A stable, prosperous Pakistan is NOT in India's interest

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2009 08:47

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?

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 27 Jul 2009 08:50

Shiv saar,

Is the problem with the mere formulation/verbal assertion of TSPian stability==Indian interest or is it more that the desi establishment might, just might, believe this to be true?

As for saying stuff, anything goes as some gurus have eloquently argued in the EUMA and sharm-al-sheikh threads - to the effect that mere words cannot constrain our intentions and options.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jul 2009 08:58

^^^ Shiv, good point..Its been one of my pet peeves on the Indian strategic community's mindset..Why should a "stab;e prosperous Pakistan" be in our interest? On the contrary, a Pakistan perpetually on the edge would be a one that is least likely to mount a larger "strategic cost" on us..They can pinprick (in Kashmir, God forbid occasionally Mumbai type), but never mount a challenge that forces us to rethink our strategic orientation in any major fashion..

the only analyst (and I dont consider the RSS knickerwallah crowd as analysts) who I hve found articulating this regularly has been G Shankar Bajpai..Barring him, everyone else seem to fall into a "Pavlovian" reiteration of this dictum..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2009 08:59

vsudhir wrote: As for saying stuff, anything goes as some gurus have eloquently argued in the EUMA and sharm-al-sheikh threads - to the effect that mere words cannot constrain our intentions and options.

vsudhir - from the rhetorical standpoint, mere words cannot constrain our intentions and options only so long as there are people who will say something different and express disagreement. It is only because people expressed dissatisfaction with the S-e-S statement that the ass-covering excuses and clever rhetoric had to be produced. If nobody had objected then the disclaimer that they are "mere words" would not even have been required.

Question the words first and then see what excuse appears. If S-e-S was inexcusable, an older assertion about Pakistan's stability and Indian interests are even more damaging. Repeated often enough people start believing that it is true.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2009 09:19

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.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21644

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?

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

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 27 Jul 2009 09:21

How do you define Pakistani stability?

a) As a military dictatorship.
b) As a modern democracy.
c) As a taliban protectorate.

If it is stuck in any one of these modes, I'd call it stable. But, can it?
1) External factors will not let it be comfortable in mode a.
2) Internal factors will not let it be comfortable in mode b.
3) Neither will let it be comfortable in mode c.

To me, as long as we help that country chatter between a, b and c, we are guaranteed an explosion or implosion, which, as an outcome of another indic objective, is a pretty stable solution.

To make it happen, the best thing to say out, aloud, is: "a stable pakistan is in our best interest," followed by, like kunjarahah, silently, "ha ha." If we keep saying that to get it to become a "democracy," then its internal forces will take over and do the rest and it will keep hitting the buffers. And in that way, the statement makes sense.

So, may be the instability is the lack of confidence in our ability to jerk Pakistan around, or not being aware of the silent haha part.

Of course, what we do to Pakistan, it does to us in other ways, that shows up around elections, but that is a different orbit looping around this one.

So, not sure what you mean by stable pakistan.

JMT
S

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jul 2009 09:24

Well, a "strong" Pakistan is certainly not in our interest, but "stability" is a relative word..We dont want a Pakistan that is in a state of stable, high growth peaceful equilibrium..But instability beyond a point makes a lot of the doomsday scenarios come true..What we need is an a Pakistan in a constant state of disequilibrium, but not quite what can be termed as unstable in the Sudan brand..Because the latter is a surefire recipe for loose nukes in multiple hands, most worryingly with a bunch of jihadi types..

Pakistan from our perspective, should be always teetering on the edge, but with enough wherewithal and motivation in the elite to prevent it from falling off...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2009 09:36

samuel wrote:How do you define Pakistani stability?

a) As a military dictatorship.
b) As a modern democracy.
c) As a taliban protectorate.

If it is stuck in any one of these modes, I'd call it stable. But, can it?
1) External factors will not let it be comfortable in mode a.
2) Internal factors will not let it be comfortable in mode b.
3) Neither will let it be comfortable in mode c.

To me, as long as we help that country chatter between a, b and c, we are guaranteed an explosion or implosion, which, as an outcome of another indic objective, is a pretty stable solution.

To make it happen, the best thing to say out, aloud, is: "a stable pakistan is in our best interest," followed by, like kunjarahah, silently, "ha ha." If we keep saying that to get it to become a "democracy," then its internal forces will take over and do the rest and it will keep hitting the buffers. And in that way, the statement makes sense.

This is the most Chankian explanation I have seen so far.

But I have many misgivings about the explanation.

Foremost among these misgivings is the thought that the statement (with all its hidden Chankianness) will be taken at face value by Indians who will be unable to see the elegant logic of saying one thing while implying another.

I suspect that the same effect can be achieved by being open and forthright about our desire to see Pakistan up sh1t creek. We can call for democratic rights when the military is in power. We can make sarcastic comments about democracy when civilians are in power, and make provocative remarks about religion and tolerance at all times while sparing no effort to expose Pakistan's lies, deceit and its skewed education and value system.

By being overly clever we are only fooling Indians and achieving nothing.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 27 Jul 2009 09:49

OK let's try it a different way then.
To an "ordinary citizen" as well as the "nation" the desire for a "peaceful, stable and democratic" Pakistan is a well-intentioned, and sincere wish. That is exactly what it is. Just hold your nose, sprinkle some water, and say, I want Pakistan to be peaceful and stable and let everyone in the country say tathastu. And mean it.

