An emerging India through Pakistani Eyes - threats and counter strategies

[FalconSlayers]

Even non highlighted parts of this article, this all write up is a full cope LOL.
On India
India is relevant to the world, not only in its size and girth but by its footprint and what matters to the world
Shahzad ChaudhryJanuary 13, 2023

The writer is a political, security and defence analyst. He tweets @shazchy09 and can be contacted at [email protected]
If I were Henry Kissinger, I would write a treatise ‘On India’. Such has been the monumental change in India’s fortunes as a State and a player principally in Asia and broadly on the global stage. Modi may be a despised name in Pakistan, but he has done something to brand India which none before him was able to manage. Importantly, India does what it feels and to the extent she needs. And it all stays kosher. It is an ally of the US; a rub Pakistanis go to town with, complaining relentlessly about the US as its closet patron. We are delusionary and deceptive in assessing our standing and employ double-speak as an art, vilifying the US as a popular pastime while whingeing when it accosts India. Russia is under American sanctions, and none can trade freely with Russia except India which buys Russian oil on preferred terms and then re-export it to help an old patron earn dollars the indirect way. Two opposing military superpowers of the world claim India to be its ally. If this isn’t diplomatic coup, what is?
It all comes from one word — relevance. India is relevant to the world, not only in its size and girth but by its footprint and what matters to the world. Consider. It has the fifth largest economy in the world, ahead of the UK. It is aimed to be the third largest economy in the world by 2037. It is fourth in FE Reserves with over 600 billion USDs — Pakistan currently holds 4.5 only. Its growth rate in GDP matches the best performing economies over the last three decades after China. She is projected to stay on that path. India has world’s second largest army and the third largest military. It may not be the strongest corresponding to the numbers, but it is on path to rapidly increasing its capacity and capability. The global list of billionaires has 140 Indians of which four are included in the top 100.
Mittal is steel giant. Ambanis run multiple interests varying from defence to telecom. Infosys, an IT giant, is a global name. So on and so forth. India stands amongst the top producers in agri-products and in the IT industry. Their yields per acre in agriculture match the best in the world. And despite being a country of over 1.4 billion people, it remains a relatively steady, coherent and functional polity. Their system of governance has withstood the test of time and proved its resilience around fundamentals essential to a resolute democracy. It may not be the most efficiently or most equitably run society, but it has held on to anchors which have paved the way for it to solidify what makes a nation. To many it may not be secular enough — its Constitution still is, even if attitudes of the power wielders are not. Under Modi it has crafted a religious-nationalist plank of its newer assertion and identity. Don’t balk. World over the trend is of the Right gaining eminence in social attitudes. Pakistan in this realm has its own set of challenges. Importantly, it seems to be working for Modi and India.
India jumped to a 100 billion USD reserves in 2004 from the measly 9.2 she had in 1992. Under Manmohan Singh, India increased her reserves to 252 billion USD by 2014. Under Modi these have galloped to over 600 billion and the GDP is sized over three trillion USDs. This is monumental progress which makes India a preferred destination for all investors. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s fraternal brother, announced an investment of over 72 billion USDs in India even as we beg her to invest the 7 billion promised for Pakistan. Pakistan’s iron-brother, China, pledged 10 million USD in the very latest donors conference in Geneva to help Pakistan out of its financial predicament as well as a looming bankruptcy, as did Pakistan’s favourite whipping boy, America. Somehow, both place equal premium on Pakistan’s prospects.

And though Indian writers have this propensity to overstate India’s heft and hem there should be no doubt that this century will see Asia defined by two most dominating nations in economic strength, military haughtiness and political impact — China and India. The gap between Pakistan and India is now unbridgeable. India has broken free of the shackles that kept her tied in South Asia and hyphenated in global perception with Pakistan. Beginning with Rajiv Gandhi to Modi there has been a clear distancing of the Indian foreign policy away from Pakistan. That turns India more Asia than just South Asia and a clout which is far expanded. The world has taken note and regardless how much we play China vs India as a sorry paradigm for face-saving both are now above 100 billion USDs trade that binds them with a common aim to quickly move to 500 billion. Those who trade at that level never graduate beyond sticks and clubs, even if spiked, and whatever the savagery of their brawl. It is time to smell some real leaves.
One hates to admit, but Pakistan was politically outmanoeuvred by India on Kashmir by rescinding Article 370 of its Constitution which gave a special if not disputed status to the region. Her gradual mutation of the demographics in her favour continues unabated. And as the older generation of the defying Kashmiris bows out the young view issues far less weighed by emotive persuasion. In combination with unmatched density of military presence over decades the new normal has practically established newer realities. And while Pakistan’s principled stance may just remain the same, work-around shall have to be found to factor in newer realities and graduate policy to benefit from this immense economic activity taking place in the neighbourhood. Placing artificial restraints on what can be a moment of deliverance to the rapidly impoverishing people of Pakistan is failing them with bankruptcy of thought. We are better only when stabler and economically buoyant. Time to shed the rhetoric.
India’s global footprint is remarkable. She is invited to the G7 and is a member of the G20. It is leading a movement of the global South to represent what is critical to equitable progress in the times of climate change, pandemics and technology intrusion. It has a blueprint of establishing her own domain on the foreign policy front and sticks to it assiduously. She may seem arrogant and haughty at times triggering aversion but feels she has the space to assert her presence. It is a fine line but her foreign policy apparatus treads it skillfully. Modi has brought India to the point where she has begun to cast a wider net of its influence and impact. Pakistan has been skillfully reduced to a footnote in this Indian script. It is time to smell some real leaves.
It is time to recalibrate our policy towards India and be bold enough to create a tri-nation consensus, along with China, focusing on Asia to be the spur for wider economic growth and benefit. That alone will turn geoeconomics into a strategy. Breaking away from convention and boldness in conception can address this newer paradigm. Or we may be reduced to the footnote of history.

The writer seems to be the most intelligent pakistani on earth, who understands things and writes things without including cheap potshots at India to balance out the praise for it.

 

[karn]

The writer seems to be the most intelligent pakistani on earth, who understands things and writes things without including cheap potshots at India to balance out the praise for it.

Naah the most intelligent Pakistani is Hussain Haqqani he ran out of copium years ago and defected to the US.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

it's getting difficult for paki intelligentsia to hide facts anymore from their awam, paki intelligentsia have known about the capability gap always , many of them say so themselves on SM.

I used to think that it's SM penetration in Pakistan is what caused that. Without access to social media around world, resident Pakistanis would have still have been in fantasies they used to live in 60s and 80s.

The writer seems to be the most intelligent pakistani on earth, who understands things and writes things without including cheap potshots at India to balance out the praise for it.

He is certainly an exception. Pakistanis usually try to call out India to make the things more palatable to them which would include correct/incorrect or even outdated potshots. Regardless of him and Pakistani state, the nationalist lot of Pakistan will remain stubborn to keep their morale high.

End of this decade would though dehyphenate India and Pakistan from Pakistani intelligentsia too (provided relations with Afghanistan continue to become more and more important in Pakistani politics as they are going).

