- Apr 1, 2009
X-posted from another forum.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?