced from the collective memory of Indian elites. This makes 1971 merely another Kargil, or Kashmir, Afghanistan or Mumbai—an instance of Pakistan meddling in other people’s affairs, and of the Pakistani military’s adventurism in the region. This is why mention of Balochistan at Sharm el-Sheikh created such a stir in India. It was literally incomprehensible to Indians that Pakistan could accuse India of meddling in its internal affairs. Surely, this is the pot calling the kettle black. But what the Indian mind perceives as Pakistan’s ongoing divorce from reality is in fact Pakistan’s most fundamental political reality. The Pakistani establishment has internalised the memory of 1971. In all things, and at all times, it must account for India. Dismemberment has the requisite effect of focusing the mind on existential matters. Nothing can be taken for granted.

Second, the Indian establishment routinely misconstrues as ideological schizophrenia the Pakistani intellectual classes’ complicated responses to India. The nuances of the Pakistani experience of India are the very picture of incoherence to them. Worse, Pakistanis often frustrate the project of creating a common South Asian sensibility to bridge the political gaps between the two communities.

But again, no one in India accounts for 1971 when making such grand universalising (and, if I may add, genuinely noble) plans for the future of the region. Pakistani intellectual elites share with their Indian counterparts the normative horror of what the West Pakistani military did in the East. How can anyone in their right mind not deem such behaviour beyond the pale? But horror does not preclude abiding distaste for the Indian state’s wilful opportunism in breaking Pakistan apart. It is for this reason that while the intellectual classes in Pakistan, especially the English language press and prominent university scholars, have almost always condemned their state’s involvement in terrorist activity inside India proper, they have remained largely quiet concerning Kashmir. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Kashmir does not seem so different to them than East Pakistan.

It is for this same reason that there was no great outcry about the isi’s supposed involvement in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. The general sense among the educated elites was that India deserved it for trying to “encircle” Pakistan through Afghanistan. Indians process this either as paranoia or as a visceral hatred of India that blinds Pakistanis to facts. Perhaps there is some of this too. But it bears appreciating that Pakistan is a post-civil war society. Fear and anxiety concerning India’s intentions in the region are hardly limited to the so-called ‘establishment’ in Pakistan. It is a general fear, a well-dispersed fear, a social fear. And a relatively coherent fear at that.

This leads to the third, and perhaps the most important point. The Indian establishment does not see Pakistan as a ‘normal’ society. The substance of this abnormalcy is religion, which is also the irreducible difference between the two societies. It is the original sin and a foundational incoherence that is ultimately inescapable. And it has tremendous explanatory power. It explains both the ideological nature of the Pakistani state’s hatred of India and, simultaneously, the state’s manipulation of the zealous masses for its own ends. That these two explanations do not hold together coherently is besides the point to most Indians. This is an old story and is as such sensible. In the Indian imagination, Pakistan is endlessly regurgitating the politics of Jinnah and the erstwhile Indian Muslim League. While Indian politics moves on, Pakistan’s holds eerily still. I am certainly not one to deny that there are some obvious asymmetries between India and Pakistan. The nature of the relationship between religion and politics is certainly one of them. But it bears mentioning that perhaps the most relevant asymmetry concerns the repeated defeats suffered by the conventional Pakistani forces at the hands of their Indian counterparts. This asymmetry is neither that complicated nor particularly abnormal. It illuminates the actions of the Pakistani state as essentially strategic and only incidentally ideological. And in that sense, it allows an interpretation of Pakistan as a fairly pedestrian, even ‘normal’ post-conflict society in its relations with its much larger neighbour.

Ultimately, this is the real value of a renewed focus on 1971 rather than 1947. It normalises Pakistan. It allows for discussion of real differences between the two societies and the two states, rather than of reified stereotypes that have little political relevance any more. This is not to justify the actions of the Pakistani state, which are in many cases entirely unjustifiable on both moral and political grounds. It is merely to hope that a mutual comprehension of normalcy may lead to peace and progress. Certainly, no one will deny that there is value in that.

(The author is with the Religious Studies Department at Yale University. He is also a member of the MacMillan Initiative on Religion, Politics and Society at Yale and a doctoral fellow at the Centre for Global Islamic Studies at Lehigh University.)

www.outlookindia.com | To Understand Pakistan, 1947 Is The Wrong Lens

 

[amitkriit]

^^ U tell these sane people to talk annonymously, they will tell you how their muslim ancestors ruled India for 1000 years, and how they are going to do it again. They will tell you that "Ghajwa-E-Hind" as prophesized is going to become a reality very soon. Pakistan was created in the name of religion, and it still derives it's identity from religion and hate.