 

[ezsasa]

Should we put Kashmir on the backburner? (tribune.com.pk)
When India was growing economically, Pakistan was reeling from one crisis after another

After Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa’s retirement, several stories about key developments that took place during his 6-year term have surfaced. One revelation that was really fascinating was how Gen Bajwa pushed for rapprochement with India during his second term as an Army Chief. Senior journalist Javed Chaudhry, who recently met Gen Bajwa, disclosed that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled to travel to Pakistan in April 2021 as part of efforts to open a new chapter of friendly relationship between the two nuclear armed neighbours.

The visit was planned after a series of backchannel talks between then DG ISI Lt Gen Faiz Hameed and Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval. Those efforts led to the renewal of a ceasefire agreement between the two countries along the LoC in the disputed Kashmir region in February 2021. The announcement was surprising since both countries were not having any formal talks. After many years, both sides issued simultaneous statements in Islamabad and New Delhi. The development was contrary to the state of relationship between the two countries especially after India unilaterally revoked the special status of the disputed Kashmir region in August 2019. Pakistan, in reaction, downgraded diplomatic ties and suspended bilateral trade with India. But as part of a confidence building measures following the renewal of the ceasefire, the two countries were to resume trade ties in March. The next move was to be the surprise visit of Modi. However, neither the trade was resumed nor did Modi’s visit materialise. The reason was that Prime Minister Imran Khan was warned of serious public backlash since the plan purportedly suggested freezing the Kashmir dispute for 20 years. His Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi warned Imran that any such move would be seen as Kashmir sellout. Hence, the plan remained a pipedream.

But let’s examine whether the proposal was in the interest of Pakistan? It has to be said without any doubt that Pakistan’s position on Kashmir has considerably weakened over the years because of our own follies. There was a time when India officially acknowledged that Kashmir is a disputed territory and needs a final settlement. Now, India does not even acknowledge that in public. Pakistan could have struck a far better deal on Kashmir when Indian Prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee travelled by bus to Lahore in a historic visit in 1998 after the two countries became nuclear. Vajpayee agreed to find a solution to the lingering dispute. The two countries had agreed on a composite dialogue but then Kargil happened. Even after the military coup, there were prospects of a rapprochement. Gen Musharraf resumed peace talks with the Vajpayee government and later continued the same with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

In fact, the peace process from 2004 to 2007 was considered as most promising for resolving the Kashmir dispute. The two countries even shared non-papers envisaging a roadmap for settling the lingering conflict. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was to travel to Pakistan in 2007 to sign agreements on Siachen and Sir Creek. But Musharraf’s move to sack then Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry triggered a lawyers’ movement that eventually saw the ouster of the military ruler. The November 2008 Mumbai attacks dealt a fatal blow to any chances of a thaw between the two countries. After that the two countries did try to resume the peace process but India by that time entered into a strategic relationship with the US and its growing economic clout meant hardening of its stance on Kashmir.

Let’s not forget when India was growing economically, Pakistan was reeling from one crisis after another. It was because of this reason that Gen Bajwa thought that a thaw with India was necessary to focus on resurrecting the economy. It may sound highly unpopular — even unpatriotic, to some — but Pakistan will have to freeze discussions on Kashmir for the time being and first put its own house in order.

 

[fooLIam]

Should we put Kashmir on the backburner? (tribune.com.pk)
When India was growing economically, Pakistan was reeling from one crisis after another

After Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa’s retirement, several stories about key developments that took place during his 6-year term have surfaced. One revelation that was really fascinating was how Gen Bajwa pushed for rapprochement with India during his second term as an Army Chief. Senior journalist Javed Chaudhry, who recently met Gen Bajwa, disclosed that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled to travel to Pakistan in April 2021 as part of efforts to open a new chapter of friendly relationship between the two nuclear armed neighbours.

The visit was planned after a series of backchannel talks between then DG ISI Lt Gen Faiz Hameed and Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval. Those efforts led to the renewal of a ceasefire agreement between the two countries along the LoC in the disputed Kashmir region in February 2021. The announcement was surprising since both countries were not having any formal talks. After many years, both sides issued simultaneous statements in Islamabad and New Delhi. The development was contrary to the state of relationship between the two countries especially after India unilaterally revoked the special status of the disputed Kashmir region in August 2019. Pakistan, in reaction, downgraded diplomatic ties and suspended bilateral trade with India. But as part of a confidence building measures following the renewal of the ceasefire, the two countries were to resume trade ties in March. The next move was to be the surprise visit of Modi. However, neither the trade was resumed nor did Modi’s visit materialise. The reason was that Prime Minister Imran Khan was warned of serious public backlash since the plan purportedly suggested freezing the Kashmir dispute for 20 years. His Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi warned Imran that any such move would be seen as Kashmir sellout. Hence, the plan remained a pipedream.

But let’s examine whether the proposal was in the interest of Pakistan? It has to be said without any doubt that Pakistan’s position on Kashmir has considerably weakened over the years because of our own follies. There was a time when India officially acknowledged that Kashmir is a disputed territory and needs a final settlement. Now, India does not even acknowledge that in public. Pakistan could have struck a far better deal on Kashmir when Indian Prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee travelled by bus to Lahore in a historic visit in 1998 after the two countries became nuclear. Vajpayee agreed to find a solution to the lingering dispute. The two countries had agreed on a composite dialogue but then Kargil happened. Even after the military coup, there were prospects of a rapprochement. Gen Musharraf resumed peace talks with the Vajpayee government and later continued the same with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

In fact, the peace process from 2004 to 2007 was considered as most promising for resolving the Kashmir dispute. The two countries even shared non-papers envisaging a roadmap for settling the lingering conflict. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was to travel to Pakistan in 2007 to sign agreements on Siachen and Sir Creek. But Musharraf’s move to sack then Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry triggered a lawyers’ movement that eventually saw the ouster of the military ruler. The November 2008 Mumbai attacks dealt a fatal blow to any chances of a thaw between the two countries. After that the two countries did try to resume the peace process but India by that time entered into a strategic relationship with the US and its growing economic clout meant hardening of its stance on Kashmir.

Let’s not forget when India was growing economically, Pakistan was reeling from one crisis after another. It was because of this reason that Gen Bajwa thought that a thaw with India was necessary to focus on resurrecting the economy. It may sound highly unpopular — even unpatriotic, to some — but Pakistan will have to freeze discussions on Kashmir for the time being and first put its own house in order.

