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

[Decklander]

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.

 

[hit&run]

How is present scenario bad for us ?

They are sustaining their economy.

 

[hit&run]

@Decklander, Sir, we were never offered a seat on the SC. It's a myth propagated.

I will disagree with you on this always, Congress-I spin doctors where able to hide their foreign policy failure very well.

 

[Decklander]

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.

This offer was made sometime in 1953-54 when China had been divided into mainland communist china and Taiwan. As a result this fifth seat got disputed.
There was a fight between US/UK/France on one side and Russia on the other who was supporting the communist china while the western world was supporting non communist Taiwan. So as a middlepath the western offered India this fifth seat to keep out China, The Russians agreed to have India as sixth member but insisted on having china as fifth. The last nail in the coffin was nailed by Nehru when he not only rejected the offer to be fifth member but also to be sixth member as he wanted to head a new world based on NAM.

 

[Cliff@sea]

The grass is always greener on the other side . . . A good strong Pakistan is in India's interest .

Simple as that . . .Think about it , Its not that hard to figure out .

Obviously that means Pakistan becomes a completely non-terrorist friendly nation with a truly democratic government in place, with firm control. . . .and a head on their shoulders

 

[Yusuf]

Unless there is any information which is declassified to prove this, this issue will always be debatable.

 

[Yusuf]

The grass is always greener on the other side . . . A good strong Pakistan is in India's interest .

Simple as that . . .Think about it , Its not that hard to figure out .

A good strong Pakistan = terror against India, war against India.

 

[civfanatic]

This offer was made sometime in 1953-54 when China had been divided into mainland communist china and Taiwan. As a result this fifth seat got disputed.
There was a fight between US/UK/France on one side and Russia on the other who was supporting the communist china while the western world was supporting non communist Taiwan. So as a middlepath the western offered India this fifth seat to keep out China, The Russians agreed to have India as sixth member but insisted on having china as fifth. The last nail in the coffin was nailed by Nehru when he not only rejected the offer to be fifth member but also to be sixth member as he wanted to head a new world based on NAM.

This a total myth. From your own article that you posted earlier:

As the talks in Moscow proceeded, Bulganin made his "offer". Let the record speak for itself. Bulganin said:

"Regarding your suggestion about the four power conference we would take appropriate action. While we are discussing the general international situation and reducing tension, we propose suggesting at a later stage India's inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council.

JN: Perhaps Bulganin knows that some people in USA have suggested that India should replace China in the Security Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain positions because that may itself create difficulties and India might itself become a subject to controversy. If India is to be admitted to the Security Council, it raises the question of the revision of the Charter of the U.N. We feel that this should not be done till the question of China's admission and possibly of others is first solved. I feel that we should first concentrate on getting China admitted. What is Bulganin's opinion about the revision of the Charter? In our opinion this does not seem to be an appropriate time for it.

Bulganin: We proposed the question of India's membership of the Security Council to get your views, but agree that this is not the time for it and it will have to wait for the right moment later on. We also agree that things should be taken one by one (page 231; emphasis added, throughout).

Bulganin did not make an "offer". He threw a feeler to test India. He himself recognised that "this is not the time for it". Had Nehru jumped at the bait, he would have courted certain disappointment before long.

Later, in a Note on his tour of the USSR and other countries, dated August 1, 1955, Nehru wrote: "Informally, suggestions have been made by the United States that China should be taken into the United Nations but not in the Security Council and that India should take her place in the Security Council. We cannot of course accept this as it means falling out with China and it would be very unfair for a great country like China not to be in the Security Council. We have, therefore, made it clear to those who suggested this that we cannot agree to this suggestion. We have even gone a little further and said that India is not anxious to enter the Security Council at this stage, even though as a great country she ought to be there. The first step to be taken is for China to take her rightful place and then the question of India might be considered separately" (page 303).

