Is a stable, prosperous Pakistan in India's Interests?

Is a stable, properous Pakistan in India's interests?


  • Total voters
    27

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
490
Why do we keep hearing Indians leaders say that "An intact, stable Pakistan is in India's interest?"

Why do the national media, and even recognized patriots such as Brahm Chellaney not come out openly against this silly assertion?

Is there some kind of fundamental flaw in our assessment of Pakistan on BRF that makes us mindlessly anti-Pakistan while it is patently clear to the powers that be that Pakistan should be both stable and intact for good things to happen to India in the long term. ("in India's interest").

I would like to examine the issue of Pakistan's stability and Indian interest from various angles to see if we are completely off track in imagining that Pakistani stability is bad for India.

1) The Historic angle:

If you look back at the last 63 years since Pakistan was formed it might be possible to identify periods when Pakistan was intact and stable and it benefited India greatly. So let us move back to 1947.

In 1947 Pakistanis supported Jihadis attacked J&K and attempted to take it over. The end of the year in 1948 left India without a sizable chunk of J&K. If Pakistan attacked India and occupied territory, I would like to know how the Pakistan of 1947-48, intact as it was, was in any way beneficial to India.

The period 1948 to 1965 (17 years) was an interesting period. Pakistan was intact and stable. Pakistan's economy was greatly aided by the US at this time and Pakistan had developed the reputation enjoyed by "Asian economic tigers" of a later era. So we had an intact and stable Pakistan in this period. But how did that augur for India? Was in in "India interest". This can be answered in a backhanded way. Pakistan's stability in the 1948-1965period benefited India in that Pakistan did not attack India. The benefit here is like claiming that "Not being assaulted and attacked" by a belligerent is some kind of "great economic, diplomatic advantage". Protection money paid by victims to mafia gangs achieves the same effect of "security" that Pakistan offered India between 1948 and 1965.

In 1965 Pakistan attempted to take over Kashmir by force. Unless "being attacked by Pakistan" is considered a great diplomatic and economic boon to India, this attack could not have been in "India's interest"

Pakistan displayed relative stability up to 1971 when the Bangladesh crisis was sparked off. The Bangladesh crisis did not contribute to India's interest in any way. On the contrary, splitting Pakistan and defeating it militarily contributed to a period of stability in the subcontinent that was in India's interest. Here we have a classic example of an instance in which an non-intact and fragmented Pakistan was in India's interest. Not the other way round.

The 80s were a period of relative stability in Pakistan. During this period the only factor that worked in India interest was that India was not attacked by Pakistan. However Pakistan did try expansionism by converting the Siachen glacier area into a park for mountaineers. This was thwarted militarily by India. But the conclusion is the same. Pakistan's stability did not contribute to peace or stability for India. Pakistan also expanded into Afghanistan.

Pakistan in the 1990s was intact but unstable. The 90s were marked by a period of intense Pakistan sponsored terrorism in India. In what was way this in Indian interest? There was nothing good for India in this.

In 1999 Pakistan, attacked India and provoked the Kargil conflict. Nothing about this shameful episode can be declared as having been in India's interest. From 2000 onwards we have had a series of terrorist attacks in India that can all be traced back to Pakistan. What is it about these attacks that would make anyone feel that Pakistan, stable or unstable, has any stake in anything that is in India interest.

As far as I can tell, the history of the last 63 clearly shows that Pakistan, stable or unstable, is not in India's interest. So who has conjured up the shameful lie that "A stable Pakistan is in India's interest?"

2) Pakistan's "stability" angle

Going back 63 years - one can see that Pakistan has been stable for some periods of time and unstable at other times. There is absolutely no correlation between Pakistani stability and India interests.

1947-8: Pakistan was unstable and it attacked India

1965: Pakistan was stable and it attacked India

1971: Pakistan was stable and it got itself into a crisis that resulted in war

1980s: Pakistan was stable and it commenced an expansionist campaign into Afghanistan in search of "strategic depth" against India

1990s: Pakistan was politically unstable, and India suffered from terrorism

After 2000: Pakistan remains unstable and terrorism continues.

There is absolutely no correlation between Pakistan's stability and India's interests. Pakistan has been attacking India whether or not it is politically stable.

3) Pakistan's "prosperity" angle:

In 1947-8 Pakistan was in economic upheaval, and it attacked India

In 1965 Pakistan was stable and prosperous, and it attacked India

In 1971 Pakistan was stable and prosperous and it attacked India

1n the 1980s Pakistan was prosperous and did nothing for India interests

1n the 1990s Pakistan's economy was prosperous, and funded terrorism against India

After 2000, Pakistan's economy has been on bailout mode, and attacks against India continue.


