Update: Conflict escalates on the Afghan-Pakistan Border

[MarathaPride]

You've just shown your utter ignorance by comparing some tiny-pot nations that are mere specks on the map to a country with 150 million people' date=' one of the largest operational armies in the world and MOST importantly, a some nuclear warheads and missiles capable of landing them on some important Indian cities. [/quote'] I will take the high-ground here and not indulge in any namecalling like you have. A stable and prosperous Pakistan does not equal exemplary relations with India. A stable and prosperous Pakistan would result in increased Pakistani interference in Kashmir, continued support of seperatists, and several other ills that we all know fully well and have experienced. Am I wrong? OTOH, an instable Pakistan fighting several fires inside and out, would know that any mischief or turmoil they try to foment in our country would be met with a severe response, a retaliation that they know they simply cannot afford. Granted, a Pakistan that has failed completely would not be in India's interests, since the muslim extremists will almost certainly take over. This, as you have correctly pointed out, is unacceptable as they do possess a significant nuclear arsenal. However, a Pakistan that is in a perpetual state of instability (w/o actually becoming a fully failed state) would be a toothless neighbor that would not dare cause us trouble. This is called realpolitik...read up on the concept when you get the chance. Disclaimer: If India and Pakistan are able to reach a final consensus on the various issues plaguing our relations (which will almost certainly never happen), then I too would have no qualms (well...maybe :--D) in wishing for their stability.

[MarathaPride]

I had a lengthy post written up, but deleted it in a moment of clarity. All I will do is point out the highlights of your posts. Within the space of two posts you managed to declare me your eternal enemy, denounced any thoughts of decreasing hostility, justified putting up a front for your expatriate Pakistani friends, wished for Pakistan to no longer exist but said you would settle for it to be plagued by external offensives and secessionist movements, and referred to me as "dost".

:haha: Yes, most of this is correct with the exception of: A) No ,you are not my enemy (I dont even know you) and neither are the average Pakistanis who work hard to make a living and take care of their family (similar to the average Indian). Infact, I have had the pleasure of meeting some Pakistanis who have been hospitable and kind. B) But, I am concerned about the well-being of my nation just as you are concerned about yours. Read up on my response to marirs (as well as the ending disclaimer) to get further clarity on my position. In short, the question is not of Indians and Pakistanis (i.e. not the people) but of whether two nations, India and Pakistan, can exist side-by-side in friendship and harmony. History has shown that it is simply not possible.

[MarathaPride]

Edit.

[MarathaPride]

Edit.

[Ram]

I will take the high-ground here and not indulge in any namecalling like you have.

I have NOT indulged in name-calling. That was just an impersonal inference stemming from you previous argument.

A stable and prosperous Pakistan does not equal exemplary relations with India. A stable and prosperous Pakistan would result in increased Pakistani interference in Kashmir' date=' continued support of seperatists, and several other ills that we all know fully well and have experienced. Am I wrong?[/quote'] Yes you are, because only an politically and economically unstable Pakistan needs external reasons to keep its national fabric together. And unfortunately, in the last 60 years of its existence, India has happened to be the external driver, that almost 'bonds' Pakistani forces together. Even a casual perusal of the social fabric of Pakistan will tell you what an inherently diverse society that country is. And beyond all that, you must remember that Pakistan was formed on the basis of antagonism towards India. So, its rulers, be it military or civilian have invariably used India as the bogey to in a sense, 'bond' their country together, in an effort to keep together the different divisive forces in their country. However, a progressive Pakistan, a peaceful Pakistan, a reconcilliatory Pakistan is in the interests of the entire South Asian for a multitude of reasons, including greater peace and stability in the entire region, faster economic growth for all the peoples ( peace === faster pace of economic growth = More people lifted out of poverty). Also, lesser military tensions with Pakistan will translate into less spending on borders, meaning we will have more money to spend on economic upliftment of people.

