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

[archan]

^^ So you mean to say that:
1) It will be good for India if TSP becomes stable.
2) TSP can never become stable.

hence, things will never be good for India!

[RamaY]

I reread this entire thread and I have an honest and serious question to gurus!

What should be the Indian response if Kayani/Jardari/Gilani calls MMS tomorrow morning and make an uncoditional request to merge Pakistan in India?

Kindly exlpain your thoughts interms of policies, laws and timelines

thanks in advance

[Muppalla]

I reread this entire thread and I have an honest and serious question to gurus!

What should be the Indian response if Kayani/Jardari/Gilani calls MMS tomorrow morning and make an uncoditional request to merge Pakistan in India?

Kindly exlpain your thoughts interms of policies, laws and timelines

thanks in advance

First of all the concept is hypothetical and hence policies, laws and timelines etc does not make any sense. Taking it as a concept, I say yes to that though my view will be in a minority. Nothing really to worry to have Pakjabs and Pashtuns. There is a history in which we have dealt with them. Entire Uncle+Panda dance will be over in our neighborhood. Innmerable number of oppurtunities.

[shiv]

I reread this entire thread and I have an honest and serious question to gurus!

What should be the Indian response if Kayani/Jardari/Gilani calls MMS tomorrow morning and make an uncoditional request to merge Pakistan in India?

Kindly exlpain your thoughts interms of policies, laws and timelines

thanks in advance

Step I
1) Stop all military activity against India
2) Stop all economic war against India (fake currency)
3) Stop all rhetoric of hatred against India
4) Accept that Muslims must live with non Muslims with no special rights and that although there will be disagreements they will have to be sorted on the basis of laws that exist in India.
5) Arrest/restrain Pakistanis and Indian nationals in Pakistan indulging in anti-India activities

All this to be done in 5 years, with mechanisms to check that it is being done.

Step II - to be started in conjunction with Step I
1) Reduce the number of privately owned firearms in Pakistan. Make their unlicensed manufacture illegal. Make automatic weapon ownership illegal and implement the law.
2) Make all Pakistanis equal in status, be they men or women, Sunnis, Shias, Ahmedis, Hindus, Sikhs or Christians, Pashtuns, Balochis, Sindhis or Pakjabis
3) Bring in land reforms that allow small landholders to own land without being beholden to a feudal landlord. Limit the ownership of land by landlords.
4) Make it illegal for the army to take over the political day to day running of the country. Disband army businesses.
5) Make the budget transparent - especially the armed forces budget
6) Make formal moves to change over to constitutional law that ensures the above points over and above Quranic law if the two are conflicting. It is not possible to have both Quranic laws and constitutional laws running concurrently to be used or discarded as per the convenience of the incumbent government
7) Strengthen ground level democracy and ensure democratic procedures from individual level to the highest government level

Allow 10 years for this, with mechanisms to check that these are being implemented.

Step III after step I and II are satisfactorily implemented
1) Allow border trade
2) Trade agreements to avoid double taxation and to award each other MFN status
3) Allow conditional employment/education for Pakistanis in India
4) Gradual increase in level of contacts over 20 years

Possibility of loose/informal merger in 50 years.

JMT

[svinayak]

I reread this entire thread and I have an honest and serious question to gurus!

What should be the Indian response if Kayani/Jardari/Gilani calls MMS tomorrow morning and make an uncoditional request to merge Pakistan in India?
Kindly exlpain your thoughts interms of policies, laws and timelines

thanks in advance

Peace talks have to complete and then more talks to decide

[John Snow]

And India will end up like W. Germany picking up the tab of screwed up East Germany. Very expensive and rehab of mentally challenged society and madrasa math re education.

[SSridhar]

I reread this entire thread and I have an honest and serious question to gurus!

What should be the Indian response if Kayani/Jardari/Gilani calls MMS tomorrow morning and make an uncoditional request to merge Pakistan in India?