Then, all the other forces will also pull just as hard as you are and that is the end of Pakistan. Unfortunately. So if my country doesn't understand "it" (but i think it does), this is the right path. If it does, this is the right path too.

But let us come up and say, "abey paki g*nd, I want you up the sh1t creek." By saying that, what you will do is produce a pakistan that is stable, if not democratic, one that the world is sympathetic to and keeps empowering and caring for. But that would be as if we were telling ourselves that we like to see ourselves up the same creek. If we can destroy something (here the paki character) by wishing for them what we would want them to wish for us (a stable democracy), what could be better?

But I could be totally wrong. May be India can just announce we want Pak down and out, and then go about in clinical fashion plucking the chinese, the americans, the saudis, out of there. If that approach works, it may be easier, of course.

S

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 27 Jul 2009 09:58

Shiv wrote: Why do we keep hearing Indians leaders say that "An intact, stable Pakistan is in India's interest?"

Whatever the current "stability" of TSP - local minima or global minima
The most obvious - is the lack of clear definition of the alternative:
If "An intact, stable TSP is not in India's interest", then what is the alternative that is acceptable to India?

PS: Any alternative may need to be also acceptable to Unkil, Auntie, Chinkil and Daadi (Saudi)...
Unless India has found a way to keep all these other folks happy with its new alternative.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 27 Jul 2009 16:59

Pulikeshi wrote: PS: Any alternative may need to be also acceptable to Unkil, Auntie, Chinkil and Daadi (Saudi)...
Unless India has found a way to keep all these other folks happy with its new alternative.

As a corollary to this, it means the current state of affairs is keeping all these other folks happy for now. Quoting a part of my post in other thread.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 54#p707354

On the otherhand, it may be necessary at this juncture that external audience is more crucial than domestic audience to obtain and hold on to power at the center in Delhi. Following the politicos seems to indicate in that direction for now.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 27 Jul 2009 17:45

For this thread, a 1-minute search of the famous BRM/SRR archives turns up the following (U MAY recognize some of the authors):

Paper number BRMP06010306 "Know Your Pakistan" BR Monitor Vol. 6.1 Jul-Aug2003

BRMP05060304 Alternative thinking to destroying Pakistan BR Monitor Vol. 5.6May-Jun2003

BRMP04060207 The Turbulence In Pakistan & Musharraf’s Double Game BR Monitor Vol. 4.6 May-Jun2002

And the article title that triggered this search:

BRMP02060010 Is a Stable Pakistan in India's Interest?
Jaideep E. Menon BR Monitor Vol. 2.6 May-Jun 2000

Find all articles at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/

A bit of background reading from the best wouldn't hurt this discussion. In particular, how are things the same / altered from what was presented and argued in these articles?

If u want to look up Pak govt sponsorship / leadership of Pak terror groups, well, there are several articles there on that too.

New "Extremely Moderately Enlightened" Moderation tactic: hammer postors who don't look up previous work, and start yada yada yada as if the Duniya needs more ignorance to increase its entropy. U r not the US State Dept or Brookings Institution to be ignorant and proud of it.

Adrija · Post by **Adrija** » 27 Jul 2009 18:02

India's interests are to ensure that NO hostile power exists east of the Hindukush. All the price we bear, not just in terms of costs of the internal security establishment, and the economic inefficiencies, but more importantly the human cost of lives lost, is that we have neglected the true import of the words "Indian subcontinent" and allowed ourselves to let an enemy form within the chardiwari of the house. In the past, whoever lost control of the Khyber and Golam passes lost control of the Ganga-yamuna heartland and subsequently the Deccan........ the modern day equivalent is the slow death by a hundred cuts which have been imposed on us by Pakistan

So no, a "stable" Pakistan is definitely not in India's interests- we should aim to reverse this tragedy, or at least make it irrelevant. Our armies should guard the natural borders at the Hindukush and not an artificial barrier in the middle of the Thar and right at our doorstep.

But do we publicly proclaim so? Why would we do that?

Back to lurk mode

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 27 Jul 2009 18:07

This link appears unclickable: "Is a Stable Pakistan in India's Interest?"
A similar article: Is Pakistan Necessary, appears to be relevant though the content seemed strangely off-course. A lit review of that will take a few more paragraphs. Will need to look up some of the other articles you point to. Thanks.

S

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 27 Jul 2009 18:18

This link appears unclickable: "Is a Stable Pakistan in India's Interest"?:

Ah! A classic comment. Thank u very much, I was waiting for that, and thanks very much for starting to do what all of us need to do, much more!

Suggested Procedure:
1. Read the Volume, Number, Month and Year.
2. Go to the statement that starts: ALL ARTICLES CAN BE FOUND AT:
3. Click that link
4. FIND the issue with the relevant Vol, Number, Month and Year
5. FIND the article, and click on it.

Will need to look up some of the other articles you point to. Thanks.