4) India's "Interests" angle

It was not in India's interest to get attacked by Pakistan in 1947-48
It was not in India's interest to get attacked by Pakistan in 1965
It was not in India's interest to have to put up 10 million refugees from genocide in East Pakistan in 1971
It was not in India's interest to lose Siachen or have Afghanistan occupied by Pakis in the 1980s
Terrorism since the 1990s has not been in India's interest.

Under what circumstances (other than being high on heroin or ganja) can any Indian say that Pakistan has acted in India's interest under any circumstances?

Specifically how can people continue to assert that a stable Pakistan is in India's interest? Clearly, Pakistan is not acting in India's interest. the question of its stability or instability playing any role does not even arise. The assertion that "A stable Pakistan is in India's interest" is a black lie that should no longer be tolerated.

Why do India leaders say that? Why does the idiotic press in India actually echo that mindlessly when it is said? Are we just a nation of moronic automations who swallow what is thrown at us without applying any thought?
X-posted from another forum.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
490
If you look at Bruce Riedel's arguments, he makes the statement "A stable Pakistan is in India's interest" come true with some clever sophistry in the genre of "I am less of a rapist that the other guy. You will be raped by him if you do not tolerate me".

This is, after all what the Pakistan army does successfully.

The National Interest

With many of the LET in power, a major mass-casualty attack on India like the November 2008 Mumbai bombings would be likely. And this time it could spark war. India has shown remarkable restraint over the last decade as the Pakistani army, militants in Pakistan or both have carried out provocations like the Kargil War in 1999, the attack on the Indian parliament in 2001 and the Mumbai raid last year. Of course, a big part of India’s restraint is the lack of any good military option for retaliation that would avoid the risk of nuclear Armageddon. But if pressed hard enough, New Delhi may need to take some action. Blockading Karachi and demanding the closure of militant training camps might seem to be a way to increase pressure without firing the first shot but it carries a high risk of spiraling escalation. And of course any chance for a peace agreement in Kashmir would be dead. Violence in the region would rise. The new militant regime in Pakistan would increase support for the insurgency.

And Israel would come into the emirate’s crosshairs as a major target. Pakistan has always supported the Palestinian cause. In the past, most of the championing has been rhetorical, but an Islamic state would become a more practical supporter of Sunni groups like Hamas, giving money and arms. Pakistani embassies could become safe havens for terrorists pinpointing Zionist and Crusader targets. Of course, Pakistan could also provide the bomb. Farther away from Israel than Iran, Pakistan would be a harder foe for the Israelis to counter with force. And Israel has done little or no strategic thinking about the Pakistani threat.

A militant Islamic state in Pakistan, the second-largest Muslim country and the only one with a nuclear arsenal, would have a massive ripple effect across the Islamic world. All of the existing Muslim regimes would be alarmed by the prospect of their own jihadists finding a new refuge and training facilities; the extremists would then have a new base from which to fight their home governments. The psychological impact on Muslim nations would be far more profound than previous Islamic takeovers in relatively remote or marginal states like Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia or Gaza.

The global Islamic jihad, spearheaded by al-Qaeda, would proclaim the liberation of the ummah, or community, was at hand. In Pakistani-diaspora communities in the United Kingdom and the Gulf states the risk of terrorism would be even greater than it is today. The United States would have to take steps to curb travel by its citizens of Pakistani origin to their homeland. The damage that could be wrought is many magnitudes greater than the capabilities lent to al-Qaeda through having a safe haven in Afghanistan. Our options in facing down an extremist-controlled Pakistan would be far more limited than those we had in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks.
Because of such dire threat scenarios, it is being "accepted" that a stable Pakistan is necessary.
"We are so afraid of the LeT and Taliban that we would rather love the Pakistani army.

Hey but the US is allowed to love the Pakistan army? But India? :eek:

For India the Pakistan army and LeT are one and the same
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,322
Likes
11,636
Country flag
Its for international consumption. I dont think thats the view in private.
 

IBM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
193
Likes
1
No stable pakistan is bad for india.. India should make sure pak remain in trouble....
 

hit&run

Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
9,344
Likes
23,573
Country flag
i think we should have to vote on this.
My money is with unstable pakistan at present,given the fact they are born to level scores with india. i am open to change my stand in future when the trust between both countries will increase. if one could ask me that the trust should be increased from indian side then i ll say its only pakistan's call to do so. India has done more than enough for the same. i can see there is little change in mind set ordinary pakistani since they are feeling the pain what is happening there in pakistan. Now they are understanding that whatever is happening in pakistan due to there irrational anti india policies is ending up being a futile and costlier misadventure.

Very simple physics: For every action there is equal and opposite reaction.
 

Sabir

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,116
Likes
787
A good Pakistan (for India ) is an annihilated Pakistan.