Kindly exlpain your thoughts in terms of policies, laws and timelines

RamaY, it is not easy to answer the question. Unlike what Pakistanis falsely propagate to build up their security apparatus, there seems to be no inclination in India for a merger. Even if a union of sorts has to come about because of overwhelming force of events, India will be careful about what can be absorbed and what would be a certain 'no go'. As a first cut, PoK, Balawaristan and eastern portions of West Punjab may be merged with India, the Sind & Balochistan becoming independent entities while the Durand Line is obliterated to let NWFP merge with Afghanistan or Pashtunistan.

The idea of destruction of India has seeped into the DNA of Pakistan. It is going to take several generations before the effects of that can disappear. Even then, there is every possibility that the gene may be just recessive. India will have to be on the guard for a long time thereafter. IMHO, after Pakistan reverses its India-strategy completely and overhauls the approach like reforming the ISI, PA, Society, Schools etc., it will still take 5 to 6 generations before any such idea can be considered by India.

[Satya_anveshi]

IMO all these worthys in the paki political establishments and some most important worthys in Indian are just there to prevent such a thought process at the establishment level.

So, these guys suggesting something like that is really against the very mandate they have let along the will/capability to realize that. This is most fundamental aspect to the subcontinental or south asian dynamic.

JMTCs

[RamaY]

Thank you all for the responses.

I guess the underlying message is India’s preparedness to handle extreme ideologies that have religious acquiescence. India, being the birth-place of eastern-religions and being occupied by Abrahamic-religions, has better vantage point on this problem. In the past 60 years India has seen extremism from four different ideologies – Islam: J&K, Christianity: NE, Sikhism: Punjab, Communism: Naxal-belt. Indian leadership has shown its decisiveness and received unconditional support from local population only in one scenario, the Punjab issue. Now Sikh-extremism is non-existent on Indian soil. Similar to Islamic-extremism, EJ-extremism, and Maoist-extremism; Sikh-extremism too received ideological, diplomatic, and material support from external players. But the local population and state and federal governments responded decisively and united to address this issue. One has to understand the ideological and civilizational aspects of this special scenario.

Thus the seeds of solution for Pakistan-problem lie in Indian political and social consciousness (this is the all-encompassing word). It will be worthwhile if Indian leadership and strategic community focus on setting our house right before the opportunity knocks its door.

[RajeshA]

I reread this entire thread and I have an honest and serious question to gurus!

What should be the Indian response if Kayani/Jardari/Gilani calls MMS tomorrow morning and make an unconditional request to merge Pakistan in India?

Kindly explain your thoughts in terms of policies, laws and time-lines

thanks in advance

Step 1) Plan and execute a full accounting and securing of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, components, nuclear materials, designs. Same goes for missiles.

Step 2) Move all Pakistan Air Force aircraft to India.

Step 3) Demand that ISI provides in full its full knowledge base of operatives, assets, sources, finances, addresses, photos, plans up front.

Step 4) Make this moment of madness irreversible. Take control of the Army, of its command structure, administration, salaries and pensions. Try to integrate some divisions into the Indian Army. Put Indian commanders in charge of them, until formerly Pakistani officers prove that they are qualified to think like Indians. Send the rest of the Army men into retirement assuring them both of continued pensions as well as health care.

Step 5) Move quickly to enforce a change in the curriculum in all Pakistani schools making their education more secular and scientific and giving them a more balanced view of history. Try to talk them all out of jihadist tendencies.

Step 6) Start reeducation camps for all formerly Pakistan Police. Improve the administration to make it more responsive, more accountable, more transparent, more citizen-friendly, more efficient, more corruption-free. Put Supervisory Bodies over the administration.

Step 7) Introduce land reforms. Encourage feudals to move into industry, services and other businesses and give up their large land holdings.

Step 8 ) Put all religious preachers under very strict observation. Any religious preacher preaching hatred or violence against the State or any other group should be charged and prosecuted.

Step 9) Help former Pakistanis to rediscover their lost culture and civilization. Try to get school classes from former Pakistan to tour India and build trust. Also invest in the restoration of the old symbols of civilization in the land.

Step 10) Help the agricultural belt in former Pakistan to increase their yields and improve rural infrastructure. Also enter Pakistan with a massive financial package.

Step 11) Establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to look into all the death that was caused at the time of Partition and through terrorism in India. Also focus on the wrong policies of Pakistani Governments and how all these led to the implosion of Pakistan. This should form a part of school curriculum as is the case in Germany regarding the Nazis.