OTOH' date=' an instable Pakistan fighting several fires inside and out, would know that any mischief or turmoil they try to foment in our country would be met with a severe response, a retaliation that they know they simply cannot afford.[/quote'] You talk as though all the forces in Pakistan act as one. Its simply not the case. There are now many power centres in Pakistan that control the country in various ways; The civilian govt, the military, The fundamentalist parties, the Pakistani Taleban and other fringe elements. Even if one them decide to foster trouble in India, that will cost us dearly, which is why, it is in our interest to see all these forces reconcile and come together, to work for the peace and stability in Pakistan. Historically, when forces of growth take over, then the extremists are marginalized, which is why they keep whipping up trouble to take the focus away from progression, create hysteria and fear among the people. This concept of 'A internally troubled Pakistan will be too busy to hurt us' is categorically inaccurate. If you're not convinced, look up at the number of terrorist incidents in India since the 2002 War in Afghanistan. That was the time when Pakistan has had its hands full in the NWFP, but yet, that has been the time from which terrorist incidents in India have been at its highest. What does it tell you?

Granted' date=' a Pakistan that has failed completely would not be in India's interests, since the muslim extremists will almost certainly take over. This, as you have correctly pointed out, is unacceptable as they do possess a significant nuclear arsenal. However, a Pakistan that is in a perpetual state of instability (w/o actually becoming a fully failed state) would be a toothless neighbor that would not dare cause us trouble. [/quote'] Its just a matter of time before instability in Pakistan spills over across its borders. And how do you propose to keep Pakistan 'in a perpetual state of instability without becoming a failed state', forever? Pakistan is ever closer to civil than it has been till now. If it breaks, India will find itself scrambling for cover.

This is called realpolitik...read up on the concept when you get the chance.

No, that is called cold-war politics, not realpolitik. That still comes from the cold-war mentality 'keep the enemy occupied in other fronts so that he doesnt harm us', which is long extinct in today's actual realpolitik.

Disclaimer: If India and Pakistan are able to reach a final consensus on the various issues plaguing our relations (which will almost certainly never happen)' date= then I too would have no qualms (well...maybe :--D) in wishing for their stability.

You cant hope for Pakistan to be in a 'perpetual state of instability' on one hand and then wish that both our countries 'reach a final consensus on various issues plaguing our relations' on the other. That is just self-contradictory.

[MarathaPride]

Food for thought marirs. Will respond in the evening.

[fineleg]

You cant hope for Pakistan to be in a 'perpetual state of instability' on one hand and then wish that both our countries 'reach a final consensus on various issues plaguing our relations' on the other. That is just self-contradictory.

MM, They will never ever reach consensus or improve relations with us. They wont want to. Their goal is based on animosity towards us (as you have mentioned in your post above). Thinking we will reach consensus with them, is only a dream and that too one that wont materialize.

[Ram]

MM, They will never ever reach consensus or improve relations with us. They wont want to. Their goal is based on animosity towards us (as you have mentioned in your post above). Thinking we will reach consensus with them, is only a dream and that too one that wont materialize.

History is rife with instances of these so called mortal enemies patching up with each other. U.S.A dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan less than 65 years ago. Now, they're so close that US has military bases in Japan. Germany and U.K faced off in two world wars. Now, they're the best of friends.

[Kohum]

History is rife with instances of these so called mortal enemies patching up with each other. U.S.A dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan less than 65 years ago. Now' date=' they're so close that US has military bases in Japan. Germany and U.K faced off in two world wars. Now, they're the best of friends.[/quote'] The examples of history that you give, people have gotten over their past. For the record, get this stuck in your head, that the Paki government DOES NOT want to let go. Kargil is the best example of that. Given this recent of an example, how on earth do you expect that your noble intentions will be respected & reciprocated by the Paki government?