Absolutely the right thing to do. But the articles themselves will have excellent summaries of what can be found in those links.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 27 Jul 2009 18:26

got it, thanks. That article too is amazingly doing an == between India and Pakistan. e.g. "If they want peace with us, we want peace with them type of argument." The time for such hesitation is unequivocally gone. So, I think we need to move away from that to what India and Indians must say and do to reach the end goal of a sorted out Pakistan. But it would be useful to review these articles here, since the authors are also on forum.

S

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 27 Jul 2009 18:56

N^3,

Lots of good articles to refresh ones memory, but (proverbial...)...
Whose father what goes?

What is the new minma/maxima that India desires for TSP?

1) All of us are guilty of trying to "peel the onion" regarding TSP. BRF has shed light on a lot, but...
Only tears and anguish results from this exercise.

2) Rather, we could spend a few cycles of the mighty DOO CPU on the end goal -
(If not in public fora at least in private). This will help reach the goal with dogged determination.

What we have now is either the WKK or the Destroy TSP brigade (those are boundary conditions) -
Are there other stable goals for the region?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Jul 2009 18:57

shiv wrote:Why do India leaders say that?

The Indian leaders don't say that openly for the following possible reasons:

In diplomacy, you don't say such things openly
The opposition leaders don't say that for the same reason lest it be used against hem when they come to power
All said and done, Pakistan, at least in the minds of many, was created for the Muslims of India and to openly call for the destruction of such a country would be taken amiss by the ummah. Whether Indian Muslims also entertain such a thought or not, the political parties would not like to take an unnecessary risk.
We have no clear objective of how to deal with Pakistan. Historic links, especially in the minds of pre-partition generation, might have played a crucial role in formulation of policies.
The powerful friends of Pakistan are not yet convinced of fragmenting Pakistan and India doesn't want to antagonize them or give them a handle by saying such things.
Indian leaders fear a massive jihadi terrorism once such a position is taken overtly
India is working silently to widen the ethno-linguistic faultlines in Pakistan and will take a stand when appropriate time comes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2009 19:03

Ah excellent..
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... menon.html

What Does Stability Imply?

When the issue of a stable Pakistan is raised under these circumstances, it would not be unnatural for Indians to ask: what does "stability" imply? For the Security Council permanent (P5) powers, a stable Pakistan is one that does not do anything to threaten their interests. At the most basic level, this means a Pakistan which pays its debts on time, does not export terrorism through Osama Bin Ladin or others, does not export nuclear materials or expertise, does not export drugs and persuades the Taliban to stop it as well, does not raise the temperature on the LoC to the extent that demands external intervention, and tries to maintain a modicum of civility and predictability in its political institutions even if it is not necessarily democratic.

These elements can be regarded as the bare minimum of what a stable Pakistan implies to the P5. Additional, but not necessary, elements from the perspective of most members of the P5 would be an end to attacks across the LoC by Pakistan-based or supported fighters, some kind of a treaty which finalises border arrangements (as existing or adjusted) with India and a measure of trade and economic cooperation.

Yet are these conditions by themselves sufficient to prevent Pakistan from being a threat to Indian interests? Does this interpretation of stability address the long-term issues of peaceful co-existence, or do they merely shelve uncomfortable realities to be taken out at an undetermined future date? Will a stable Pakistan abandon systematic hate-mongering against India through its information and education systems? Can any assurance be given that a stable and economically prosperous, and therefore stronger, Pakistan will not launch yet another "tribal incursion" or "mujahedin attack" to capture Kashmir?

The reality is that stability as envisaged by the P5, and even some Indian think-tanks, does not address the underlying causes which have brought Pakistan to the pass that it is in today. The elements of stability mentioned above are necessary, but they are not sufficient for a lasting peaceful relationship between India and Pakistan. Indeed, they may even deceive Indian decision makers and strategists into a false sense of security and complacency, setting the stage for yet another disaster, just as the Kargil incursion caught military and political leaders napping because of the Lahore Declaration.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jul 2009 19:40

I suppose in debating this,we must also consider the mirror image,that an "unstable Pak is is not in India's interests".The answer would lie in the behaviour of Pak if stable and prosperous.How did it behave when it was so? Pak has been kept alive and prevented from catastrophe by two powerful godfathers or sugar-daddies,the US and China.Is there any reason to believe that they will abandon Pak even now? NO. The US wants a permanent military foothold in the subcontinent,so that they can dominate the Gulf and the Middle East and the oil wealth of the region,plus giving it the base for dealing with China and ...India in the future.The US senator from Texas just recently showed us the true intentions of the US establishment in his Freudian slip.Hillary Clinton also did so with the demand that India sign hethe EUM clause issue regarding defence deals,something which we have never done with any other manufacturer in the manner that the US expects us,with one-sided intrusive inspections which would clip our wings in any crisis.

So if Pak is permanently protected by these two powers,who take turns at using the "public convenience" of the subcontinent,it can endure a measure of instability without collapsing.In retaining control on the streets,repressive measures in Pak have miles to go when compared with other dictatorial regimes in history.As the ruling elite in Pak however become more ruthless and represive,the fault lines in the ethnic boundaries like Baluchistan and Sindh will widen,leading one day to another breakup of the country.Here we may find even one or both of Pak's godfathers taking a leading role in the inevitable breakup,in the hope that it will be easier to deal with two or more smaller entities who will depend upon the sugar- daddy's largesse for survival.