Step 12) Break down Pakistan into a smaller federal administrative units on the basis of language and ethnicity.

Step 13) Consider a confederation as a solution. Each province would have its own citizenship. A citizen of a certain province can vote only for candidates in that province. A citizen of a province can only stand as candidate from that province. People are free to move within India, but the citizen of a former Pakistani Province is electorally bound to that province only. Elected candidates can sit normally in the Lok Sabha. Children of citizens of these provinces will inherit the citizenship of their parents regardless of where they are born in India.

JMTs

[RajeshA]

In order to help nudge Pakistan's break up, India should consider an economic angle as well.

- Macroeconomic factors such as inflation rate, scarcity of food items, load shedding, low foreign exchange reserves all contribute to social unrest.

Zimbabwe almost fell apart because of the economic mismanagement, and was only kept together by the iron hand of the Zanu-PF and the Army. Pakistan has a far higher potential to fall apart because of economic mess.

Even if the Army takes over from a civilian administration, it too would not be able to put more food on the table of the ordinary Pakistani.

The peril of price hike by Dr Imdad Hussain: Pakistan Observer

According to media reports the prices of sugar, rice, vegetables and other elementary food stuff have gone up by 20-25% in the recent days. That is happening just before the advent of the holy month of Ramadan. People in Pakistan fear a price hike during the days and weeks to come. In fact, volatile prices of necessary goods and services have been enervating the economy of the country for decades with the exception of very few short-lived periods of relief. Nevertheless, the present outcry of the people over substantial upsurge in the prices of rudimentary food stuff and other necessities of life is a strong message to the government that it either lacks an inflation control policy or indeed the policy is toothless and not working properly. Undoubtedly this perpetual inflationary pressure has not only stricken the poorest low-income groups hard but also has ravaged broader fixed-income sections of the society.

Inflation is a noxious thing with horrendous impact on national welfare. By definition it measures successive increases over time in the general level of commodity prices in an economy. Given a nominal level of income an increase in prices results into a decreased buying power so that people can not afford to buy goods in quantities they need which leads to a lower level of welfare in the society. Economists usually consider inflation as the mother of all ills for a country’s economic health. Therefore, the degree of price stability also serves as an indicator of how nicely or badly an economy is managed. In Pakistan where a large part of population lives upon lower incomes far below and in close neighbourhood of poverty line, continuous inflationary trends pose a serious threat to already strained existence of the poor.

I am in favor of stopping all Indian exports of food-items to Pakistan. Also meat export to Pakistan should rather be diverted to other Muslim countries - either the Gulf or Bangladesh or become a part of India-ASEAN FTA.

The people need to come on the streets and rip apart the biggest drain on the nation - The Pakistani Army.

I would welcome if there are more reports in the Urdu Press on the robbing of the national exchequer taking place by the Army and the Politicians.

Give honey to Pakistan in words only, and otherwise let it die!

[RayC]

RamaY wrote:
I reread this entire thread and I have an honest and serious question to gurus!

What should be the Indian response if Kayani/Jardari/Gilani calls MMS tomorrow morning and make an unconditional request to merge Pakistan in India?

Even if such a hypothetical situation arose, one should not bite the bait!

Pakistan is a failed state in all aspects, be it political, moral or economic. There are rogue elements within it. There are hardened terrorist and rabid fundamentalists.

Therefore, what is there to gain?

As it is there is a great fear amongst many in India that Muslims will one day swamp India. If Pakistan joins India, it will fan paranoia in them, leading to social unrest.

[RajeshA]

RamaY wrote:
I reread this entire thread and I have an honest and serious question to gurus!

What should be the Indian response if Kayani/Jardari/Gilani calls MMS tomorrow morning and make an unconditional request to merge Pakistan in India?

Even if such a hypothetical situation arose, one should not bite the bait!

Sometimes the difference between biting the bait and jumping at an opportunity is simply one of marketing. If however the the group espousing the "not bite the bait" wins, it can very well be that the nation remains passive and lets an opportunity slip through the fingers. "Not biting the bait" should not mean inaction. It should mean one makes use of the opportunity to the fullest, and still prevent the other side, which throws the bait, from catching the fish.