[Ram]

The examples of history that you give' date=' people have gotten over their past. For the record, get this stuck in your head, that the Paki government DOES NOT want to let go. Kargil is the best example of that. Given this recent of an example, how on earth do you expect that your noble intentions will be respected & reciprocated by the Paki government?[/quote'] Please quantify what do you mean by 'Paki government'? For the record, the 'Paki government' you're referring to is a crazy military ruler who masterminded this operation, even keeping the civilian which was in power then, in the dark. I reject the notion that what Musharraf did can be considered as a reflection of the overrall sentiments of the Pakistani establishment. If you remember, Vajpayee had, just months before the Kargil war, boarded a bus to travel across the border, where he was greeted with a hug by the then PM Nawaz Sharif. Its now acknowledged fact that most of the civilian establishment in Pakistan considers Kargil a bad miscalculation on the part of the military.

[CC1981]

The intertwined destiny theory is absolute bull. Myanmar, Bhutan, and Nepal are also in our "same neighborhood", and they havent exactly been beacons of stability, good governance, and prosperity. Yet, we have been largely unaffected.

I am afraid, i will have to disagree. Perhaps your idea of what is going on in India and its neighbourhood is predominantly shaped by the mainstream news media, which focusses disproportionately on Pakistan. But the truth is, India is most definitely affected by Burma and Nepal. Bhutan is too small a nation ( population-wise) and have been in very good terms with us ( afterall, we do garantee Bhutanese sovereignty that is increasingly threatened by commie China) to bother us, but Nepal and Burma definitely affect us. Due to Burma there are hundreds of thousands of refugees from Burma living in our eastern states and a lot of the criminal/terrorist elements of the north-east find refuge in the highly inaccessable and remote hilly jungles in Burma that are right across the border from us. Nepal's maoists have been helping the maoist insurgency in India and that is no big secret. So no, you are wrong that Burma and Nepal do not affect us and i agree with Sriram's point-that we need stability in our neighbourhood to have a stable nation. No nation has had a successful past ( or present) with the sheeet hitting the fan all around it - not unless you propose to triple the coast-guard and BSF forces and build a 'great wall of India' all the way from the Rann to Jammu. But at the same time, i agree with your point that a stable Pakistan does NOT mean stable relations with India, infact it means quite literally the opposite. Sriram in this regard is talking outta his hiney and toeing a 'theoretically correct but practically nonsense and out of touch with reality' PC-bulldust. Historically, when Pakistan has been the strongest internally, it has been far more billigerent towards India and the reason for that is obvious : The central argument given towards the existence of Pakistan was that 'hindus and muslims cannot live together and hindu majority will threaten the muslim way of life and kills us/subjugate us'. That central line has been proven to be nothing more than Islamic fascism rising its ugly head in a paranoid sense - we've had a muslim president, muslims are represented in all walks of life and their living standards (while backwards- but then again, muslim living standards are backwards in EVERY SINGLE NATION that they are a minority and not in charge) are reflective of the greater eco-demographics of India. The last 60 years have proven that Pakistan has zero reasons to exist in the first place ( don't get me