We've seen how effectively the US and NATO destroyed the former Yugoslavia in the Balkans,playing Muslim against Christian and Christian against Muslim,in Bosnia and Kosovo.The Balkanisation of the subcontinent has been a permanent plan of the enemies of India,both east and west,some nations masquerading as friends.Right from independence the moves have been made,trying to have a few of the princely states remaining independent,like Travancore,trying to encourage a north-south diivide over the language question,using Pak in post-war attempts to wrest Kashmir from us and in more recent times,using the Lankan conflict to spawn separatism and extremist Tamil nationalism eventually to lead to separatism in South India.

The only factor for wanting Pak to remain united is that a Pak broken up would result in its nuclear weapons most likely landing up in the hands of unrpredictable ungodly species like the Taliban (through an Islamist indoctrinated military),who from their committment to the cause of suicide bombings and missions,would be sorely tempted to use it against their enemies.The task that we should examine therefore is to find out how much of Pak can be dismembered without the major lump of it (in hock to its sugar-daddies ) that retainins and controls its nukes disintegrating.As it gets smaller and smaller,its inferiority and insecurity will increase but should not cross a point where nuclear adventurism remains a panic option for it.In answer to my own Q,it has already lost the northern border areas,where the Taliban rules the roost and has just regained part control of Swat,which now resembles a ghost province.Baluchistan is the easiest part of it that can be severed without affecting the Punjab-Sindh corridor and would be excellent if achieved as it would create a buffer state between Pak and Iran that could be of immense usefulness to both India and Iran.Both India and Iran could achieve excellent strategic outflanking and depth if Baluchistan is separated from the rump of Pak.Should Pak continue with its terrorist mischief against India,we will have no other alternative later on to offer our tacit assistance to pro-Baluchi "freedom fighters",who wish to throw off the yoke of the Pakjabi ruling elite.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Jul 2009 19:45

When we say a stable Pakistan, what we actually think in the back of our minds is

a mentally stable Pakistan

... and that is an oxymoron.

What is mentally stable about "Nazariya-e-Pakistan"?
How does one bring stability to the Land of the Pure, where all rational thinking is considered blasphemy?

A prosperous Pakistan only gives the mentally unstable more money to buy more bombs and guns.

All Indians who plead in favor of "A stable prosperous Pakistan is in India's interest" need to first explain -

In what other sense can one speak of stability for a perpetually mentally unstable crackpot with lots of bombs and guns?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 27 Jul 2009 19:49

got it, thanks. That article too is amazingly doing an == between India and Pakistan. e.g. "If they want peace with us, we want peace with them type of argument." The time for such hesitation is unequivocally gone.

Suggestion No. 2 in reading peer-reviewed papers from BRM/SRR: (Y do u think I suggested that resource instead of, say, DAWN or TIMES OF INDIA?)

Consider that the author has done some thinking, and so have the reviewers. Go at least 4 levels deeper than in reading DDM articles or Brookings Institution "output". I am assure you that this author does not do any "==" or anything else without a deeper purpose. General algorithm:

If FOUND_REASON = .FALSE.
Think/ read deeper, Else LOOK_SILLY = .TRUE.
Else
Endif

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 27 Jul 2009 20:02

OK. But I have two even more basic points. First, I write papers for a living as I am sure several here do. Usually, I write my paper and when I get reviews, I address them. I interpret "literature" to the best of my ability almost always, which may not inspire a whole lot of confidence, but that's what there is. On the other hand, we have a rare opportunity here; the authors and reviewers all being available, why not invite them to clarify and defend?

Second, it is almost always useful to get a sense for what has been said, that's how we learn, I think. What is not clear is whether BRM sources opinions on the forum or whether opinions here flow from BRM articles, or there is some interesting interplay of the two. In the event that the forum is not a mere "recitation section" for the main lectures in BRM, however well thought out the articles are, there is a utility to letting things "spin up" and reach a maturity where other articles can be read "in context." Otherwise, you get people like me who read them, no not one thing about the writer or his intentions, and conclude what I did. Or others, who ask people like me to read them more carefully, again. Where, for examples, in these articles are strategies to disempower pakistan, unless the article itself is psyops for a larger audience?

S

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 27 Jul 2009 20:05

Phillip:

Excellent points.

Pak has been kept alive and prevented from catastrophe by two powerful godfathers or sugar-daddies,the US and China.Is there any reason to believe that they will abandon Pak even now? NO.

Perhaps that assumption needs to be revisited, which is likely with the Balochistan Genocide becoming an International Issue. Pakistan has been walking a tightrope, with China building its naval base in Gwadar, and the US being leased Jacobabad. Can either assume that the other will not try to displace them? As long as the "stable" Pak Army controls and mediates between these entities, there may be some "understanding". But will this survive in a "neutrally stable" Pakistan? History shows that Paki warlords are easily bought out by anyone to put out contracts on anyone else.

One effect of increasing "neutral stability" would be rising concern from both these sugar-daddies - more about each other's next move than anything else. As long as the option of strengthening the central kleptocracy is viable, that might be their primary choice, with other stuff being left to secondary covert ops. The moment the center gets to "neutral stability" and is heading on over the cliff, they would shift to Plan B, which would result in total instability.