Pakistan is a failed state in all aspects, be it political, moral or economic. There are rogue elements within it. There are hardened terrorist and rabid fundamentalists.

Therefore, what is there to gain?

The gain is exactly because of this reason. If the opportunity allows to take on these terrorists and rabid fundamentalists in a sort of a Kristallnacht type action, or setting up a determined security infrastructure in place in Pakjab and Sindh to hunt down such elements and eliminate them, then this opportunity should be used.

Thinking in a different way, when the Israelis marched into Israel, they found a desert, but they could transform the desert into a oasis. We will have to make a political, economic, and moral desert into a place worthy of its historical significance.

As it is there is a great fear amongst many in India that Muslims will one day swamp India. If Pakistan joins India, it will fan paranoia in them, leading to social unrest.

Whenever India plans on integrating these regions into India proper, India would have to create a confederation in order manage the new land, so we will have to negotiate the number of seats each new province would get in India. This number should remain constant and not increase because of population increase. Furthermore these regions should have a system of provincial citizenship so that they do not spread out throughout India skewing the demography and voting patterns in other states.

A step at a time!

[RayC]

Rajesh,

When we are unable to handle the Naxals, who have no religious ideology to pursue and have no oil money to support them, I wonder if we can accommodated wild, illogical and senseless fundamentalist.

Think of Germany having assimilated and bankrupt and impoverished East Germany.

They were once a powerhouse in the world and today?

[Virupaksha]

Rajesh,

When we are unable to handle the Naxals, who have no religious ideology to pursue and have no oil money to support them, I wonder if we can accommodated wild, illogical and senseless fundamentalist.

The solution is as fanciful as the unrealistic question was.

If I ask, what will you do if you are offered a trip to mars, sun with your favorite heroine in tow on a full service trip. The answers you get will also be as unrealistic as the trip.

You are trying to find logic in the solution, when there is no logic in the problem itself! It is a simply a self-defeating issue.

[shiv]

For the heck of it - repeating the first post here

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?

[RajeshA]

They mean "a mentally stable Pakistan is in India's interest"! Of course "mentally stable Pakistan" was and remains an oxymoron!

[harbans]

Shiv Ji, Pakistan was pretty stable in the 90's. Both Benazir and Nawaz had long healthy stints at Office. Nuke proliferation went on full swing. The Taliban were sponsored to screw Afghanistan and sent across. Terror was spawned in J & K elsewhere in India. I'd say Pakistan was stable and sponsoring terror, Wars, hijacking planes and chaos throughout the 90's except the last year or so of the decade. So it goes to prove that a stable Pakistan will create terror and chaos, indulge in proliferation etc.. Can you please edit that, 8 stable years out of 10 for the decade indicate pretty good stability? In fact it was pretty stable when Mushy took over from Nawaz also. I never saw any cracks in the union of Pakistan then..

[shiv]

Shiv Ji, Pakistan was pretty stable in the 90's. Both Benazir and Nawaz had long healthy stints at Office. Nuke proliferation went on full swing. The Taliban were sponsored to screw Afghanistan and sent across. Terror was spawned in J & K elsewhere in India. I'd say Pakistan was stable and sponsoring terror, Wars, hijacking planes and chaos throughout the 90's except the last year or so of the decade. So it goes to prove that a stable Pakistan will create terror and chaos, indulge in proliferation etc.. Can you please edit that, 8 stable years out of 10 for the decade indicate pretty good stability? In fact it was pretty stable when Mushy took over from Nawaz also. I never saw any cracks in the union of Pakistan then..

No Harbans. No editing. You write a timeline from what you think if you want. I am not going to argue with it. Waste of time. The purpose is not to write the history of Pakistan, but to point out that Pakistan is inimical to India, stable or unstable. It hardly matters if you think it was stable for 2 years here and I think it was unstable. This thread, with my first post has been there for 16 months and this is not the time to nitpick the first post. It's a different matter if you disagree with the premise of the thread.

[harbans]

Apologies Shiv ji, did'nt mean to nit pick though, got your point. It is a very good post indeed.