wrong, i don't want ANYTHING to do with that terrorist screw-up nation called Pakistan- infact i'd OPPOSE any talk of union unless Pakistan is de-islamised) and a nation like that loves to 'invent' reasons for its existence- which translates to outright war or increased terrorism when times are rosy for it. Sriram is also very wrong in trying to draw a line between the Pakistani military and 'civillian government' because that is as ignorant as it gets - the 'civillian' side of Pakistani government - from municipal heads to mayors and governors, are ALL ex-military or with links to the military. THAT is precisely why the military has been able to stay in the real power seat in Pakistan - the civillian government ITSELF has heavy ties with the military on a working level and therefore, the military can pre-empt a central decision as well as override it. As for Sriram's example of history being rife with former enemies patching up, its irrelevant as it ignores the FUNDAMENTAL discord of a religion that cannot co-exist with others on equal footing ( a religion that cannot accept seperation of church and state cannot, by definition, exist with other religions on an equal footing- anyone challenging this is either a PC fool or an ignorant Islamic mouthpiece) and the ensuing religious hatred. Japan and USA didnt have problems with each others's religions and the patchup of France and England came long after both the English and the French clergy lost their power base in their respective courts ( France lost its catholic-controlled central government with the Sun King's excesses followed by the French Revolution and Napoleon, England's clergy were neutered when Henry the XVI ( or whatever) said fraack you to the clergy and decieded to have as many wives as he wished) - plus the French-English patchup came not only after religion had been removed from the equation, it came at the face of the very real, rising threat of Imperial Germany ( Austro-Hungary plus Prussia). India and Pakistan cannot co-exist as long as the fundamental reason for the divide remains religion. That is a given and as basic as it gets, really. And those who think that a stable, prosperous Pakistan is a recipe for stability in India are not only fooling themselves about the evils of this religion-based discord, they are completely contradicting history - indo-pak history as well as several instances of world history. But at the same time, any plan for Pakistan has to include their nuclear capability. It is a fact that Pakistan can strike most Indian cities, if not all, with nuclear warheads. That factor alone rules out total war with Pakistan, unless it is literally 'us or them for survival' in this moment of time. The long-term best-case goal India can have regarding Pakistan is getting Iran and Afghanistan involved- we need to play up the fact that in the last 2500 years, Balochistan has been Iranian for approx. 2200 years, NWFP has been either Irani or Afghani for 2300 years or so as well. Getting their national interests in Pakistan will definitely serve our purpose of weaking Pakistan, strengthening relations with Iran and Afghanistan (both of whom can be strategic allies) and maintain a buffer between us and them with a severely diminished Pakistan, essentially being the Sindh-multan-Punjab area. Short of extermination of the stupid and nefarious Islamic ideal from mankind's mind, that i think, is the only real world scenario of stability along our western frontiers. As per Bangladesh goes, the solution to Bangladesh is fairly simple : we need to bottle up bangladesh (read: build impassable WALLS) along Bangladeshi border and let them deal with their grossly overpopulated land and their massive deaths from cyclones and floodings.