I hope at the very least indian leaders and babus don’t fall for this “taqquia”.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Even non highlighted parts of this article, this all write up is a full cope LOL.
On India
India is relevant to the world, not only in its size and girth but by its footprint and what matters to the world
Shahzad ChaudhryJanuary 13, 2023

The writer is a political, security and defence analyst. He tweets @shazchy09 and can be contacted at [email protected]
If I were Henry Kissinger, I would write a treatise ‘On India’. Such has been the monumental change in India’s fortunes as a State and a player principally in Asia and broadly on the global stage. Modi may be a despised name in Pakistan, but he has done something to brand India which none before him was able to manage. Importantly, India does what it feels and to the extent she needs. And it all stays kosher. It is an ally of the US; a rub Pakistanis go to town with, complaining relentlessly about the US as its closet patron. We are delusionary and deceptive in assessing our standing and employ double-speak as an art, vilifying the US as a popular pastime while whingeing when it accosts India. Russia is under American sanctions, and none can trade freely with Russia except India which buys Russian oil on preferred terms and then re-export it to help an old patron earn dollars the indirect way. Two opposing military superpowers of the world claim India to be its ally. If this isn’t diplomatic coup, what is?
It all comes from one word — relevance. India is relevant to the world, not only in its size and girth but by its footprint and what matters to the world. Consider. It has the fifth largest economy in the world, ahead of the UK. It is aimed to be the third largest economy in the world by 2037. It is fourth in FE Reserves with over 600 billion USDs — Pakistan currently holds 4.5 only. Its growth rate in GDP matches the best performing economies over the last three decades after China. She is projected to stay on that path. India has world’s second largest army and the third largest military. It may not be the strongest corresponding to the numbers, but it is on path to rapidly increasing its capacity and capability. The global list of billionaires has 140 Indians of which four are included in the top 100.
Mittal is steel giant. Ambanis run multiple interests varying from defence to telecom. Infosys, an IT giant, is a global name. So on and so forth. India stands amongst the top producers in agri-products and in the IT industry. Their yields per acre in agriculture match the best in the world. And despite being a country of over 1.4 billion people, it remains a relatively steady, coherent and functional polity. Their system of governance has withstood the test of time and proved its resilience around fundamentals essential to a resolute democracy. It may not be the most efficiently or most equitably run society, but it has held on to anchors which have paved the way for it to solidify what makes a nation. To many it may not be secular enough — its Constitution still is, even if attitudes of the power wielders are not. Under Modi it has crafted a religious-nationalist plank of its newer assertion and identity. Don’t balk. World over the trend is of the Right gaining eminence in social attitudes. Pakistan in this realm has its own set of challenges. Importantly, it seems to be working for Modi and India.
India jumped to a 100 billion USD reserves in 2004 from the measly 9.2 she had in 1992. Under Manmohan Singh, India increased her reserves to 252 billion USD by 2014. Under Modi these have galloped to over 600 billion and the GDP is sized over three trillion USDs. This is monumental progress which makes India a preferred destination for all investors. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s fraternal brother, announced an investment of over 72 billion USDs in India even as we beg her to invest the 7 billion promised for Pakistan. Pakistan’s iron-brother, China, pledged 10 million USD in the very latest donors conference in Geneva to help Pakistan out of its financial predicament as well as a looming bankruptcy, as did Pakistan’s favourite whipping boy, America. Somehow, both place equal premium on Pakistan’s prospects.

And though Indian writers have this propensity to overstate India’s heft and hem there should be no doubt that this century will see Asia defined by two most dominating nations in economic strength, military haughtiness and political impact — China and India. The gap between Pakistan and India is now unbridgeable. India has broken free of the shackles that kept her tied in South Asia and hyphenated in global perception with Pakistan. Beginning with Rajiv Gandhi to Modi there has been a clear distancing of the Indian foreign policy away from Pakistan. That turns India more Asia than just South Asia and a clout which is far expanded. The world has taken note and regardless how much we play China vs India as a sorry paradigm for face-saving both are now above 100 billion USDs trade that binds them with a common aim to quickly move to 500 billion. Those who trade at that level never graduate beyond sticks and clubs, even if spiked, and whatever the savagery of their brawl. It is time to smell some real leaves.
One hates to admit, but Pakistan was politically outmanoeuvred by India on Kashmir by rescinding Article 370 of its Constitution which gave a special if not disputed status to the region. Her gradual mutation of the demographics in her favour continues unabated. And as the older generation of the defying Kashmiris bows out the young view issues far less weighed by emotive persuasion. In combination with unmatched density of military presence over decades the new normal has practically established newer realities. And while Pakistan’s principled stance may just remain the same, work-around shall have to be found to factor in newer realities and graduate policy to benefit from this immense economic activity taking place in the neighbourhood. Placing artificial restraints on what can be a moment of deliverance to the rapidly impoverishing people of Pakistan is failing them with bankruptcy of thought. We are better only when stabler and economically buoyant. Time to shed the rhetoric.
India’s global footprint is remarkable. She is invited to the G7 and is a member of the G20. It is leading a movement of the global South to represent what is critical to equitable progress in the times of climate change, pandemics and technology intrusion. It has a blueprint of establishing her own domain on the foreign policy front and sticks to it assiduously. She may seem arrogant and haughty at times triggering aversion but feels she has the space to assert her presence. It is a fine line but her foreign policy apparatus treads it skillfully. Modi has brought India to the point where she has begun to cast a wider net of its influence and impact. Pakistan has been skillfully reduced to a footnote in this Indian script. It is time to smell some real leaves.
It is time to recalibrate our policy towards India and be bold enough to create a tri-nation consensus, along with China, focusing on Asia to be the spur for wider economic growth and benefit. That alone will turn geoeconomics into a strategy. Breaking away from convention and boldness in conception can address this newer paradigm. Or we may be reduced to the footnote of history.

Another, sorry if posted earlier.

Hoodbhoy has a specific pattern of write to attribute India's gains to his favourite political faction. Despite being a scientist, Pakistanism inside him hinders him utilising any kind of historical, scientific and logical way of argument, and just as any other Pakistani, he believes that BJP is some kind of fascist party and Indians are a some kind of supremacist bunch like Europeans during first world war LOL.

Such an idiot.
Modi’s double-engine sarkar
Pervez Hoodbhoy Published November 5, 2022

The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and writer.
WHEN Prime Minister Narendra Modi barrels around India to support allies running for state government elections his war cry is: ‘ab ki bar double engine ki sarkar’ (this time a double-engine government). At face value this means having the BJP at the centre together with BJP governments in every one of India’s 28 states. State residents are promised that two engines pulling together will deliver twice the power.
But the true meaning of Modi’s double engine metaphor transcends India’s state-level electoral politics. It’s actually about reinventing national ideology, culture, and education. To understand why India presently stands so high on the world stage — and also how it could crash down — let’s peek inside the two engines. The lessons for Pakistan are immediate and obvious.
The first engine pulls India along the road to prosperity and modernity. It has sent Indian spacecraft winging to the moon and Mars, placed India’s IT and pharmaceutical companies among the world’s largest, filled America’s best universities with professors who are graduates of Indian universities, and created some of the world’s biggest business empires. Several top Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are Indian.
President Joe Biden recently quipped that “Indian Americans are taking over this country”. He could have meant Britain as well where Rishi Sunak is its new prime minister with personal wealth surpassing that of the newly crowned King Charles III. Sunak’s Bangalore-based father-in-law is the founder of Infosys; this Indian IT company’s market capitalisation recently crossed a staggering $100 billion.

Retrograde cultural forces are strong in India yet it forges ahead while Pakistan regresses. Why?

