India Through Pakistani Eyes

#499 by kardesh on February 25, 2005 8:02pm PT

These are very sensible proposals....and they also keep the na-pak fauzis out of these affairs.........we also need to keep these fauzis out of the foreign policy matters of both the countries and reduce them drastically in terms of numbers............reduce the military budgets...............disband all the non-tariff barriers so that more Pakistanis and expecially Mohajirs can prosper by importing and exporting goods and services that are comparatively cheap and has a market in Pakistan and vice-versa.......and strengthen the hands of the internal law enforcement agencies in the two countries through massive induction of technology and egovernance........encourage Pakistanis to come to India and work freely and vice versa.......
the list for collaborative efforts can be very long.........let`s hope that we forget the past and move forward..................
Wishing You Well!!

http://www.despardes.com/Opinion/general/musharrafs-k-proposal-nov3.htm

You may read the rest of the article there. The author has some dislikes agaisnt the enlightened rulers of Pakistan, but the world knows that Musharraf has the will and the appeitate to fix the problem.

Why not be flexible? Net, you are either high or you don`t really have much common sense. Pakistan HAS been flexible and it`s proposals propose DIGNIFIED solutions for BOTH countries.

I can`t seem to understand why India wants everything HER way. Water, MINE. Kashmir, MINE, Hyderabad, MINE, South Asia, MINE.

It`s like a bully, trying to project it`s Sunny-India wet dreams to us poor planets.

After these interactions, my belief that Pakistan needs her nuclear arsenal has been reaffirmed to the greatest extent.

Blashphemer, I hope you drop dead and are reincarnated in the memories of your `loved` ones as a dirty mosqito.

Haroon,

How is Pakistan being flexible?

What is DIGNIFIED EXISTS?

Pakistan IS being flexible! Why does not India allow the creation of DIGNIFIED EXISTS to BOTH SIDES?

Is this some sick sadistic way for the Indians to get some `face-revenge` for all the humilations inflicted upon them?

YahyaJamil,

If Pakistan fears India`s military build up why shouldn`t India fear China`s?

Where`s the logic in claiming that India has nothing to fear from China but Pakistan has everything to fear from India?

Haroon,

Why don`t you think out of the box? Why should India be the only one that is supposed to be flexible?

Our concerns are legitimate. If India had not betrayed Pakistan, yes, betrayed Pakistan in the J&K affair, then right now India and Pakistan would have been the closest of allies.

Netizen, and rsridhar have some extremely valid points however one has to be flexible. Netizen, why don`t we all try to think out of the box? Were not Pakistan`s presidents proposals to the Indians very flexible? India`s inflexibility is a nonstarter. I always have and always will affirm to that. However, I am entitlted to my opinion on it as all of you are to yours.

Avenger and Blasphemer could use some serious social therapy for they crazy.

If China builds a naval base in Gwadar, what implications will this have for India?

Re: # 504
rsridhar,
further to my post # 506. You do realise that when the largest country in the region develops its military potential with an overt desire to dominate the region (surely can be referred to as hegemonic designs), it does cause concern amongst the other regional countries. Whether these countries shoul get involved in a race depends upon the state of economy, the size and the threat those nations percieve from the hegemonic designs of the major regional power. Thus hegemonic designs do tend to set of an arms race that certainly does no good for the people of the region, especially when these people are already poor and would rather spend money on improving the economy and quality of life.

Re: # 504

(It is almost axiomatic that large nations, unless they are totally isolated (like Australia) need to project power commensurate with their size. That is why big nations like Brazil, China, India have a big military budget. This does not automatically mean all large nations must necessarily have a big military budget but all big nations who want to be serious contenders on the world scene would like to project their military power beyond their shores.
On a less serious note, of what use is the size of an elephant if it is only to carry the burden of its weight and not taken serioulsly by others?
Those who ask why India needs to spend so much on the military may well ask another equally valid question: should India ever have brought nuclear weapons out of its closet? Even though George Fernandez went on record saying China was the reason India was exploding nuclear weapons, this was surely not the truth. China never threatened India with nuclear weapons. So, why explode the weapons and earn world’s ire, have Pak up the ante and force a nuclear weapon’s race all at a time when there was a clear military superiority in India’s favor?)