 

[Yusuf]

Singh, some very idealistic posts regarding relations with Pakistan.
But the main point comes back to the history of Pakistan and the basis of their existance in the last 60 years. Pakistan will not give India or be part of a reason due to which India grows. Even if in the process their own country improves by leaps and bound.

Jf at all we gave seamless trade, the Pakistani goods too will find a billion strong market. But that country has refused all trade ties till the Kashmir issue is resolved. Now ww all know that Kashmir is only an excuse.

 

[Singh]

Singh, some very idealistic posts regarding relations with Pakistan.
But the main point comes back to the history of Pakistan and the basis of their existance in the last 60 years. Pakistan will not give India or be part of a reason due to which India grows. Even if in the process their own country improves by leaps and bound.

Jf at all we gave seamless trade, the Pakistani goods too will find a billion strong market. But that country has refused all trade ties till the Kashmir issue is resolved. Now ww all know that Kashmir is only an excuse.

Trade ties between India and Pakistan had been ongoing but India suspended it due to terrorist attacks. Pakistan is a big market for Indian tea, pulses etc.

Obviously Yusuf bhai the assumption is the govt. of both countries will in the future look for a win-win solution and economic interdependence swells to a point that it is unfeasible to wage wars.

Yes Pakistanis will have access to the world's largest pool of middle class and which entrepreneur/trader wouldn't want it ? And Indian entrepreneurs/traders will be given access to markets in Pak and Car which will have huge demand for quality Indian products.

Heard the about a poor man who was given a wish with a condition that whatever he wished for would be granted to him, but the same would be given double to his neighbor. I am assuming there will exist a Pakistani leader who will wish for riches than ask to be blinded in one eye.

This I admit is wishful thinking but in the future Pakistan will need to integrate with us economically as we are the sole economic power of the region. The ball then will be in our court and I am assuming the Indian govt will play ball.

 

[bengalraider]

The destabilization of any nation effects all it's neighbors adversely regardless of relations with the neighbor. for example let us imagine a situation where Pakistan goes through a period of increasing violence leading to catastrophic collapse of law and order including a general mutiny in the military; some of the implications for India shall be as below

1)massive influx of refugees into Punjab and Gujarat as thousands of ordinary people from Pakistan flee looking for safe havens to live.

2)Increase in violence in the border regions as militants try to push into India openly and brazenly with the open backing of sympathetic military officials.

3) Increase in spread of communicable diseases in the region as the health infrastructure of pakistan collapses.

4)increasingly more sophisticated and heavier caliber weaponry finding it's way into militant hands from mutinous Pakistani military personnel.

5)tourism in the region shall be affected adversely leading to fall in tourist revenue.

6)warlike situation due to uncertain security environment leading to market instability and lower credit ratings shall hurt the Indian economy.

7)Rapid deterioration in security environment due to uncontrolled reign of militant groups across the border.

8)the fear of loose nukes

Hence i believe any destabilization of Pakistan shall be disastrous for India as well(at least initially).

 

[macintosh]

A stable pakistan is definitely not in India's interest. As we have seen in the past from the 70's to the late 90's, a stable Pakistan has always been inimical to our interests. From khalistan to Kashmir insurgency, all these problems have been posed to us by a stable Pakistan. The word India has glued the Pakistani society for so long that we can no longer trust them to be neutral, leave alone friendly, to us if we help them stabilize. We should look forward to make permanent dents on the Pakistani's society so that it could never get over the Taliban's and could never even think about India and Kashmir.

 

[Singh]

A stable pakistan is definitely not in India's interest. As we have seen in the past from the 70's to the late 90's, a stable Pakistan has always been inimical to our interests. From khalistan to Kashmir insurgency, all these problems have been posed to us by a stable Pakistan. The word India has glued the Pakistani society for so long that we can no longer trust them to be neutral, leave alone friendly, to us if we help them stabilize. We should look forward to make permanent dents on the Pakistani's society so that it could never get over the Taliban's and could never even think about India and Kashmir.