No body stopped Pakistan to progress and become a stable prosperous country. But since birth it is unnecessarily taking India as a threat and every policy in Pakistan is originated to counter India. The nation as a whole is a victim of Paranoid psychosis and it has gone to the level of 'no return'. It kept on maintaining a much bigger military force in comparison to its affordibility , it promoted jihadis to cut India with thouand wounds and now it is almost in front of bankruptcy and severely wounded by the jihadis and fundamentalists they promoted once. Somebody quite accurately said Pakistan is a nuclear power with no proper power. Stability and prospwerity seemto be a remote dream..even if it can be achieved by a miracle the mind set up of Pakistan will never be changed as I said it has gone to the level of no return.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
155
Yes, a stable, prosperous subcontinent is in India's interest. That's a no-brainer.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,322
Likes
11,636
Country flag
Only a "friendly" stable Pakistan is of use to India. We can make a lot of money from their market. And thats what maybe the politicians mean when they say that. Otherwise and unfriendly Pakistan, whether stable or not makes no difference to India. It will have to keep fighting its war against terror.
 

duhastmish

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
201
Likes
84
Country flag
a unstable pakistan cant be in favou of india- pakistan's unstability means - taliban's overpowering in pakistan .
which in turn can trigger danger for our border. we surely dont want talebani on our border. we had enough with let - and we all know what taleban can be. if we are facing problem - containing let and jud - taleban is way more powerful than them.
-------------------
another thought is : why should we even want an unstable pakistan - this will be bad for pakistani people. we as indian dont have ant problem with pakistani people - rather we can relate to them way better than the politicans and powerful of our country.

the enemy is not poor arse country men from karach ihe is me and you. on other side of border.
problem are - the lawmakers, the politicians, the religion lords,
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,707
Yes, a stable, prosperous subcontinent is in India's interest. That's a no-brainer.
But, does the Pakistan wants to be stable??. Pakistan has taken great pains in expanding its military to counter India at the cost of prosperity and peace to its citizens. The motto of Pakistani establishment (which is nothing but Pakistani army) has been destruction of india by 1000 cuts even if at its own destruction. It has failed to destroy India by its 1000 cuts policy, but it has succeeded in destroying itself. It is on the brink of complete destruction by its brainchild Jihadis. Even India cannot to do anything to save it from destruction, as it is in a position of point-of-no-return.

Moreover, a prosperous Pakistan is never good for Indian interests, as it gives enough ammunition to use against India recklessly, which it has done in the past. Stable pakistan is not amenable to Indian interests as it wants India's destruction at any cost. So, India should take proactive steps to break pakistan into smaller states which could be amenable to Indian interests. Pakistan can be fragmented based on its ethnic tensions that are simmering for a while now, such as, Balochistan, Pashtunistan, Sindh, Seraikistan, Baltistan. All India needs to do is covertly support the separatist factions to achieve their goals without much bloodshed.

It is the pakistani punjab region which is more rabid in its hate against India as you can see in their majority presence in the Pakistani military at top echelons. Pakistani punjab will be more controllable when pakistan is broken and has no more room to fall upon during war or for resources. It will also be land locked and rivers that it depends are under control of India.

Then, I will wish for a stable and prosperous fragmented states of Pakistan which would not be anti-India as it is now.

For all this to happen, we need to consider two patrons of Pakistan which are keeping it alive on ICU, namely, US and China. With China being slowly sidelined from Pakistan by US in the name War on Terrorism, we can for now ignore China. Once we get US on our side, I think India can accomplish this objective.

Just my dreams..:D
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,707
a unstable pakistan cant be in favou of india- pakistan's unstability means - taliban's overpowering in pakistan .
which in turn can trigger danger for our border. we surely dont want talebani on our border. we had enough with let - and we all know what taleban can be. if we are facing problem - containing let and jud - taleban is way more powerful than them.
Why will Taliban come to India. They will have hands full in Pakistan. Why didn't Taliban attack Pakistan when they were ruling Afghanistan, because they were stage managed by Pakistan. They have turned against Pakistan because Pakistan at the behest of US has been attacking them in their pakhtoon lands.

Moreover LeT and JuD are not some terrorist organization formed on their own, they were created by ISI. Aren't you following Hafeez Saeed court case, how shoddily they are conducting the prosecution. The quicker we realize this fact, the better it is for us. Don't get deluded that these terrorist organizations are on their own.
 

Sabir

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,116
Likes
787
Yousuf is 100% right. You have to add the term "friendly". unfriendly Pakistan stable or unstable equaliy dangerous for India. Just go back by two decades. Condition of Pakistan was not as bad as today.....did they restrain from harming India? Not !

Solve all their problems and give them trillions of fund. They will end up buying arms and ammunation to counter India. This India phobia will remain as long India is there.
 