Also read: Pak-India education compared
These are substantial, undeniable achievements that hubris-filled Hindu nationalists say derive from their greatness as an ancient civilisation. But wait! China has done still better. And, though far smaller, many emergent countries of East Asia — Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Singapore — also boast of better performance than India’s.
In every case, the secret of success is well-known — strong systems of education that create skills, knowledge, attitudes and social behaviours suited for modern times. Together with that, a strong work ethic in the labour force. Stated differently, high national achievement springs naturally from the quickness with which a country universalises or ‘Westernises’ its education and creates positive attitudes towards work.
Here’s how India grew into the present. Empowered by the scientific and industrial revolutions, Britain colonised India and sought to spread Western education and values. Conservative Hindus emphatically rejected this modernisation but reformist movements such as Brahmo Samaj under Ram Mohan Roy and others made deep inroads.
By 1947 under Jawaharlal Nehru — an avowed Hindu atheist devoted to the ‘scientific temper’ — India was already intellectually equipped to enter the modern world. For the next 50 years, India’s education sought to create a pluralist, secular, scientifically minded society. It reaps rich harvests to the present day — which the BJP happily appropriates as its own.
But Hindu nationalists now want India’s goals and self-image drastically revised. Modi’s second engine, fuelled by febrile imaginations, pushes India towards emulating some kind of Hindu rashtra from an idyllic past. My friend Prof Badri Raina, now retired from Delhi University, says that “this backward engine would have us believe that in ancient times we had knowledge of plastic surgery, aeronautics, satellite vision, even as streams of foaming white milk flowed down our plains, and golden birds perched on the branches of trees”.
What if the likes of Roy and Nehru had never existed? Under engine #2 India’s education would have been Sanskrit-based with English only barely understood. Post-independence India would have become a garbage dump for every kind of crackpot science. Medical research would have focused on medicines made from cow urine and cow dung, the celibacy of peacocks would be under intense scrutiny, astrology would be taught in place of astronomy, and there would be Vedic mathematics instead of actual mathematics.
Let’s turn now to subcontinental Muslims and then to Pakistan.
Two hundred years ago, it was crystal clear that the dull daily rote of memorisation in traditional madressahs was wholly unsuited for the modern age. Meanwhile, children of Indian parents in English-medium schools were learning trigonometry and logarithms, the properties of solids and gases, and of experiments that showed these obeyed certain laws. Instead of the greatness of kings and emperors, schools taught ideas of parliamentary and legal systems.
The ulema across India fiercely resisted the modern curriculum. The zamindar and jagirdar also saw little use for it even if he sent his boys to school or, as occasionally happened, to Oxford and Cambridge. Very few opted for science, medicine, or other forms of hard learning. Most learned just the airs and graces that would assure their social position back home.
The loudest call for reforming Muslim education was that of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Madressahs, he said, are entirely unnecessary. Using religious idiom he passionately argued for science and modernity. While his efforts led to some measure of functionality and to jobs within the colonial system, they were nowhere deep or wide as that of Brahmo Samaj. Conservative backlash limited Sir Syed’s influence.
Thus, by the time Partition came around, there was a massive Hindu-Muslim gap. Nevertheless, for the first few decades, Pakistan’s engine #1 steadily gained strength and was consistently stronger than its second engine. Among other things, Pakistan’s space programme (born 1961, now dead) much preceded India’s.
Forward motion slowed then stopped in the 1980s after Pakistan’s engine #2 took over. Standards and workforce competence sank. Institutions and organisations steadily crumbled for lack of modern-minded people. Industrialisation flopped in spite of the billions pumped in by America, China and Saudi Arabia. Finding graduates of Pakistani institutions capable of performing even basic tasks became harder and harder. Throwing more money at education was tried but learning outcomes kept worsening.
Pakistan’s regular schools have now come to resemble madressahs with the difference shrinking by the year. Many surveys indicate student learning has descended to Somalia-like levels. Adding more fuel to engine #2, the PDM government has accelerated implementation of the regressive Single National Curriculum conceived by Imran Khan’s government. Helplessly, we gravitate downward. Will India eventually suffer Pakistan’s fate? That depends upon which of its two engines can pull harder.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Retrograde cultural forces are strong in India yet it forges ahead while Pakistan regresses. Why?

Because Pakistan is a retrogate and regressive country in itself. "Indians are more extremist & hateful" is a Pakistani construct to soothe their own minds and justify existence of Pakistan after failure of the concept. Reality starkly mismatches the construct. Given that India is a functional secular state, the most extremist form of India is more liberal than liberal form of Pakistan.

If yet Indians were to be seen as extremists at par with Pakistanis, Indians would be like highly equipped and powerful European colonial powers when Pakistanis would be sub modern jungle warriors like Taliban.

And, though far smaller, many emergent countries of East Asia — Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Singapore — also boast of better performance than India’s.

No, in terms of core sectors and economic progresses, none of these countries had a quicker progress than India's. Except for China, Japan and SKOR, no country comes even close.

They all are just better than Pakistan. All Asian countries except Afghanistan and Yemen are better than Pakistan.

Stated differently, high national achievement springs naturally from the quickness with which a country universalises or ‘Westernises’ its education and creates positive attitudes towards work.

Somehow "westernisation" didn't save Latin America and Phillippnes from sinking and lack of it didn't prevent Japan from climbing to the top of world.
Westernisation is about American pop culture or uneducated Jesus loving flat earth idiots. Imitating them hasn't ever improved the fortunes of any country.
Modernization is a different drive requiring a different kind of operating mindset since start like founding fathers of China, India, Korea and USSR had.
Anyone who thinks Modernisation and progress will magically appear after westernisation is an ABCD (American Born Confused Desi) with a sense racial superiority in white people due to his lack of education. Such people think they are educated while they are not.

Here’s how India grew into the present. Empowered by the scientific and industrial revolutions, Britain colonised India and sought to spread Western education and values.

Bullshit, there has been no involvement any kind of British inherited agency in what you can call feat modern India.
Most of modern institutions were built after 60s and most feats began after 90s. British empire didn't contribute anything to India except mass famines. If we have to believe otherwise, why British didn't civilise rest of world and just a society (which actually had existed as a settled civilisation thousands of years before Britain came into existence).

Conservative Hindus emphatically rejected this modernisation but reformist movements such as Brahmo Samaj under Ram Mohan Roy and others made deep inroads.

These movements were rejected by communists, Hinduism hating dalit leaders and nationalists of Congress too, were they conservative too LOL?

By 1947 under Jawaharlal Nehru — an avowed Hindu atheist devoted to the ‘scientific temper’ — India was already intellectually equipped to enter the modern world.

Yet, somehow it took next 40 years and had to build new institutions before making anything scientific.

For the next 50 years, India’s education sought to create a pluralist, secular, scientifically minded society.

Bullshit LOL.
Indian scientists you read about largely from Brahmin families of South India.

It reaps rich harvests to the present day — which the BJP happily appropriates as its own.

After reviving and delivering dead projects between 1998-2004 and 2014-present which were otherwise cancelled by Congress, sure BJP alone has the credits for electronics and aerospace industries of India.

What if the likes of Roy and Nehru had never existed?

Indians would be speaking less English given that there were no scientific movements at least.

Medical research would have focused on medicines made from cow urine and cow dung, the celibacy of peacocks would be under intense scrutiny, astrology would be taught in place of astronomy, and there would be Vedic mathematics instead of actual mathematics.

Somehow, digital system and trigonometry are derivative of same Hindu mathematics which he calls "different from actual maths" LOL.


If a Pakistani "scientist" can blatantly display this level of incompetency and lack of education, imagine what common Pakistanis are upto. The way Hoodbhoy talks, even a second year Hindu nationalist B. Tech student, GATE aspirant student from some second tier Indian university can do a better lecture.