This reflected sound judgment. For all his flaws, failures and even foibles, Nehru was a great man; a far bigger man than the ones who denigrate him malevolently. He has suffered no little at the hands of uncritical admirers as well; ones who labour under the delusion that a great man is diminished if his faults and misjudgments are acknowledged. Nehru was much more of a politician than his idolators admit. He swung from a pro-American to a pro-Soviet stance for a variety of reasons. The U.S. had rebuffed his overtures in 1949 and gave military aid to Pakistan in 1954. He pursued the national interest, as he perceived it, in the conduct of foreign affairs. But, never for a moment did he overlook the use of foreign policy to mobilise domestic political support. He chuckled to himself as he found his pro-Soviet policy embarrassing the Communist Party of India (CPI). There were times when the chuckle was loud for all to hear.

The Soviet "offer" was nothing more than a diplomatic ploy. There was never any substance behind it. India was never seriously given the opportunity to join UNSC.

Another important point to note, as this article duly mentions, is that Nehru did initially try to pursue a pro-American foreign policy, as early as 1949. However, America and the West were not willing to become exclusive allies of India to the detriment of Pakistan. The geo-strategic importance of Pakistan vis-a-vis the U.S.S.R was simply too great for the Americans to ignore for India's sake. The American military aid to Pakistan starting in 1954 killed any chances of an Indo-U.S. alliance, and put India on the path towards poly-alignment and alternate sources of diplomatic and military support. This reached its natural culmination in 1971, with the signing of the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship of Cooperation.

 

[Cliff@sea]

A good strong Pakistan = terror against India, war against India.

Well i qualified my remark in the edit later . . .

Any terrorist friendly nation in general is not on very solid ground unless it has resources (read oil) to stay on such grounds for long time ,

Pakistan thankfully is NOT one such nation , it has great resources but they cannot be exploited except with govt.'s serious role and democratic one at that
i believe.

 

[Yusuf]

Well i qualified my remark in the edit later . . .

Any terrorist friendly nation in general is not on very solid ground unless it has resources (read oil) to stay on such grounds for long time ,

Pakistan thankfully is NOT one such nation , it has great resources but they cannot be exploited except with govt.'s serious role and democratic one at that
i believe.

It does not have resources hence it makes sure it does things to stay relevant and get loads of money. It took over thekedari of Islam to get Oil Money. Today they are a shithole spreading terror.

You are yet to understand Pakistan IMHO

 

[Cliff@sea]

It does not have resources hence it makes sure it does things to stay relevant and get loads of money. It took over thekedari of Islam to get Oil Money. Today they are a shithole spreading terror.

You are yet to understand Pakistan IMHO

Well @Yusuf i can hardly show a candle to your knowledge in the matter ,

But please take my word , i have given it a serious thought ,
I have a slightly diffrent take,

IMO the problem between Pakistan and Us is more of mis-communication, its a classic case of Englishman trying to get around a Jat, by his prudish ways, Each speaking a tongue other doesn't understand .
They are right now going through an important phase of introspection , quietly yet resolutely a sort of small underground movement is making a steady progress that doesn't subscribe to the old THEOLOGY of what it meant being a Pakistani

and "You have to HATE India"

is not as much of regular a feature today as it was earlier . . .

It is still the most regular feature today , but its still weaker then it was Yesterday ,


I still feel there is hope, we both Nations are too young to consider such hasty actions so soon .

In the inspired words of John Lennon - Let's give peace a chance

and well as the Roman's ( or who ? ) say : Si vis pacem, para bellum

If you want peace prepare for war !!

 

[Yusuf]

Well @Yusuf i can hardly show a candle to your knowledge in the matter ,

But please take my word , i have given it a serious thought ,
I have a slightly diffrent take,

IMO the problem between Pakistan and Us is more of mis-communication, its a classic case of Englishman trying to get around a Jat, by his prudish ways,
They are right now going through an important phase of introspection , quietly yet resolutely a sort of small underground movement is making a steady progress that doesn't subscribe to the old THEOLOGY of what it meant being a Pakistani

and "You have to HATE India"

is not as much of regular a feature today as it was earlier . . .