This is exactly what I had been saying all along that India`s military development is not threat related but stems from a desire to dominate the region in short term and be a major global power in long term. Many interactors (probably all Indians) were arguing that India`s military development program is threat related. Now you have also endorsed my viewpoint.

re:#483 by haroonellahi

``India is extremely hegemonic in nature. For the Indian it might be India displaying it`s `pre-eminence` in South Asia, whereas us smaller `underlings` it is nothing but state-terrorism and hegemony.``
That is the crux of the problem. India is perceived as ``hegemonistic`` though in reality it is not. The only thing real about India is that it is huge and by its very size is threatening. Does Mexico feel threatened by USA? I do not think Mexico has ever complained. USA is a world power right next door.
India being a threat is a bogey created by Pak`s Army to keep itself relevant. Most Pakistanis, brought on a different set of ideologies, buy into the theory that India is a hegemon. Like any other state, India probably safeguards its interests vigorously. This may be perceived as hegemony by smaller states.
An elephant cannot shed its muscle to look less threatening. Smaller creatures need to learn how to live with the elephant in peace.
Sridhar

re: India`s military expenditure
I am amazed at the stupidity of many Pakistanis in this forum who keep questioning the military expenditure by India. I think they should first of all be questioning the military expenditure by their own dictators for the past 60 years. Excessive reliance on the Army and expenditure beyond the level of threat (just to maintain an elusive parity with India) has seen Pak become a debtor nation often needing dole from International Agencies as well as having to rent out its own territory to a foreign power to curry favor in the name of fighting terrorism.
Now that Pak is caught up in a catch-22, its military dictator is squirming. And when its military dictator squirms, many like minded Pakistanis do the same. Which is why Romair, the Chowk Marshall, is so vocal about India`s military expenditure and why others are questioning the logic behind such expenditure.
It is almost axiomatic that large nations, unless they are totally isolated (like Australia) need to project power commensurate with their size. That is why big nations like Brazil, China, India have a big military budget. This does not automatically mean all large nations must necessarily have a big military budget but all big nations who want to be serious contenders on the world scene would like to project their military power beyond their shores.
On a less serious note, of what use is the size of an elephant if it is only to carry the burden of its weight and not taken serioulsly by others?
Those who ask why India needs to spend so much on the military may well ask another equally valid question: should India ever have brought nuclear weapons out of its closet? Even though George Fernandez went on record saying China was the reason India was exploding nuclear weapons, this was surely not the truth. China never threatened India with nuclear weapons. So, why explode the weapons and earn world’s ire, have Pak up the ante and force a nuclear weapon’s race all at a time when there was a clear military superiority in India’s favor?
Stephen Cohen put it best when he said: (http://www.brook.edu/views/cohens19981123.html)
(Most Indians, especially those in the Delhi-centered strategic and political community strongly believe that their country is once again destined to become a great state, one that matches the historical and civilizational accomplishments of the Indian people. To varying degrees this view is shared at nearly all points along the Indian political spectrum.)
Until India exploded the nuclear weapons, few in US took it seriously. After coming out of “nuclear closet”, India has had a complete turnaround in its relationship with USA. Today, both are moving towards a strategic partnership not unlike the one US has with Turkey.
It is then the desire to be taken seriously that propels both China and India towards increased military spending.
Both China and India are civilizational countries who take pride in their ancient roots .
Huge military expenditure of India may be seen in this context. There is a national consensus that India deserves a place in the Security Council, that India should be a serious player at the world stage, so and and so forth. Military expenditure is only one way of translating that ``national consensus`` into reality.
China pursues this matter much more vigorously than India. There is a dedicated Chinese channel on the Dishnetwork in USA that showcases China to the world. Come Olympics and the world will watch China with awe. This will also be a unique opportunity for China to showcase its culture and achievements. China has a much more ambitious space program that India`s but both countries are doing the same: trying to showcase themselves to the world so that they are taken seriously.
Pakistanis in this forum and elsewhere seem to be trapped in a Indo-Pak frame of mind. Pak is only of nuisance value to India. Pak does not figure prominently in India`s long term strategy.
Sridhar

Yahya Jamil : ``Your (Arjun`s) point regarding people supporting the defence expenditure is valid, obviously because India is a democracy and the Govt decisions reflect the will of the people. In other words the people of India want the Indian military to have long range missiles aircraft carriers, a military potential that can project power much beyond India`s borders. That is to say the people of India want to dominate the region militarily``

That is true. People of India have become very ambitious about their country and about themselves. I blame the opening up of the Indian economy in 1991 for this tendency. When you dont have basic stuff like an empty stomach to worry about , you begin to think about big-big things - like global domination.. ;)

Basically , India`s military ambitions are linked to its economic progress. India is not buying costly weapons at the cost of its economy. India is buying weapons because its economy is doing well. There is a subtle difference.

#493 by HP aka Hacked Penis >>

``CHOWK STAFF!

#490 by Blasphemer

Did you read the post by blasphemer? Does this post qualify for the standards that chowk staff trying to maintain?``

Well , here goes...

---

Haroon Ellahi...
You display all the whining moaning whinging attributes of the typical b1tch slapped Pakistani. Pakistan killed one million Bengalis in the equal second largest genocide since Hitler and all you can say is (boo hoo!) India interfered in our internal affairs (Chickensh1t crybaby. Commit genocide then whine and whine like a baby)

You sodomise Afghanistan to fulfill your own hegemonic aspirations, rape, dismember, cannibalise one million women, children and men in Bangladesh, and then whine whine whine...so pathetic.