 

[Chillpillpandey]

yup, and these conciliatory voices come out when one is on a bad wicket. as and when things stablise in paki land, "aman ki tamasha" + jihadi mindset taunts will come back.

there are zero indications that there is a change in mindset.

Exactly. The Paki *intent* to hurt India is a constant. The intensity of that intent is directly proportionate to their capability (economic/military). Since the economy has tanked, and is in freefall, the capability has reduced, and hence the conciliatory voices. Pump in a few 10s of billions and this same guy would be singing a different tune.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Pak doesn't have a relevance beyond political discourse and a short war doesn't bear any kind of fruitful results for Pak against India.

Given that power differential between India and Pakistan had reached to level of existential crisis for Pakistan is mid 80s itself, war is best option provided Pakistan is a suicide bomber aimed to weaken India for China.
Regardless of 2022, 2030 or even 1990, Pak lies in a far weaker position since 1971 and will lose more than enough territory. That explains Pak shying away from war in 2019 despite open invitations.

Another one...

India’s coming of age

In 1999, when General Musharraf sprung the Kargil misadventure on the Pakistani people, India had a GDP of just over $450 billion. To contextualize this properly, one needs to clock some other...

www.thenews.com.pk

 

[ezsasa]

Another one...

India’s coming of age

In 1999, when General Musharraf sprung the Kargil misadventure on the Pakistani people, India had a GDP of just over $450 billion. To contextualize this properly, one needs to clock some other...

www.thenews.com.pk

in bits and pieces the oped sounds logical, but as a whole the same paki schizophrenia seeps into their commentary. when their intelligentsia cannot think of beyond "India is the driver of insecurity and instability in the region" premise, then it's all downhill.

 

[Rassil Krishnan]

Their last hope was the death of a thousand cuts strategy through acts of terrorism and supporting insurgencies across India but India showed her resiliency and even managed to grow and prosper in the face of such "cuts". When they finally realized it wasn't working and backfired on them (see such insurgencies in FATA, Balochistan, and Sindh) that was the moment they realized they lost but couldn't bring themselves to admit this.

Nonetheless, I still view them as an existential threat only because of the number of nukes they hold plus their potential capacity for more nukes. This is the only card they have but it is not a winning hand.

there is still some strike corps left for them.

as a realist nationalist guy - they have 2 albeit incomplete 'strike corps' or ' armies' left for them on which they have placed their entire hope of carrying out offensives against bharat (which is a barely hidden hatred of dharmic civilization) . THESE ARE THE SO-CALLED 1. SECULAR NGO/WOKE TYPES AND 2. THE VENERABLE INTERNAL SPIRITUAL PAKIS WITHIN INDIA AND THEIR SUSTAINING INSTITUTIONS.

Take these two armies out and then Pakistan (which is a garrison state to incubate and sustain islam till a more favourable times appear for propagation in south asia) will be in the situation of the german army after operation Bagration by the USSR, it will still be technically alive - but it will never have the initiative and will face a sure decline.

now it is declining steadily due to it own incompetence. but we as a nation,as a people and our leaders must add on to it buy starving and surrounding and destroying these final two armies. the pakistan army is now actually only a defensive corp meant to hold on to the garrison incubator state. even the chinese armies don't have the legs to cut into us without losing all the cards they have collected.

SO FOCUS on destroying these final 2 cards in their hands.

 

[Blademaster]

there is still some strike corps left for them.

as a realist nationalist guy - they have 2 albeit incomplete 'strike corps' or ' armies' left for them on which they have placed their entire hope of carrying out offensives against bharat (which is a barely hidden hatred of dharmic civilization) . THESE ARE THE SO-CALLED 1. SECULAR NGO/WOKE TYPES AND 2. THE VENERABLE INTERNAL SPIRITUAL PAKIS WITHIN INDIA AND THEIR SUSTAINING INSTITUTIONS.

Take these two armies out and then Pakistan (which is a garrison state to incubate and sustain islam till a more favourable times appear for propagation in south asia) will be in the situation of the german army after operation Bagration by the USSR, it will still be technically alive - but it will never have the initiative and will face a sure decline.

now it is declining steadily due to it own incompetence. but we as a nation,as a people and our leaders must add on to it buy starving and surrounding and destroying these final two armies. the pakistan army is now actually only a defensive corp meant to hold on to the garrison incubator state. even the chinese armies don't have the legs to cut into us without losing all the cards they have collected.

SO FOCUS on destroying these final 2 cards in their hands.

The way to immobilized those 2 strike corps is to locate all their fuel depots and destroy them and go after power distribution nodes and communication nodes. Once those 3 things are done, they have zero offensive capabilities and are resorted to a garrison army.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

For a reason we don't know.
Re-hyphenating India and Pakistan

South Asia has a very important part to play in the US strategic design for Asia. India and Pakistan, the two eternal belligerents, have always been a diplomatic nightmare to handle together. In the mid-90s, the Council on Foreign Relations wrote a policy paper for the Clinton Administration suggesting a de-hyphenation of US policy towards India and Pakistan. Consequently, a major paradigm shift in the US approach to the South Asia/Indo-Pak subcontinent took place. This was a major development that unshackled US policy towards the region, giving it much more flexibility in dealing with India and Pakistan, independent of one another.
As a part of the US strategic design for Asia, India and Pakistan now seem to be firmly emplaced in their allotted slots; India as a strategic partner to pursue US interests in the South-Central Asian Region (SCAR), Greater Middle East Region, (GMER), Indo-Pacific Region (IPR) and the Indian Ocean while Pakistan is to be essentially engaged in the regional/subregional contexts of the SCAR-GMER Complex. India is expected to play a major role at the regional and extra-regional levels vis a vis China. However, any increase in India’s military capacity, ostensibly to confront China, upends the strategic balance in South Asia/Indo-Pak subcontinent as well—much to Pakistan’s detriment.

The US policy of de-hyphenating India and Pakistan does not seem to be delivering very well at this point in time. The attainment of US strategic objectives in South Asia still remains elusive. The evolving strategic environment in the region is forcing India and Pakistan to be clubbed together again. Two major issues continue to impede this US policy. One is Kashmir. India and Pakistan just do not have it in them to come to a reasonable, sensible, peaceful solution to this intractable imbroglio on their own. Both have adopted maximalist positions and will not compromise or cede ground. Bilateralism has and is likely to fail perpetually. Both are very significant military and nuclear powers, and if the Kashmir issue is mishandled, could very easily blow themselves and a major part of the international community out of this world. A conflagration between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan will set back the achievement of US strategic objectives in the region massively. It must consider getting proactively involved in getting the requisite UNSC Resolutions implemented.

The other is China. The US wants India to focus its attention entirely on circumscribing the rise of its nemesis. However, the Indian military is primarily and foremost Pakistan-centric. Anywhere up to eighty percent or more is either deployed or poised against it. It can only be moved away toward China through a massive paradigm shift in its strategic orientation, force structures and ratios, capabilities and capacities, etc. The costs will be prohibitive in political, military and economic terms which the Indian Government and military might be unwilling or unable to bear. Furthermore, the strategic environment in the larger Kashmir region has now acquired far more serious dimensions. Where India is a strategic partner of the US, Pakistan is strategically aligned with China. India is now faced with a three-front war—China, Pakistan and the inner front of the disturbed, restless IIOJ&KR! India cannot overwhelm nuclear Pakistan alone, much less Pakistan and China combined. It is a patently lose-lose situation for India.