Why is this not in India's interests? I wonder....

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 27 Jul 2009 20:09

Samuel, thanks again. My hope is that they will indeed participate, and none of them need needling to do so ( I hope this is needling enough...

). (not aimed at u here..) It is surely tiring for most to keep coming in and explaining for the 47th time to ppl who don't bother to read what they so painstakingly laid out long ago, and that is a powerful de-motivator. For instance to ppl who say: "I have lived there for 8 days onlee, I KNOW those ppl!"

The corollary is that once they see that ppl here have read what they have said, and thought about it, then they should be delighted to continue the discussion.

Thanks again!

(hellooooooo Author Menon!)

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 27 Jul 2009 20:30

Balochistan Genocide becoming an International Issue.

It is yet to grab any sort of headlines let alone capture the attention of bloggers. Even the 'liberal' blog sites like DailyKos or HuffingtonPost are yet to carry any significant report on it. FreeRepublic (conservative blog) is on the same boat. As far as the US TV media, they are giddy with Palin quitting.

Probably it has not percolated down to the news and media circle; has the chatter increased in the diplomat and other elite circles?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 27 Jul 2009 20:36

SwamyG, in 2002, the notion

"All terrorist acts emanate from Pakistan" or Pakistan: Terror Central
also "did not appear in any blogs" etc., and triggered much sneering from "South Asia Expert" types - until they bothered to read the clinching evidence from BRM. U'll c if u check the archives listing.

Today this fact has been "discovered" by all, and is accepted as a household truth.
Percolation takes time, but, to paraphrase Mullah Jabbal bin Confucius:

A tluth has 2 b lepeated many times befole lound-eyes get it into theil thick skurrs

Now YOU have read it from an Authoritative Source

PAKISTAN ARMY IS CONDUCTING GENOCIDE IN BALOCHISTAN

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 27 Jul 2009 20:49

Shiv,

It is indeed a sad reminder of the state of affairs that you need to write what you wrote. I am not faulting you, mind you, I am faulting the level of strategic consciousness (or an absence of it, to be more exact) that is prevalent in India which necessitates writing such blindingly obvious truths. As the saying goes, if you have no destination, any road will take you there. 1000-800 years of suffering at the same hands has not made us any wiser; I am not sure what would.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 27 Jul 2009 21:29

IIRC, after Mumbai attack, Vir Sanghvi, essentially said the thing, i.e. Pakistan should be broken up & should not exist in the current form, as they are only focused on harming India & hence we we should stop this "Stable Pakistan" nonsense.

Update: I found the link

When attacked, we must hit back

Consumed as we are with the hurly-burly of the General Election, we may have lost sight of an important development in our neighbourhood. As the Pakistan government tries to persuade the Taliban to retreat from its latest encampment a mere 100 kilometers away from Islamabad, the world — and Washington, in particular — has finally come around to the view that Pakistan is on the brink of becoming the next Afghanistan.

As the steady slide into Talibanisation continues, it is also clear that we are at a watershed moment in our policy towards Pakistan. We need to decide, once and for all, how we are going to treat our north-western neighbour.

There have been two broad strands in India's attitude to Pakistan. The first is the view of much of the media, many liberals, and a large chunk of the political establishment.

This view has as its basis the proposition: “A strong and stable Pakistan is in India's best interests.”

My own view is that the “strong and stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests” proposition has failed. And how does India help bring this about? Well, according to proponents of this view, we must extend support to the democratic process in Pakistan and help civilian governments. We should encourage people-to-people contacts and abandon the Pakistan-is-an-enemy rhetoric. We must recognise that Indians and Pakistanis are really the same people, divided by unscrupulous politicians.

The contrary view is the position of the Army, the intelligence establishment and many security analysts. This view states that a strong and stable Pakistan is not necessarily in India’s best interests. A weakened Pakistan is often the best guarantor of peace. For instance, after the 1971 defeat, when Bangladesh broke away, Pakistan did India no harm for nearly two decades.

According to this view, we should never let our guard down, put no faith in the so-called brotherliness of the Pakistani masses, distrust every civilian politician and recognise that the Pakistan army’s raison d’etre is the alleged threat from India. Proponents of this view say that the only language the Pakistani establishment understands is strength and the best way to check the threat posed by Pakistan is by running clandestine operations inside that country and financing such local trouble-makers as the Baluchis and the MQM.

Of the two views, the first one has held sway for many years. The security establishment is treated with scorn by many educated Indians and its hawkish views are dismissed with contempt. During his brief stint as Prime Minister, Inder Gujral even asked the R&AW to roll up its clandestine networks within Pakistan, one reason why Indian intelligence now finds it so difficult to get accurate information out of that country.

But with the current situation in Pakistan threatening to spin out of control, this might be a good time to stop and think about our policy in the future.

My own view is that the “strong and stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests” proposition has failed. Over the last several years, we have done everything we can to help Pakistan. We have hosted General Musharraf, we have offered talks on Kashmir, we have supported civilian politicians and welcomed Asif Zardari with open arms. We have tried our hardest to understand the mindset of civil society, with a steady stream of Pakistani intellectuals arriving in India, and, each evening, our channels offer endless TV time to Pakistanis to tell us what their country’s position is.