1. We have not been inactive - Ganga Hijacking, Siachen Incursions.
2. Pakistan helped in curbing Khalistani Insurgency initially.
3. By them you mean the establishment or the people, I don't think educated Pakistanis with a source of livelihood go around obsessing about India 24x7x365
4. What sort of Permanent Dents ? Cuba being in the shadow of USA has survived, and Taiwan in the shadow of China has survived.

 

[macintosh]

1. We have not been inactive - Ganga Hijacking, Siachen Incursions.
2. Pakistan helped in curbing Khalistani Insurgency initially.
3. By them you mean the establishment or the people, I don't think educated Pakistanis with a source of livelihood go around obsessing about India 24x7x365
4. What sort of Permanent Dents ? Cuba being in the shadow of USA has survived, and Taiwan in the shadow of China has survived.

1. We had to go for Siachin after intelligence input suggested that Pakistan was buying clothes used in Siachin from the same company of whom IA was a customer of. It was a failure of ISI that we came to know about PA's plans and had to go there. If we had not then PA would have. In any case it was imminent.

2. Pakistan helped in curbing it. Really ???. I don't think that they would have done that. They started it taking their experiences from Afgan insurrection and then successfully implemented it in Kashmir. They are still supporting it and in the past year more Khalistani terrorists have been arrested or killed than in 5 preceding years. They are trying to revive it.

3. Pakistan is composed of different group of people like shia, sunni, pashton and other tribes. As a whole all these mistrust each other and are ready to kill each other but the moment you spell India, they are all ready to come under one umbrella to target India.

4. Cuba and taiwan are bad examples. Taliban is something different and it is making sure that people support Taliban, hate Taliban and this causing the society to divide. Many believe USA is the reason behind what they are suffering, others blame corrupt Pak officials and some Taliban. This is what in India's interests.

 

[qsaark]

A stable pakistan is definitely not in India's interest. As we have seen in the past from the 70's to the late 90's, a stable Pakistan has always been inimical to our interests. From khalistan to Kashmir insurgency, all these problems have been posed to us by a stable Pakistan. The word India has glued the Pakistani society for so long that we can no longer trust them to be neutral, leave alone friendly, to us if we help them stabilize. We should look forward to make permanent dents on the Pakistani's society so that it could never get over the Taliban's and could never even think about India and Kashmir.

I am very impressed with your truthfulness. Pakistani establishment has similar understanding; infact the establishment of every country thinks on the smilar lines. This is what the international politics is all about.

 

[Singh]

1. We had to go for Siachin after intelligence input suggested that Pakistan was buying clothes used in Siachin from the same company of whom IA was a customer of. It was a failure of ISI that we came to know about PA's plans and had to go there. If we had not then PA would have. In any case it was imminent.

2. Pakistan helped in curbing it. Really ???. I don't think that they would have done that. They started it taking their experiences from Afgan insurrection and then successfully implemented it in Kashmir. They are still supporting it and in the past year more Khalistani terrorists have been arrested or killed than in 5 preceding years. They are trying to revive it.

3. Pakistan is composed of different group of people like shia, sunni, pashton and other tribes. As a whole all these mistrust each other and are ready to kill each other but the moment you spell India, they are all ready to come under one umbrella to target India.

4. Cuba and taiwan are bad examples. Taliban is something different and it is making sure that people support Taliban, hate Taliban and this causing the society to divide. Many believe USA is the reason behind what they are suffering, others blame corrupt Pak officials and some Taliban. This is what in India's interests.

Mac,

The point about Siachen etc. being that from a Pak PoV their actions can be justified. India has always had an advantage over Pak when it comes to the Intelligence game. Believe it or not. It is also known fact that Benazir Bhutto helped in ending Khalistan insurgency. It was only after she was ousted that Pak indulged in bleeding by 1000 cuts policy. Perhaps it is because of this policy Pakistan is suffering today

I am not an expert on what ails Pak society but if they can't live with each other peacefully than one day they will implode. And if they implode we will suffer. A Talibani country on our western borders is bad news. They can easily combine with extremist elements in India and our borders are so porous.

For us to prosper it would be prudent to desire a stable possibly "defanged" friendly neighbour. A destabilised nation on the west will always pose a security challenge for us, and affect our gdp and investment climate negatively.

---

Qsaark,

Janab world has changed. An isolated country cannot survive. India's biggest trade partner today is China.
For our entrepreneurs Pak is a fertile ground , for our defence guys Pak is a battleground. And I am sure if Pak is willing the entrepreneurs will win.