The odds for India (and by implication the attainment of US objectives) can only improve if Pakistan is somehow neutralized and taken out of the strategic equation.
Currently, Pakistan finds itself in very dire economic straits. It is now tottering on the brink of a paralyzing political implosion and an economic meltdown as terrorism raises its macabre head again. To make matters worse the Armed Forces, the perceived centre of gravity of the nation, stand discredited and ostracized. Furthermore, a coterie of self-seeking, malleable political charlatans have been maneuvered into power. Media campaigns, essentially defeatist in nature, are suggesting fresh lessons in realpolitik for Pakistan; bin the Kashmir issue and submit to the wiles of Hindutva-charged India. Has this current politico-economic conundrum come about merely due to incompetent political and economic management or is it a grand strategic manoeuvre undertaken to achieve specific objectives at the regional and global levels? Either way, it has placed Pakistan in an extremely weak and vulnerable position.

Pakistan’s vulnerabilities make it susceptible to exploitation by ruthless global powers. They may make an economic bailout for Pakistan contingent upon it meeting their combined strategic interests in the region. One, they could coerce Pakistan to make peace with India (on their terms); put the Kashmir issue on the back burner for a couple of decades and develop “meaningful” trade and economic relations with it. Two, most crucially, they could demand the neutralization of Pakistan’s nuclear program in totality. (Securing Pakistan’s Nukes, by this scribe, The Nation, 05 and 08 November 2022). Three, they could force Pakistan to remain neutral in a possible Indo-China conflict, a la the 1962 Indo-China War. This will secure India’s northern and western borders and free up its military currently fixed by Pakistan’s Armed Forces, to take on China single-mindedly. Four, Pakistan could be required to delay, disrupt, destroy and eventually ditch the BRI-CPEC, ostensibly its future economic lifeline. This would deny the BRI and China a smooth ingress into the GMER and beyond as well. All this would transpire in Pakistan becoming subservient to Indian hegemony in the region. Any Government of Pakistan agreeing to any one or more of the above or similar conditions would face a violent, volatile reaction from the public and will not survive. It would be imprudent and patently inadvisable to push nuclear Pakistan into a strategic cul de sac with nary a viable option!

A review of this 27-year-old dehyphenation policy is warranted. It must be made relevant to the evolving strategic environment in South Asia. Pakistan cannot be disregarded in regional affairs. The US needs to get directly involved and play a proactive role in the region. It must help resolve the Kashmir issue. That might position it better to achieve some of its strategic objectives, if not all, someday!

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Lol, what a load of confirmation bias.

South Asia has a very important part to play in the US strategic design for Asia.

India alone* and not South Asia is what shapes strategic and political landscape of Asia. India's neighbors are essentially India's (or India's enemies') client states.

India and Pakistan, the two eternal belligerents, have always been a diplomatic nightmare to handle together.

Using a far smaller Pakistan to balance a far bigger India has rather been more of a challenge for US.*

As a part of the US strategic design for Asia, India and Pakistan now seem to be firmly emplaced in their allotted slots; India as a strategic partner to pursue US interests in the South-Central Asian Region (SCAR), Greater Middle East Region, (GMER), Indo-Pacific Region (IPR) and the Indian Ocean while Pakistan is to be essentially engaged in the regional/subregional contexts of the SCAR-GMER Complex.

Pakistan doesn't feature in SCAR (South & Central Asia) or GMER (Greater Middle East) as it barely has influence beyond borders (funnily, it has to compete with Taliban to have influence in it's own territory). It is essentially a unique case and strictly relevant to it's own situation, with a role to play in one of its neighbors; Afghanistan (since Pakistan's other two neighbors; India & Iran are too strong to be challenged).

Pakistan was never a regional power, it's strategic thinkers only fooled it to believe that it was one with no influence whatsoever in economic, transit or military aspects. What they only keep blabbing is "potential".

However, any increase in India’s military capacity, ostensibly to confront China, upends the strategic balance in South Asia/Indo-Pak subcontinent as well—much to Pakistan’s detriment.

There was no strategic balance in South Asia since 1980s as Indian military had grown far bigger in that era already. Gap between India and Pakistan in all aspects kept widening in India's favour then for next 40 years and will still keep widening for next 30-40 years.

The US policy of de-hyphenating India and Pakistan does not seem to be delivering very well at this point in time.

*For Pakistan

The attainment of US strategic objectives in South Asia still remains elusive.

Supporting Pak to balance Indian influence beared no results for US. So it was off course a better deal to befriend one enemy to fight another (China).

India's rise was not a result of Indo US relations/Indo Pak dehyphenation but a cause of it. US gave up on Pakistan and came to a promising India which only didn't have a brighter future but was having a big enough military, capable to match shoulders with US to directly fight China, what even America's western allies couldn't do.

The evolving strategic environment in the region is forcing India and Pakistan to be clubbed together again.

It is only forcing Pakistan to find ways to get clubbed with India again.*

Pakistan is known to world as India's enemy. Impotency against India makes Pakistan useless and irrelevant for great powers. Indian government stopped even responding to Pakistani tirades long ago.

Difficult equation

Ties with India must be rejigged.

www.dawn.com

Two major issues continue to impede this US policy. One is Kashmir.

Kashmir doesn't affect US interests and that's why it stopped commenting on it long ago.

India and Pakistan just do not have it in them to come to a reasonable, sensible, peaceful solution to this intractable imbroglio on their own.

India has it in itself and Pakistan being a weaker country, looks for involvement of great powers to settle better scores with India.

Both are very significant military and nuclear powers,

No, one is a rising great power with a stable society, democratic government and a strong industrial and economic base, added with a powerful military capable of making any great power cry.

Second is a military ruled nuclear armed rogue theocracy, globally documented perpetrator of militancy, vassal state of US and China, looking for foreign assistance against the former.

and if the Kashmir issue is mishandled, could very easily blow themselves and a major part of the international community out of this world.

No, Pakistan barely has ammunition to blow itself up.
Modern Indo Pakistani military doctrine spins around;
India looking to build ways to quickly capture Pakistani territory and destroying military assets & warfighting capabilities like Russia,
Pakistan looking to acquire denial ways like Ukraine,

Off course no international community will be blown up.

The other is China. The US wants India to focus its attention entirely on circumscribing the rise of its nemesis. However, the Indian military is primarily and foremost Pakistan-centric.

Possibly why India has been building & acquiring massive DDGs, FFGs, SSNs, fifth generation fighters, mechanized infantry, directed energy weapons, ASATs, ICBMs, MIRVs & MaRVs, spy ships, QKD and so forth.

If India was focused on Pakistan, its defense budget wouldn't exceed $25 billions.

Anywhere up to eighty percent or more is either deployed or poised against it.

Less than 2 lakh combined in Kashmir and Pakistan border, out of 14 lakh military. India has rather built border roads along China to deliver lakhs of troops.