Here’s what this policy has got us: General Musharraf is still blatantly hostile to India as his last rant at the India Today Conclave demonstrated. Asif Zardari has refused to help in the investigation of the Bombay attacks. Terrorists continue to be sent across the border to foment trouble in India. Far from following a liberal policy, the new civilian government has done deals with the Taliban and imposed the medieval Sharia law in parts of Pakistan.

All opinion polls suggest that the average Pakistani hates India, loves Osama bin Laden and believes that 9/11 was a Jewish plot to malign global Islam. Worse still, the evidence suggests that if you push the Pakistani masses about their true identity they would pick Muslim over Pakistani. Do you have to be a genius to see that the good neighbour policy has been an utter and complete disaster?

What Indians find shocking is the extent to which so many educated Pakistanis seem unable to divorce their Islamic identity from political discourse.Is it not time to concede that General Musharraf’s attitude is symptomatic of the view of the Pakistan army: India is the enemy and must always be fought? Shouldn’t we accept that Pakistan’s civilian politicians are such untrustworthy sleazeballs that they make Mayawati shine like a goddess in comparison? Even if a crook like Zardari is sincere (which I doubt; his ultimate loyalty is to Credit Suisse) he simply does not have the clout to deliver on the kind of peace and love nonsense that he gushed about at the HT Summit.

More worrying is that Pakistan’s civil society seems to have only the most minimal commitment to the liberal values that we in India enshrine in our Constitution. Even someone like Imran Khan, who improved his mind at Oxford and developed his loins on Sloane Street, turns into a reactionary when he addresses his own people, going so far as to praise Sharia law.

What Indians find shocking is the extent to which so many educated Pakistanis seem unable to divorce their Islamic identity from political discourse. You and I can get up and say that Hindu fanatics are thugs and goons or even that Narendra Modi is a mass murderer. How many Pakistanis get up and say that about their own fanatics? We speak up for MF Husain’s right to paint Hindu goddesses in the nude. How many Pakistanis speak up for the Danish cartoonist?

As for people-to-people contacts, I am still in favour of letting Pakistanis come to India to see what a liberal society looks like. But I have given up all hope that it will make a difference to the general Pakistani mind-set. After all, if you’re dealing with a country whose people have bought Al-Qaeda propaganda about how all terrorism is really an American and Israeli plot, a people who are content to live off the Yankee dollar while simultaneously hating the US, and a people who venerate the suicide bombers that bin Laden dispatches around the world, then do you really believe that they will suddenly see the light when they land in Bombay and discover that our three biggest stars are all Muslim?

It’s gone too far for people-to-people contacts to make much difference.

So, what do we do? I think we should accept that the intelligence establishment may have had a point. We should resume clandestine operations, we should do to the Pakistanis what they are doing to us, and hit back every time we are attacked.

We should tell the US that we are tired of this policy of equivalence. When America attacked Afghanistan, we did not treat the US and Afghanistan as moral equals. Similarly, America should stop treating India and Pakistan on the same plane. One of us is the world’s largest democracy. And the other is a terrorist state.

But if we are to ensure that the world sees through Pakistan’s pretensions and recognises it for what it is, then we must first rid ourselves of our own illusions. Let’s stop kidding ourselves about the true nature of the enemy. Let’s recognise the magnitude of the threat — growing by the day as Taliban influence spreads — and work out a strategy to fight it.

The time for lighting candles at the Wagah border has long since passed.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 27 Jul 2009 21:47

Another article by Vir Sanghvi, read in full. If there are copyright issues, please delete the quoted section.

The same people? Surely not

Few things annoy me as much as the claim often advanced by well-meaning but woolly- headed (and usually Punjabi) liberals to the effect that when it comes to India and Pakistan, "We’re all the same people, yaar."

This may have been true once upon a time. Before 1947, Pakistan was part of undivided India and you could claim that Punjabis from West Punjab (what is now Pakistan) were as Indian as, say, Tamils from Madras.

But time has a way of moving on. And while the gap between our Punjabis (from east Punjab which is now the only Punjab left in India) and our Tamils may actually have narrowed, thanks to improved communications, shared popular culture and greater physical mobility, the gap between Indians and Pakistanis has now widened to the extent that we are no longer the same people in any significant sense.

This was brought home to me most clearly by two major events over the last few weeks.

The first of these was the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team on the streets of Lahore. In their defence, Pakistanis said that they were powerless to act against the terrorists because religious fanaticism was growing. Each day more misguided youngsters joined jihadi outfits and the law and order situation worsened.

Further, they added, things had got so bad that in the tribal areas the government of Pakistan had agreed to suspend the rule of law under pressure from the Taliban and had conceded that sharia law would reign instead. Interestingly, while most civilised liberals should have been appalled by this surrender to the forces of extremism, many Pakistanis defended this concession.

Imran Khan (Keble College, Oxford, 1973-76) even declared that sharia law would be better because justice would be dispensed more swiftly! (I know this is politically incorrect but the Loin of the Punjab’s defence of sharia law reminded me of the famous Private Eye cover when his marriage to Jemima Goldsmith was announced. The Eye carried a picture of Khan speaking to Jemima’s father. “Can I have your daughter’s hand?” Imran was supposedly asking James Goldsmith. “Why? Has she been caught shoplifting?” Goldsmith replied. So much for sharia law.)