It is still the most regular feature today , but its still weaker then it was Yesterday ,


I still feel there is hope, we both Nations are too young to consider such hasty actions so soon .

In the inspired words of John Lennon - Let's give peace a chance

and well as the Roman's ( or who ? ) say : Si vis pacem, para bellum

If you want peace prepare for war !! .

Case of mis communication?

Hardly! They waged war soon after independence. And then the other wars.
Its hardly anything to do with communication or the lack if it.

 

[civfanatic]

Nah, there's no hope for peace between India and Pakistan. Two-Nation Theory is a proven failure. If the folly of it wasn't shown in 1947 itself with the horrors of Partition, it was proven beyond reasonable doubt in 1971.

Unfortunately, reunification is not possible either. The only practical option now is for the dismemberment of Pakistan, followed hopefully by the economic integration of South Asia under India's wing.

 

[Cliff@sea]

Expect surprises is what i'll say .

 

[Tianshan]

pakistan doesn't seem to be working in its current form.

they need to reform to survive.

 

[hit&run]

The grass is always greener on the other side . . . A good strong Pakistan is in India's interest .

Simple as that . . .Think about it , Its not that hard to figure out .

Obviously that means Pakistan becomes a completely non-terrorist friendly nation with a truly democratic government in place, with firm control. . . .and a head on their shoulders

You have a fence and army with machine-gun bunkers if they will become unstable.

They never traded a penny with you when they were stable. You are still waiting MFN and every scoundrel comes out on TV and street abusing us when anyone from GoP makes a move for MFN.

Their media was here to claim a big favour that they have done us a great favour by putting Kashmir on sidelines and toeing CBM line we were asking them to.

What we have got, a troll face clown Rehman Malik talking about every thing and anything, sacmester Pakistani Cricketers in to play with us, Hockey player in for our leagues, lax visa restrictions to let in more ISI and PA agents from suicide brigades they have and over staying Pakistanis in dirty poor India.

They made us unstable by imposing war and terror (not only in J&K but NE & Punjab) on us.

 

[Cliff@sea]

You have a fence and army with machine-gun bunkers if they will become unstable.

They never traded a penny with you when they were stable. You are still waiting MFN and every scoundrel comes out on TV and street abusing us when anyone from GoP makes a move for MFN.

Their media was here to claim a big favour that they have done us a great favour by putting Kashmir on sidelines and toeing CBM line we were asking them to.

What we have got, a troll face clown Rehman Malik talking about every thing and anything, sacmester Pakistani Cricketers in to play with us, Hockey player in for our leagues, lax visa restrictions to let in more ISI and PA agents from suicide brigades they have and over staying Pakistanis in dirty poor India.

They made us unstable by imposing war and terror (not only in J&K but NE & Punjab) on us.

Its just their enfant-terrible stage , how i see it ,

They will get over it . . .Let them figure out how to reform ,

They can and i Hope they might .

The change has to be at the perception level among the mass perpetuated by the governments till now . . .

if the future governments there do not pursue the old policies , they will come around .

It will take time .

 

[blank_quest]

Its just their enfant-terrible stage , how i see it ,

They will get over it . . .Let them figure out how to reform ,

They can and i Hope they might .

The change has to be at the perception level among the mass perpetuated by the governments till now . . .

if the future governments there do not pursue the old policies , they will come around .

It will take time .

infant-terrible with Nuke toys will cost

And India is Adult in just 60+ years

 

[Cliff@sea]

infant-terrible with Nuke toys will cost

i see the Merit in ur approach too . . . what can i say

It has to be a game of fine balance on both sides .

 

[Yusuf]

Its just their enfant-terrible stage , how i see it ,

They will get over it . . .Let them figure out how to reform ,

They can and i Hope they might .

The change has to be at the perception level among the mass perpetuated by the governments till now . . .

if the future governments there do not pursue the old policies , they will come around .

It will take time .

we will be better off with 4 infants