And we are not accounting India's naval, space and aerial assets which barely focus on Pak.

It can only be moved away toward China through a massive paradigm shift in its strategic orientation, force structures and ratios, capabilities and capacities, etc. The costs will be prohibitive in political, military and economic terms which the Indian Government and military might be unwilling or unable to bear.

India has been preparing against China since 1960s. Amount of strategic assets and ever raising, $80 billions budget explains that. And no, long term military expansions costs are not a problem for a rapidly expanding economy like India. India already outspends every military in world except US and China.

Furthermore, the strategic environment in the larger Kashmir region has now acquired far more serious dimensions. Where India is a strategic partner of the US, Pakistan is strategically aligned with China.

There is no involvement of US in Indo Pakistan or Indo China affairs, US India collaboration is focused on international issues like SCS. So, India maintains, its words of bilaterism.

India being a "strategic partner" of US is just a diplomatic term with no official substance. Pakistan being a key non NATO ally of US is a real alliance. And when US treats India better than its ally, it explains a lot how important Pakistan is to world.

India is now faced with a three-front war—China, Pakistan and the inner front of the disturbed, restless IIOJ&KR!

As if it was not for 75 years.
Pakistani front is rather 0.5 than 1 and grip on Kashmir is firm.

India cannot overwhelm nuclear Pakistan alone,

If that was the case, Pakistan wouldn't have to run to third party great powers to settle scores with India.

much less Pakistan and China combined. It is a patently lose-lose situation for India.

The situation meanwhile, China nears recession and Pak gets bankrupt.

Off course, Pakistan counts itself as an important part of world. But world doesn't count Pakistan anywhere.

The odds for India (and by implication the attainment of US objectives) can only improve if Pakistan is somehow neutralized and taken out of the strategic equation.

India itself did it in 1971 and has been weakening it since then.
Anyone who believes that India still feels insecure from Pakistan is an idiot. India has only been hammering final nails in coffin to finally get completely involved in politics of middle east and central Asia which will be the symbol of promotion of India from a regional to a great power.

Media campaigns, essentially defeatist in nature, are suggesting fresh lessons in realpolitik for Pakistan; bin the Kashmir issue and submit to the wiles of Hindutva-charged India

If media campaigns are defeatist, what is solution?
Off course nothing since Pakistan doesn't anywhere near India realistically.

A review of this 27-year-old dehyphenation policy is warranted.

De hyphenation is a product of gap between India and Pakistan. So Pakistan better analyses why it was left behind at first place.

It must be made relevant to the evolving strategic environment in South Asia. Pakistan cannot be disregarded in regional affairs.

Pakistan was never regarded by anyone in South Asian affairs except Afghanistan at first place. It is not a regional power like India or Iran, it is just a nuclear armed version of Syria.

The US needs to get directly involved and play a proactive role in the region.

It did last time when India was hostile to it & UK during Diego Gracia island episode. Today, India is the naval power of IOR, US patrols with India whereas UK & Australia are no longer relevant in that region.

So unless US wants another hostile China which actually impedes its interests, it won't do anything.

It must help resolve the Kashmir issue. That might position it better to achieve some of its strategic objectives, if not all, someday!

Kashmir serves non of US strategic objectives.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Dialogue with India on levels other than military ‘need of Pakistan’, says former DG ISPR Athar Abbas

Shaheen Salahuddin (L) moderating a panel talk, titled “Search for peace and security among neighbours” at the 14th Karachi Literature Festival on Feb 19, 2023. Michael Kugelman (L2), Zahid Hussain (C) and Athar Abbas (R) give their opinions on Pakistan’s existing diplomatic relations with its neighbours, especially India and Afghanistan.

Former Director General (DG) of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Major General (retd) Athar Abbas, said on Sunday that dialogue with India on levels other than the security establishment’s is “a need of Pakistan”.
He made the remarks during a panel discussion — titled Search for peace and security among neighbours — on the final day of the 14th Karachi Literature Festival held at Karachi’s Beach Luxury Hotel.

Abbas said, “Dialogue is, at present, a need of our country […]. The way forward is not just the state apparatus, because if you leave it [solely] to the security establishment, there will be no move forward. It will be like taking one step forward and two steps backwards.

“There has to be an initiative […] like track II diplomacy, like media, like business and trade organisations, like academia … and they can interact and create their space within Indian society, etc.

“That builds pressure on the [Indian] government [and] state authorities that they must look into what the people are saying. This is a requirement of time that dialogue is a need of Pakistan.”

If met with resistance, he said, Pakistan could also involve “external actors” such as the US and the European Union.

When asked how soon he saw any talks with the neighbours taking place, Gen Abbas said, “You cannot change your neighbour. Eventually, they will have to come to a negotiating table […] even if it feels it is a great power.”

The former DG ISPR remarked that instability in Pakistan would also spill over into India and vice versa, and that “we should not only wait for the establishment” and look towards other options as well.

He said there had been “missed opportunities” in the past by both countries to initiate talks, as he recalled former Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s bus diplomacy and Gen Musharraf’s Agra initiative“.

Abbas said it would be hard to talk to a state that “is at war with itself”, as he referred to the political rifts rampant in the country.

Separately, foreign relations analyst Michael Kugelman pointed out during the discussion that even though India and Pakistan would always have tensions, the Line of Control has been “relatively quieter” in recent years.

He did not see any improvement between the two countries’ relations in the future, adding, “I think that’s a shame [as] both countries can benefit from economic relations.”

Meanwhile, Dawn columnist Zahid Hussain remarked that while there was no danger of both countries going to war in the current “no peace, no war” situation, neither did he see any improvement in the relations.

Noting that it was the first time that both India and Pakistan had “demoted their diplomatic relations” and there were no talks on any issues, he said the “mood in Pakistan [regarding relations with India] has also changed” recently.

Talking about the US involvement in the region’s politics, Kugelman said Washington desired peace in the region and “certainly better relations between India and Pakistan”.

“The US would prefer to see a region where China is not a dominant power,” he added.

To this, Gen (R) Abbas disagreed, saying, “Experts, here, believe that the US [simply] does not want to see China as the dominant power but at the level of Pakistan, it wants to see a controlled chaos”, referring to the establishment’s concerns regarding US intentions.

Kugelman’s point of view was again different from that of Abbas. He said the US did not desire instability in the region as “Pakistan is a nuclear power and controlled chaos is never far away from [becoming] an uncontrolled chaos.”

 

[RoaringTigerHiddenDragon]

For a reason we don't know.
Re-hyphenating India and Pakistan

South Asia has a very important part to play in the US strategic design for Asia. India and Pakistan, the two eternal belligerents, have always been a diplomatic nightmare to handle together. In the mid-90s, the Council on Foreign Relations wrote a policy paper for the Clinton Administration suggesting a de-hyphenation of US policy towards India and Pakistan. Consequently, a major paradigm shift in the US approach to the South Asia/Indo-Pak subcontinent took place. This was a major development that unshackled US policy towards the region, giving it much more flexibility in dealing with India and Pakistan, independent of one another.
As a part of the US strategic design for Asia, India and Pakistan now seem to be firmly emplaced in their allotted slots; India as a strategic partner to pursue US interests in the South-Central Asian Region (SCAR), Greater Middle East Region, (GMER), Indo-Pacific Region (IPR) and the Indian Ocean while Pakistan is to be essentially engaged in the regional/subregional contexts of the SCAR-GMER Complex. India is expected to play a major role at the regional and extra-regional levels vis a vis China. However, any increase in India’s military capacity, ostensibly to confront China, upends the strategic balance in South Asia/Indo-Pak subcontinent as well—much to Pakistan’s detriment.