The second contrasting event was one that took place in Los Angeles but which was perhaps celebrated more in India than in any other country in the world. Three Indians won Oscars: A.R. Rahman, Resul Pookutty and Gulzar.

Their victory set off a frenzy of rejoicing. We were proud of our countrymen. We were pleased that India’s entertainment industry and its veterans had been recognised at an international platform. And all three men became even bigger heroes than they already were.

But here’s the thing: Not one of them is a Hindu.

Can you imagine such a thing happening in Pakistan? Can you even conceive of a situation where the whole country would celebrate the victory of three members of two religious minorities? For that matter, can you even imagine a situation where people from religious minorities would have got to the top of their fields and were, therefore, in the running for international awards?

On the one hand, you have Pakistan imposing sharia law, doing deals with the Taliban, teaching hatred in madrasas, declaring jihad on the world and trying to kill innocent Sri Lankan cricketers. On the other, you have the triumph of Indian secularism.

The same people?

Surely not.

We are defined by our nationality. They choose to define themselves by their religion.

But it gets even more complicated. As you probably know, Rahman was born Dilip Kumar. He converted to Islam when he was 21. His religious preferences made no difference to his prospects. Even now, his music cuts across all religious boundaries. He’s as much at home with Sufi music as he is with bhajans. Nor does he have any problem with saying ‘Vande Mataram’.

Now, think of a similar situation in Pakistan. Can you conceive of a Pakistani composer who converted to Hinduism at the age of 21 and still went on to become a national hero? Under sharia law, they’d probably have to execute him.

Resul Pookutty’s is an even more interesting case. Until you realise that Malayalis tend to put an ‘e’ where the rest of us would put an ‘a,’ (Ravi becomes Revi and sometimes the Gulf becomes the Gelf), you cannot work out that his name derives from Rasool, a fairly obviously Islamic name.

But here’s the point: even when you point out to people that Pookutty is in fact a Muslim, they don’t really care. It makes no difference to them. He’s an authentic Indian hero, his religion is irrelevant.

Can you imagine Pakistan being indifferent to a man’s religion? Can you believe that Pakistanis would not know that one of their Oscar winners came from a religious minority? And would any Pakistani have dared bridge the religious divide in the manner Resul did by referring to the primeval power of Om in his acceptance speech?

The same people?

Surely not.

Most interesting of all is the case of Gulzar who many Indians believe is a Muslim. He is not. He is a Sikh. And his real name is Sampooran Singh Kalra.

So why does he have a Muslim name?

It’s a good story and he told it on my TV show some years ago. He was born in West Pakistan and came over the border during the bloody days of Partition. He had seen so much hatred and religious violence on both sides, he said, that he was determined never to lose himself to that kind of blind religious prejudice and fanaticism.

Rather than blame Muslims for the violence inflicted on his community — after all, Hindus and Sikhs behaved with equal ferocity — he adopted a Muslim pen name to remind himself that his identity was beyond religion. He still writes in Urdu and considers it irrelevant whether a person is a Sikh, a Muslim or a Hindu.

Let’s forget about political correctness and come clean: can you see such a thing happening in Pakistan? Can you actually conceive of a famous Pakistani Muslim who adopts a Hindu or Sikh name out of choice to demonstrate the irrelevance of religion?

My point, exactly.

What all those misguided liberals who keep blathering on about us being the same people forget is that in the 60-odd years since Independence, our two nations have traversed very different paths.

Pakistan was founded on the basis of Islam. It still defines itself in terms of Islam. And over the next decade as it destroys itself, it will be because of Islamic extremism.

India was founded on the basis that religion had no role in determining citizenship or nationhood. An Indian can belong to any religion in the world and face no discrimination in his rights as a citizen.

It is nobody’s case that India is a perfect society or that Muslims face no discrimination. But only a fool would deny that in the last six decades, we have travelled a long way towards religious equality. In the early days of independent India, a Yusuf Khan had to call himself Dilip Kumar for fear of attracting religious prejudice.

In today’s India, a Dilip Kumar can change his name to A.R. Rahman and nobody really gives a damn either way.

So think back to the events of the last few weeks. To the murderous attack on innocent Sri Lankan cricketers by jihadi fanatics in a society that is being buried by Islamic extremism. And to the triumphs of Indian secularism.

Same people?

Don’t make me laugh.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 27 Jul 2009 22:13

arunsrinivasan wrote:IIRC, after Mumbai attack, Vir Sanghvi, essentially said the thing, i.e. Pakistan should be broken up & should not exist in the current form, as they are only focused on harming India & hence we we should stop this "Stable Pakistan" nonsense.[/url]

What is "Stable Pakistan" according to you ?
Recently they are trying to become a stable country by attacking Taliban and we are seeing the results in Baluchistan....

When attacked, we must hit back

Lets not forget America was in Afghanistan and they would not have allowed us to attack Pakistan.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Jul 2009 23:23

The question my write up asks is whether a stable Pakistan is in India's interest. The answer is that it is not, or rather it cannot be unless a stable India is also in Pakistan's interest. There's not much chance of the latter happening. Therefore...