 

[macintosh]

Mac,

The point about Siachen etc. being that from a Pak PoV their actions can be justified. India has always had an advantage over Pak when it comes to the Intelligence game. Believe it or not. It is also known fact that Benazir Bhutto helped in ending Khalistan insurgency. It was only after she was ousted that Pak indulged in bleeding by 1000 cuts policy. Perhaps it is because of this policy Pakistan is suffering today

I am not an expert on what ails Pak society but if they can't live with each other peacefully than one day they will implode. And if they implode we will suffer. A Talibani country on our western borders is bad news. They can easily combine with extremist elements in India and our borders are so porous.

For us to prosper it would be prudent to desire a stable possibly "defanged" friendly neighbour. A destabilised nation on the west will always pose a security challenge for us, and effect our gdp and investment climate negatively.

Need not worry. US and India have prepared for that to happen. Moreover I believe that Pak army is professional enough that Taliban can only disintegrate the society. It can never lay its hand on nuclear arms or any such thing. The thing that remains to be seen however is if and when will Pak army have a deal with taliban so that PA could have a stable western border and use the Taliban against India. These are the things that we should remain vigilant to and take as a much real possibility.

Stable Pak will mean unstable India believe it or not. You dont know how much hate ISI people and Pak army People have for India.

 

[Singh]

Mac,

India and prepared ? Don't forget India has many rebel groups who will be strengthened if Pakistani society becomes increasingly radicalised.

Not denying that Pak establishment has an official policy of exporting terror but I am talking about the future.

Of course Pak has to take concrete steps to satisfy India first. If Pak continues in its downward spiral then of course we do what we have to protect ourselves. But we must be willing to walk more than half way if they so desire, for it is in our benefit.

PS: Do you know how much our establishment hates Communist China ? and yet Communist China is our largest trade partner.

 

[nitesh]

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? 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?

 

[ejazr]

We can't look at Pakistan as a monolith. Ofcourse a 'stable' Pakistan controlled by hawks and the military and intelligence establishment will be bad not only for Indian but for the Pakistani people themselves. Any objective Pakistan watcher will know that prior to the Taliban attacks the army image was at its lowest and the average people were fed up with the PA/ISI interference in politics.

However, if the 'stable' Pakistan is controlled by a democratically elected govt. who have the interest of their people at heat first. The situation will be different. Ofcourse the Pakistani society will have to make a lot of adjustments and it will be a long term process lasting probably decades. It will require a massive re-education of the new generation in which other countries can help as well as improving economic condition to the most deprived who are most likley to be recruited. But we have to address these "two" possibly more actors in Pakistan. A hardline approach against PA/ISI support to private 'laskars' is necessary.

Hence the cold start doctrine in this regard makes sense which basically aims to target military and terrorist infrastructure with minimum civilian casualties. And is a necessary part of the deterrence. But long term it has to be converted into an economic and cultural deterrence which is more likely to prevent attacks.

Let me remind you that it was during the Musharraf era between 2004-2008 that we saw massive decrease in cross LoC violence in Kashmir. So if the PA/ISI really wants to stop it they can.

 

[bengalraider]

A stable pakistan is definitely not in India's interest. As we have seen in the past from the 70's to the late 90's, a stable Pakistan has always been inimical to our interests. From khalistan to Kashmir insurgency, all these problems have been posed to us by a stable Pakistan. The word India has glued the Pakistani society for so long that we can no longer trust them to be neutral, leave alone friendly, to us if we help them stabilize. We should look forward to make permanent dents on the Pakistani's society so that it could never get over the Taliban's and could never even think about India and Kashmir.