The US policy of de-hyphenating India and Pakistan does not seem to be delivering very well at this point in time. The attainment of US strategic objectives in South Asia still remains elusive. The evolving strategic environment in the region is forcing India and Pakistan to be clubbed together again. Two major issues continue to impede this US policy. One is Kashmir. India and Pakistan just do not have it in them to come to a reasonable, sensible, peaceful solution to this intractable imbroglio on their own. Both have adopted maximalist positions and will not compromise or cede ground. Bilateralism has and is likely to fail perpetually. Both are very significant military and nuclear powers, and if the Kashmir issue is mishandled, could very easily blow themselves and a major part of the international community out of this world. A conflagration between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan will set back the achievement of US strategic objectives in the region massively. It must consider getting proactively involved in getting the requisite UNSC Resolutions implemented.

The other is China. The US wants India to focus its attention entirely on circumscribing the rise of its nemesis. However, the Indian military is primarily and foremost Pakistan-centric. Anywhere up to eighty percent or more is either deployed or poised against it. It can only be moved away toward China through a massive paradigm shift in its strategic orientation, force structures and ratios, capabilities and capacities, etc. The costs will be prohibitive in political, military and economic terms which the Indian Government and military might be unwilling or unable to bear. Furthermore, the strategic environment in the larger Kashmir region has now acquired far more serious dimensions. Where India is a strategic partner of the US, Pakistan is strategically aligned with China. India is now faced with a three-front war—China, Pakistan and the inner front of the disturbed, restless IIOJ&KR! India cannot overwhelm nuclear Pakistan alone, much less Pakistan and China combined. It is a patently lose-lose situation for India.

The odds for India (and by implication the attainment of US objectives) can only improve if Pakistan is somehow neutralized and taken out of the strategic equation.
Currently, Pakistan finds itself in very dire economic straits. It is now tottering on the brink of a paralyzing political implosion and an economic meltdown as terrorism raises its macabre head again. To make matters worse the Armed Forces, the perceived centre of gravity of the nation, stand discredited and ostracized. Furthermore, a coterie of self-seeking, malleable political charlatans have been maneuvered into power. Media campaigns, essentially defeatist in nature, are suggesting fresh lessons in realpolitik for Pakistan; bin the Kashmir issue and submit to the wiles of Hindutva-charged India. Has this current politico-economic conundrum come about merely due to incompetent political and economic management or is it a grand strategic manoeuvre undertaken to achieve specific objectives at the regional and global levels? Either way, it has placed Pakistan in an extremely weak and vulnerable position.

Pakistan’s vulnerabilities make it susceptible to exploitation by ruthless global powers. They may make an economic bailout for Pakistan contingent upon it meeting their combined strategic interests in the region. One, they could coerce Pakistan to make peace with India (on their terms); put the Kashmir issue on the back burner for a couple of decades and develop “meaningful” trade and economic relations with it. Two, most crucially, they could demand the neutralization of Pakistan’s nuclear program in totality. (Securing Pakistan’s Nukes, by this scribe, The Nation, 05 and 08 November 2022). Three, they could force Pakistan to remain neutral in a possible Indo-China conflict, a la the 1962 Indo-China War. This will secure India’s northern and western borders and free up its military currently fixed by Pakistan’s Armed Forces, to take on China single-mindedly. Four, Pakistan could be required to delay, disrupt, destroy and eventually ditch the BRI-CPEC, ostensibly its future economic lifeline. This would deny the BRI and China a smooth ingress into the GMER and beyond as well. All this would transpire in Pakistan becoming subservient to Indian hegemony in the region. Any Government of Pakistan agreeing to any one or more of the above or similar conditions would face a violent, volatile reaction from the public and will not survive. It would be imprudent and patently inadvisable to push nuclear Pakistan into a strategic cul de sac with nary a viable option!

A review of this 27-year-old dehyphenation policy is warranted. It must be made relevant to the evolving strategic environment in South Asia. Pakistan cannot be disregarded in regional affairs. The US needs to get directly involved and play a proactive role in the region. It must help resolve the Kashmir issue. That might position it better to achieve some of its strategic objectives, if not all, someday!

Porkis and their stupid delusions on the amount of influence the US has over India especially on Kashmir Valley. If the gulf nations and OIC don’t care about Kashmir valley, why would the US care?
Porkis are still not realizing that they are a nobody and their only survival is possible by becoming China’s slave. On our part, we need to increase the PCI gap to 10 times that of Porkistan .

 

[RoaringTigerHiddenDragon]

Dialogue with India on levels other than military ‘need of Pakistan’, says former DG ISPR Athar Abbas

Shaheen Salahuddin (L) moderating a panel talk, titled “Search for peace and security among neighbours” at the 14th Karachi Literature Festival on Feb 19, 2023. Michael Kugelman (L2), Zahid Hussain (C) and Athar Abbas (R) give their opinions on Pakistan’s existing diplomatic relations with its neighbours, especially India and Afghanistan.

I am pretty sure india has told the US that the only way Porkland can be at peace is through its balkanization. The idea of Porkistan ended in 1971, and the only way out is dissolving the country into its ethnic divisions. No one believes in the idea of Porkland and that is what needs to be solved. Kashmir discussions are just a small part of all this. The idea of India has survived and the idea of Pakshitstan has died. Sooner all the world powers recognize this and act accordingly it is better for the world.

 

[Indrajit]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[ezsasa]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

so this is why kugelman keeps referring to modi as hindu nationalist in his commentary, he was preparing ground for fait accompli on paki's behalf when dialogue between India-pak fails, instead of admitting the relationship is sour because of terrorism he wants to frame it as hindu-muslim issue, basically riding on the back of colonial literature.

 

[Sayman Ame]

I am pretty sure india has told the US that the only way Porkland can be at peace is through its balkanization. The idea of Porkistan ended in 1971, and the only way out is dissolving the country into its ethnic divisions. No one believes in the idea of Porkland and that is what needs to be solved. Kashmir discussions are just a small part of all this. The idea of India has survived and the idea of Pakshitstan has died. Sooner all the world powers recognize this and act accordingly it is better for the world.

India wouldn't have told any such thing for it knows US would be the last country to let that happen. They'd rather a Dictator sit and lord over the whole of Porkistan and its resources, its people be damned, than let it be Balkanized, which pretty much means an invitation to the powers that be, to start a new game of scoring influence (which the US has so far had in the region, barring China to an extent) and lose a sphere of influence in and around one of the most consequential straits/SLOCs (not that US has a direct presence along the Karachi or Gwadar port, but has enough hold over the Porki establishment to enforce its interests, should such a situation arise).

To that end, Balkanization of Porkistan is India's concern and India's alone (and even that is if the top dogs in the security council are ok with dealing with the consequences of the Radical Islamists across the border dangling the Nuke bait).