Not sure where the equal equal is... but

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 27 Jul 2009 23:48

JE Menon wrote:The question my write up asks is whether a stable Pakistan is in India's interest. The answer is that it is not, or rather it cannot be unless a stable India is also in Pakistan's interest. There's not much chance of the latter happening. Therefore...

Not sure where the equal equal is... but

The equal-equal I see is tying up India's stability to TSP's and vice versa -
meaning 'whose father what goes' what TSP thinks about India!

Nevertheless - your points are valid:

If it is not in TSP's interest to see a stable India, then by your line of reasoning, it is in India's interest to find a new stability for TSP.

Then what does this stability look like? Why is there no articulation on this front?

PS: Other than SSridhar's valid opinions above.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 27 Jul 2009 23:56

Stable Pakistan means,

1.no ISI,

2. No LeT and other Jihadies.

3. Just your garden variety army reporting to civilians.

4. No Anti Hindu books in schools

5. Secular Pakistan...not Islamic republic and the land of the Pure BS.

6. Getting out of POK, so the POKashmiries can join with their brothers in the Indian state of Kashmir

7. Not allowing China into Pakistan to harm India in anyway.

IF that is all considered part of Stable Pakistan.

Then, Hell Yeah! It is in India's interest. No Soup for anyone who suggests anything short of that.

If any one of those is not considered as part of being "stable Pakistan", then India's interest is to see that Porkies fail.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Jul 2009 00:20

What, let the pakistani go scot free after all the murder and mayhem they have done, just because they promise to behave?

Not done.

There has to be retribution. For starters, destabilizing that sorry excuse of a nation with an aim to end its misery and put it to sleep, putting its terror masters in a court of law for human rights abuses.

Arundirty roy and her WKK-human rights sena, can take over thereafter. Rest assured if these wkk types get to play human rights-human rights in international limelight just like their gora memsahibs, they will grab the opportunity with both hands and feet.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 28 Jul 2009 00:23

Let me state my pet statement on BRF for the umpteenth time:

Even if TSP where Buddhist, Atheist, Communist, Alchemist, Pessimist, etc -
India would still have a head ache in that part of the world.
As in real estate - its location, location, location (among other things)

Forget the jihadis the pindi-pakjabis, etc., etc. for a few minutes - they are but a distraction
Looking for revenge, historic baggage, etc. is completely a waste of time.

What does India need in this region? Can someone articulate (or has) this?
(here forget GOI - as no one including it knows what its thinking!)

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Jul 2009 00:53

Don't all our leaders and babooze know that a stable, prosperous Pakistan is NOT in India's interest?
They only say the contrary because of the reasons out lined by sridhar-ji. I will add, that there are no solutions at present to contain that fall out on India, of a pakistan being engulfed in civil war and imploding.

Which is why GoI seems to want a status quo, they'll needle pakistan, but not push it over the edge. The solution india seeks is:
1. Pakistan's nukes being locked up for good.
2. India's growth rate not to be affected by pakistan's disintegrating. We can not allow china to be the last man standing, when this is fought through.
3. No negative fall out within india of janazaa-e-pakistan.

It is a difficult proposition to make so many imponderables meet.
India will act either when a solution presents itself, or when the problem detriorates to such a level that India is forced to act, and push pakistan over the edge.
Till then there will be more S-E-S's and Havana's happening.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Jul 2009 00:56

BTW this is a good strategy.

Don't destabilize your enemy nation directly, destabilize the region it lives in. It will automatically be destabilized too.

Chanakya will be most happy.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 28 Jul 2009 02:01

>>The equal-equal I see is tying up India's stability to TSP's and vice versa -

Not at all. India's stability is not tied only to what Pakistan does or does not do. For instance, India currently is a stable state, while Pakistan manifestly is not.

What I am saying is that the constant patter from certain sections of our political chatterati and those elsewhere that a stable Pakistan is in India's interest is meaningless if it is not matched by a similar viewpoint in Pakistan. This applies also to Sri Lanka or the Maldives. Would it be equal-equal in that case too?

It is not only Pakistan that contributes to our stability or lack of it, obviously.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 28 Jul 2009 02:40

As the guy who originally lobbed the charge, let me say what it struck me as.

1. If India really wanted a Pakistan to exist in an absolute sense, a stable Pakistan would be in India's interest unless such a stable country is out to destroy India. The more stable pakistan gets the more it is interested in destabilizing India, if history is judge. But that has been a different kind of stable pakistan, not the one we wish "in our own image." That's a stable TSPA pak. So far so good.

2. If India really is determined to fix her northwest, I think it matters little what Pakistan wishes for India. Starting from the premise that we wish to fix our northwest, the only next steps that come to mind are what we must do to sort Pakistan out. On that score, accepting her stability if it accepts ours as a premise for mutual coexistence etc. sounds like an equal=. Pakistan will do what it must to exist with us as we sort the region out.

Our objective is simply to "manage" our region. When we said the first time, enough, it didn't stop. Now many many times later (around 2000), we are still saying, we want peace in the region and for that we need a stable pakistan, of course if and only if pakistan wants a stable india. And that won't happen...so the rest of the sentence falls off into vaccum.

But what must we say and do (to our citizens, govt., pakistan and the world) to help Pakistan (and others) align with India's interests (if not survival)?

S