[suraj]

I am afraid, i will have to disagree. Perhaps your idea of what is going on in India and its neighbourhood is predominantly shaped by the mainstream news media, which focusses disproportionately on Pakistan. But the truth is, India is most definitely affected by Burma and Nepal. Bhutan is too small a nation ( population-wise) and have been in very good terms with us ( afterall, we do garantee Bhutanese sovereignty that is increasingly threatened by commie China) to bother us, but Nepal and Burma definitely affect us. Due to Burma there are hundreds of thousands of refugees from Burma living in our eastern states and a lot of the criminal/terrorist elements of the north-east find refuge in the highly inaccessable and remote hilly jungles in Burma that are right across the border from us. Nepal's maoists have been helping the maoist insurgency in India and that is no big secret. So no, you are wrong that Burma and Nepal do not affect us and i agree with Sriram's point-that we need stability in our neighbourhood to have a stable nation. No nation has had a successful past ( or present) with the sheeet hitting the fan all around it - not unless you propose to triple the coast-guard and BSF forces and build a 'great wall of India' all the way from the Rann to Jammu. But at the same time, i agree with your point that a stable Pakistan does NOT mean stable relations with India, infact it means quite literally the opposite. Sriram in this regard is talking outta his hiney and toeing a 'theoretically correct but practically nonsense and out of touch with reality' PC-bulldust. Historically, when Pakistan has been the strongest internally, it has been far more billigerent towards India and the reason for that is obvious : The central argument given towards the existence of Pakistan was that 'hindus and muslims cannot live together and hindu majority will threaten the muslim way of life and kills us/subjugate us'. That central line has been proven to be nothing more than Islamic fascism rising its ugly head in a paranoid sense - we've had a muslim president, muslims are represented in all walks of life and their living standards (while backwards- but then again, muslim living standards are backwards in EVERY SINGLE NATION that they are a minority and not in charge) are reflective of the greater eco-demographics of India. The last 60 years have proven that Pakistan has zero reasons to exist in the first place ( don't get me wrong, i don't want ANYTHING to do with that terrorist screw-up nation called Pakistan- infact i'd OPPOSE any talk of union unless Pakistan is de-islamised) and a nation like that loves to 'invent' reasons for its existence- which translates to outright war or increased terrorism when times are rosy for it. Sriram is also very wrong in trying to draw a line between the Pakistani military and 'civillian government' because that is as ignorant as it gets - the 'civillian' side of Pakistani government - from municipal heads to mayors and governors, are ALL ex-military or with links to the military. THAT is precisely why the military has been able to stay in the real power seat in Pakistan - the civillian government ITSELF has heavy ties with the military on a working level and therefore, the military can pre-empt a central decision as well as override it. As for Sriram's example of history being rife with former enemies patching up, its irrelevant as it ignores the FUNDAMENTAL discord of a religion that cannot co-exist with others on equal footing ( a religion that cannot accept seperation of church and state cannot, by definition, exist with other religions on an equal footing- anyone challenging this is either a PC fool or an ignorant Islamic mouthpiece) and the ensuing religious hatred. Japan and USA didnt have problems with each others's religions and the patchup of France and England came long after both the English and the French clergy lost their power base in their respective courts ( France lost its catholic-controlled central government with the Sun King's excesses followed by the French Revolution and Napoleon, England's clergy were neutered when Henry the XVI ( or whatever) said fraack you to the clergy and decieded to have as many wives as he wished) - plus the French-English patchup came not only after religion had been removed from the equation, it came at the face of the very real, rising threat of Imperial Germany ( Austro-Hungary plus Prussia). India and Pakistan cannot co-exist as long as the fundamental reason for the divide remains religion. That is a given and as basic as it gets, really. And those who think that a stable, prosperous Pakistan is a recipe for stability in India are not only fooling themselves about the evils of this religion-based discord, they are completely contradicting history - indo-pak history as well as several instances of world history. But at the same time, any plan for Pakistan has to include their nuclear capability. It is a fact that Pakistan can strike most Indian cities, if not all, with nuclear warheads. That factor alone rules out total war with Pakistan, unless it is literally 'us or them for survival' in this moment of time. The long-term best-case goal India can have regarding Pakistan is getting Iran and Afghanistan involved- we need to play up the fact that in the last 2500 years, Balochistan has been Iranian for approx. 2200 years, NWFP has been either Irani or Afghani for 2300 years or so as well. Getting their national interests in Pakistan will definitely serve our purpose of weaking Pakistan, strengthening relations with Iran and Afghanistan (both of whom can be strategic allies) and maintain a buffer between us and them with a severely diminished Pakistan, essentially being the Sindh-multan-Punjab area. Short of extermination of the stupid and nefarious Islamic ideal from mankind's mind, that i think, is the only real world scenario of stability along our western frontiers. As per Bangladesh goes, the solution to Bangladesh is fairly simple : we need to bottle up bangladesh (read: build impassable WALLS) along Bangladeshi border and let them deal with their grossly overpopulated land and their massive deaths from cyclones and floodings.

Nice post Only caveat I will present is that the Nepal/Bhutan impact is really miniscule compared to the Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Jehadi impact. Sriram lives in a fantasy world anyway where everyone loves to get along

[kablooee87]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_pakistan_missile;_ylt=Av7qknujHxnB.hKXYs2jhims0NUE Seems to be a nearly occurrence now.

[riya]

On one side US helping pakistan with good supply of weapons ,from the other side attacking pakistan . Interesting tactics .But Pakistanis are worried about US attack ,never about internal terrorism . No one cried when Maulana Fazlluha (whatever his name is ) bombed schools and making barbaric laws .Another interesting fact is religious leaders in pakistan aren't very vocal about Marioot hotel incident? .

[MarathaPride]

Just remembered that I owed marirs a response..and it seems that CC/Nandya have done the bulk of the work already. Marirs, as others have pointed out, you are living in fantasy land...the quicker you wake up to ground realities the better.