From Khalistan to Kashmir insurgency the problems have not been the brainchild of a stable pakistan ; a stable pakistan (or any other nation)is one in which the military does not hold the upper hand. Pakistan has never been stable except for the period between 1972-1977 when Zulfikar ali bhutto was the prime minister. it was during this period that pakistan had a truly strong civilian administration(due to the defeat of the military in 1971) and hence largely peaceful relationship with india.After the soviet invasion of afghanistan the power dynamics of pakistan shifted to the military and ISI and continues to this day(though it has been greatly eroded in recent months). Pakistan as acompletely destabilized society is inmical to indian interests in more ways than one(as i have listed out earlier).If pakistan disintegrates or massively destabilizes we shall face much the same problems as faced by the balkans after the disintegration of the soviet union. If you think pakistan is going to collapse without any collateral damage you are mistaken ,the collapse of a strong administration in pakistan shall be followed by infighting between clans and private militia for control over the nation(many formed out of the mutineers of the Pakistan army&other pakistani security forces), there shall be an increase in violent crime and criminals shall reign free(much like the free reign the russian mafia had after 1990),an increase in terrorism(as the facade of non-involvement is ripped away), a massive humaintarian crisis(as millions lose jobs and homes in fighting). as pakistan fractures into small states like free sindh and baluchistan we shall also be hurt.ultimately the violence will subside and stability shall return but then we may have four new enemies (many people in these new nations shall blame india for the collapse of pakistan)instead of one, are we willing to take that risk?

 

[ajtr]

Obviously its a no-brainer for anyone who wishes India well, to say that it is not in India's interest to have a Pakistan that is a complete basket-case banana republic like some African countries

Having said that; this so-called "critical-mass" that you folks are refering to will never transpire, unless the more than 70% illiterate and madrassa trained population can be educated in a more secular moderate progressive based system. It took Pakistan almost 40 years since the time of General Zia ul Haq to get to this point, and its not going to change overnite.

For that matter, I think that the whole Islamic world is facing an existential crisis of sorts between moderates and fundamentalists. It is not unique to Pakistan, but probably the most severe consequences are felt in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. If the moderates do not win this "war of ideas" in the Islamic world, then we are truly headed for that "clash of civilizations".

Simply put, nothing substantial is going to change in Pakistan over the next 10 or 20 years, and India should prepare for the worst case scenario. I say this because the Pakistani military commanders and their people at large, have throughout their short history shown a reckless tendency to take huge strategic risks in their dealings with India that have had disasterous consequences for the state of Pakistan.

Risk-taking is not always a bad thing, provided it is well thought out.
Indians on the other hand, are on the other end of the spectrum and may be too risk averse.

Ultimately, Pakistanis are their own worst enemies; they keep blaming everyone else on the planet for their own self-induced folly.

Granted that nothing will change overnight.But then the country which was formed on the hatred of india as its core deep ingrained into it since its birth is not going to be ever friendly with india ever.A country whose existence is only due to hatred for india even if it is fully educated will never be friendly with india.

When the base of the country on which it is formed is wobbly then how can u expect that country to be friendly.

And btw people ple blame zia period for the hatred that pakistan has for india.but this hatred was always there in pak for india long before 1947 itself.Jinnah was in power when india fought pak 1st.Kashmir is just the reason,even if u give them kashmir today,then tomorrow it will be kutch,junagad,hyderabad,Up.heck u give them the whole india but that hatred wont go.

pakistan is like a patient in ICU which is being kept alive by its masters usa china uk ksa by injecting life saving drug(money) into it

 

[Energon]

A stable pakistan is definitely not in India's interest. As we have seen in the past from the 70's to the late 90's, a stable Pakistan has always been inimical to our interests. From khalistan to Kashmir insurgency, all these problems have been posed to us by a stable Pakistan. The word India has glued the Pakistani society for so long that we can no longer trust them to be neutral, leave alone friendly, to us if we help them stabilize. We should look forward to make permanent dents on the Pakistani's society so that it could never get over the Taliban's and could never even think about India and Kashmir.

For one, Pakistan has never really been stable. The periods you are referring to were zeniths of military dictatorships. The dictator generals were trying their best to put up a facade of stability and national fortitude when in fact these were some of the most troubling times for their society. Up until 1965 Pakistan was the second most industrialized nation in Asia after Japan. In fact it was projected as a model state for all developing countries around the world and served as an inspiration to the Asian Tigers. Yet all of that crumbled in a flash because of poor public policy, mismanagement, internal conflict and pathetic leadership; conflict with India was in many ways a unifier for the masses of West Pakistan. In the 80s and the early 90s thanks to yet another dear departed military dictator, the social fabric of Pakistan was ripped into shreds in front of their eyes. Pakistan has not recovered from any of this (and most probably won't at least in our lifetimes). I'm not sure what "permanent dents" you are looking forward to making, but they have pretty much done this all by themselves, and their only source of cohesion still remains the imagined "threat" from India. What you are suggesting is that India go ahead and make this real, and basically give them what they want. This is nonsense, and by no means useful to a nation that has aspirations of progress and modernity.