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,730
Answer lies in reflecting in the past, has a prosperous Pakistan been in our interest in the past and what all have we got in return of a stable Pakistan. Terrorism in Kashmir, Punjab, tactical support to Maoists, suspected role in ne, the infamous policy to bleed India through 1000 cuts, blasts all over the country, thousands of people killed all over the country, 48, 65, kargil, a nuke armed nation which has lunatics in high positions who fancy using them on India, a country where the idea of hate India is taught in text books of school children sounds most certainly not be in india’s interest.

The only ray of hope that I see coming from Pakistan are a section of their civil society who presumably want better relations with India, can this group come to centre stage. Well in a country where military thinks they own the country and have known to do coups, who have no respect for their own constitution, probably this one is a too far fetched thought.

I have always maintained the best way to deal with Pakistan is to either keep it bogged down with their mess that they keep finding themselves in every now and then for they have an amazing efficiency in creating such situations for themselves but the moot question is does India have the capability to keep Pakistan in that state and I have my doubts on that.

Or else make sure this country breaks up with just Punjab and nwfp as one country called Pakistan and may be also sindh but voices for an independent state consisting of sindh need to be heard more prominently. Baluchistan needs to be made an independent country where India has clear influence through which we make sure our needs of energy requirements are fulfilled. The point of getting back pok has already been discussed to great details and the importance of that, so that needs no further mention.

In all this it is very important that nwfp remains a part of Pakistan. We have seen how easily this region can erupt in flames and how this fire spreads like wild fire to other parts of Pakistan. An over aggressive Pakistan towards India can certainly be nipped through this weak point.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,707
Only a "friendly" stable Pakistan is of use to India. We can make a lot of money from their market. And thats what maybe the politicians mean when they say that. Otherwise and unfriendly Pakistan, whether stable or not makes no difference to India. It will have to keep fighting its war against terror.
Yusuf, do you think that an Indian friendly Pakistani regime is possible as long as Zia era brainwashed military personnel are there in Pakistani military in near or mid-term future. I highly doubt it. In that case, shouldn't we pacify such an unstable, anti-india Pakistan by covert means to establish new states that will be amenable to Indian interests.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,322
Likes
11,636
Country flag
Yusuf, do you think that an Indian friendly Pakistani regime is possible as long as Zia era brainwashed military personnel are there in Pakistani military in near or mid-term future.
No. Not in the near or mid term future. Like TR said, its only when the saner elements come to center stage that its possible. But for that the PA and ISI has to lose its culture and become a subordinate of democracy.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,707
I doubt if those saner elements (if there are any) will be allowed to occupy the center stage as long PA/ISI culture is there. But, how do one break the stranglehold of PA on democratic governments?. When will they become subservient to democratic governments?. These events are very unlikely given that the country has deeply rooted into such culture.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
490
Yousuf is 100% right. You have to add the term "friendly". unfriendly Pakistan stable or unstable equaliy dangerous for India. Just go back by two decades. Condition of Pakistan was not as bad as today.....did they restrain from harming India? Not !

Solve all their problems and give them trillions of fund. They will end up buying arms and ammunation to counter India. This India phobia will remain as long India is there.
Well said. Now, do you ever expect Pakistan to be 'friendly' with India considering their domestic politics(and overarching grip of their military)?
 

IBM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
193
Likes
1
No matter who comes to power in pak. They will work against India. So unstable pak is good coz they will engage in war of terror become empty from inside. If u give them money yes its true they still fund there army not on there economy. In both the cases they will work against India so its better when pak is weak and unstable.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
490
The only ray of hope that I see coming from Pakistan are a section of their civil society who presumably want better relations with India, can this group come to centre stage. Well in a country where military thinks they own the country and have known to do coups, who have no respect for their own constitution, probably this one is a too far fetched thought.
Firstly, TR a great post. Congratulations.
Then, IMHO, all the 'saner' elements of Pakistan are just mild jihadi types. Scratch on the surface and one finds that they share the same antipathy towards India that the rest of the nation does.

Then, even if we take them on their face value, I dont think they can ever emerge on their national scene strong enough because Pakistan, by its very origin, has been a state which is attracted towards extremism of religion and antipathy towards India. Infact, these are the two reasons for the formation of Pakistan(partition of India) itself. That is those that have come to power in Pakistan had always had to present an extremist face of religion to prove themselves muslims enough and hostility towards India to prove themselves pakistanis enough.

So, waiting for the 'softer' elements to take centre-stage is no option at all for India. India can work on other options that you have proposed.


Again, thumbsup for your post.:113:
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
A stable Pakistan that is not our sworn enemy is in our interest but that is really far fetched.

The next best (or least worst) option is a fragmented Pakistan with its southern fragments friendly to India and the rump northern parts powerless and impotent to do anything substantial.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top