You are just a eunuch squealing because your balls have been cut off. The world despises Pakistan because of the genocide you are proud of (internal affairs my ass. You slaughter one million Bengalis like goats at id then dare to whine....you typical Pakistani private school scumbag)

Daniel Pearl decapitated head is the international symbol of Pakistan. Put it on your flag. Thats what Pakistan means to the whole world. Fundamentalist psychopaths and whining eunuchs. Grow some testicles. Bayonet some more Bengali children like your brave army did, that is what you are capable of. Oh hell, just go and bomb some more Balochis and Pakhtuns you whining impotent fundoo.

---

Re: # 486

(And who made you the arbiter of what is a threat to India....unlike Pakistan, where the military basically decides how much to spend on itself, spending on defense is done by democratically elected governments...see the UPA government reducing defense expenditure? No...maybe that`s because the people support that level of spending.. )

In all the posts I have asked repeatedly to logically justify how and from where India percieves threat to its territory and does that threat require the sort of military potential it is developing. I have not recieved any logical answer. You keep on harping about Chinese threat, but the Indians also know that China dos not pose a threat to Indian territory. So, if you will not tell me what the massive threat to India is, which requires such a large military potential, I will assume that this potential is for regional miltary domination. It is not me who is the arbiter, anyone can see that Indian military power is developing not in relation to threat to India but for regional domination.
As regards Pakistan`s defence expenditure. Please note that irrespective of who was in power (military or political Govts), none could ignore the military threat from India. Even in immediate post 71 era (when Mr. Bhutto was in power) the Pakistan defence expenditure increased as India went nuclear and continued to build up its military potential despite the fact that Pakistan had been reduced to half its size.
Your point regarding people supporting the defence expenditure is valid, obviously because India is a democracy and the Govt decisions reflect the will of the people. In other words the people of India want the Indian military to have long range missiles aircraft carriers, a military potential that can project power much beyond India`s borders. That is to say the people of India want to dominate the region militarily.

Arjun #471, {``Salim...here`s the deal...Let`s convert the Line of Control into the border and get on with our lives....
``}

Just becasue this should be post # 500, Arjun, I say ``AMEN!``

Seriously, anything to stop the feuding. What is the problem with J&K remaining in India? To those who are so concerned about Muslim self-determination, they should consider that India has anywhere from 150 million to 200 million Muslims, far more than Pakistan does. So, having 5 to 6 million Kashmiris join Pakistan is not going to make any difference. This is even more convincing, considering the fact that Pakistan doesn`t want to admit 200,000 of its own citizens who are suffering in refugee camps in BD.

ballukhan #452, {``Salim !! you heart is in the right place!! However, the problem is with these fauzis and their band brigade ( I have always wondered how Pakistani civilian population puts up with the arrogance of these brown firangis!!)``}

Ballukhan, We should always have our hearts in the right place - the important issue is ``what is good for people?``

At this point, what is good for Kashmiris is that they have peace, representation, a chance to rebuild lives and live better lives. That can best be accomplished by:
1. Declaring the LoC as the international border.
2. Stopping jihadis and other troublemakers from making the situation worse.
3. Allowig Kashmiris to participate fully in Indian democracy without fear of reprisals from extremists.
4. Improving the lot of people living in POK
5. Reminding Pakistan to do the right thing - admit its own citizens who are stranded in BD.
6. Removing Indian and Pakistani troops from populated areas of J&K
7. Reducing the enormours armies in both countries and spending more on human development programs.

Thanks for your interaction,
Salim Ahmed Chauhan

Amit #456,
{``In the future, the mohajir community must reinvent itself as the bridge between India and Pakistan. Most of them have relatives in India and need to travel back and forth. They can become ambassadors of peace and goodwill between the two sides``}

Thanks for your post. I find myself agreeing with you more and more. Of course, the hatred for India is least in Karachi and Hyderabad where the Mohajirs are in a majority. Visiting India and having relatives come to Pakistan allows Mohajirs to see both sides of the divide. Unfortunately, the Punjabi-dominated Pakistani government has placed numerous hurdles to confront this exchange of visitors. All transportation by rail must occur through Lahore. They refuse to open up the Khokrapar border crossing. The shortest path from Delhi, Agra, Lucknow, Bhopal, Jaipur, or Ahmedabad to Karachi does not go through Lahore! The difficult visa process for Mohajir`s relatives from India is an ordeal that can at best be termed insulting. Of course, The Paki Punjus don`t have Indian relatives, so they don`t care about the human suffering. Then there is the issue of stranded Pakistani citizens in BD. Pakistan calls them ``Biharis,`` and refuses to admit them into Pakistan for fear of increasing the Mohajir population by another 200,000. If this isn`t an insult to Mohajir sentiments, I don`t know how plainly the Punjoos and Sindhis have to make it to earn even more disdain from the people of Karachi. The MQM, led by Altaf Hussain, has been trying to take the lead in improvement of relations with India and having Mohajirs as the bridge for that effort.