“India should give respect to Pakistan as it has an atom bomb": Mani Shankar Aiyar

[cricketjoshila]

You believe they'll accept it? Bring in a thousand proofs, they'll still deny it.

That's why.

Thank you Modi

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Ok.

If that is correct once he is elcted he is going to ignore pakistan again, like has most of tenure as PM.

Can anyone on PP tell me what "good" relationship between pakistan and india look like?

Yeah sure.

 

[gani999]

While the exact timeline remains speculative, one certainty emerges: India must prioritize the reestablishment of healthy relationships with all its neighboring nations, notably Pakistan, if it aims to assert itself realistically as a regional power and a leading force on the global stage.

India has healthy relationships with all of its neighbours barring Pakistan. India and China do 200 billion dollars worth of trade each year, despite all the border issues and sabre rattling. Even all the muslim countries other than Pakistan have good relations with India.
It is 'notably' Pakistan which is the problem here, not India. The onus is on Pakistan to improve its ways.

 

[Red-Indian]

While the exact timeline remains speculative, one certainty emerges: India must prioritize the reestablishment of healthy relationships with all its neighboring nations, notably Pakistan, if it aims to assert itself realistically as a regional power and a leading force on the global stage.

That's a naive assumption. Most of China's neighbours don't like it. Yet you can't deny it's a regional or indeed global power.

Neighbouring countries with imbalanced power equations can have all sorts of relationships. They can be like USA and Canada at one end of the spectrum. They can also be like Russia and Ukraine at the other end.

Given where we stand today, the best we can hope for in the near future is a China-Taiwan sort of relationship. Let's try and do some business but everything else will have to wait a perhaps indefinitely till saner heads prevail. Modi or not, I doubt anything can be done until Pakistan becomes a democracy. Talking to the army or it's stooges is of little use for India. They have no motivation to want a better relationship. Given that Pakistan hasn't been a democracy for 90% of it's history, I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

That's a naive assumption. Most of China's neighbours don't like it. Yet you can't deny it's a regional or indeed global power.

Neighbouring countries with imbalanced power equations can have all sorts of relationships. They can be like USA and Canada at one end of the spectrum. They can also be like Russia and Ukraine at the other end.

Given where we stand today, the best we can hope for in the near future is a China-Taiwan sort of relationship. Let's try and do some business but everything else will have to wait a perhaps indefinitely till saner heads prevail. Modi or not, I doubt anything can be done until Pakistan becomes a democracy. Talking to the army or it's stooges is of little use for India. They have no motivation to want a better relationship. Given that Pakistan hasn't been a democracy for 90% of it's history, I don't see that happening any time soon.

China has one large military power on its door step that dislikes it.

The rest are relatively benign.

India has China and Pakistan. Two hostile countries on either border and increasingly deteriorating ties with Bangladesh.

I don't see Pakistan returning to " democracy" in the next 30-40 years. Previously there was always the need to appear democratic to appear favourably with certain countries. Now with other powers happy to do business ( russia, arab monarchies, china) without the pretence of democracy it won't be a major concern to Pakistans junta.

I suspect some sort of peace deal will be brokered within 10 years. India is already reasonably happy to have lost Kashmir and has made no attempts to try to win it back. Pakistani establishment will accept the status quo on the other side eventually.

One thing the recent India elections have shown me is that behind the seemingly glittering outside facade of India there is a very very insecure inside.

 

[Red-Indian]

China has one large military power on its door step that dislikes it.

The rest are relatively benign.

India has China and Pakistan. Two hostile countries on either border and increasingly deteriorating ties with Bangladesh.

I don't see Pakistan returning to " democracy" in the next 30-40 years. Previously there was always the need to appear democratic to appear favourably with certain countries. Now with other powers happy to do business ( russia, arab monarchies, china) without the pretence of democracy it won't be a major concern to Pakistans junta.

I suspect some sort of peace deal will be brokered within 10 years. India is already reasonably happy to have lost Kashmir and has made no attempts to try to win it back. Pakistani establishment will accept the status quo on the other side eventually.

One thing the recent India elections have shown me is that behind the seemingly glittering outside facade of India there is a very very insecure inside.

If you think China's relationships with Japan, Philippines, Malaysia etc. are benign, you haven't been following things. While lots of trade does happen, the best that can be said about the relationships is that they are not hostile. There are festering border disputes, historical resentments and diplomatic issues just like India has with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal etc.

Of course you're right to observe that India is very insecure. We're a country trying to fight our way out of the historical perception as an overpopulated, under developed mess and there's lots of folks that are very conscious and have a huge chip on their shoulder. Aren't most countries in this position similar though? You should see how Chinese folks (and Chinese diplomats - the so-called wolf warriors) react on the internet to the smallest slight.

10 years is optimistic for a peace deal. Neither country has the real motivation to push for one.

- In India, The BJP has the political heft to get the current status quo enshrined in a peace deal but needs Pakistan as a bogeyman to bring up periodically during elections. There's no flipside for them in continuing the current ambiguous uneasy peace.

- In Pakistan, the Army (which as you rightly state looks like it will control Pakistan for the foreseeable future) has more than one issue. a) It needs India as a bogeyman to continue justifying the massive budget allocations and b) It doesn't have the political heft to withstand the blowback from the religious parties if they codify 'giving away' Indian Kashmir in a hypothetical peace deal.

The gains from a peace deal for both sides are definitely not enough to justify spending the needed political capital.

 

[Rajdeep]

You believe they'll accept it? Bring in a thousand proofs, they'll still deny it.

Hey, i humbly disagree. Didnt a Congress MP from Maharatsta said that RSS did 26/11? So there is no point in blaming Pakistani's when the real enemy (gaddar's) is among us

 

[HalBass9]

He has followed thro with the other ignore Pak policy for most of his tenure. Why do you anticipate a change? Try to be specific as to would be the immediate driving force for such a change. Has to a big win for modi to do that. What can Pak deliver for Modi?

Assuming there is change, what would the end result look like?

I have previously elaborated on this matter within the confines of this thread.

In my own comprehension, India must engage with Pakistan and temper its anti-Muslim rhetoric vis-à-vis Indian Muslims to garner serious consideration as a judicious and credible regional superpower.

While I cannot delve into the minutiae or prognosticate every aspect, this assessment is a holistic overview, and it is presumed that those wielding power in India grasp its essence.

 

[HalBass9]

If you think China's relationships with Japan, Philippines, Malaysia etc. are benign, you haven't been following things. While lots of trade does happen, the best that can be said about the relationships is that they are not hostile. There are festering border disputes, historical resentments and diplomatic issues just like India has with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal etc.

Of course you're right to observe that India is very insecure. We're a country trying to fight our way out of the historical perception as an overpopulated, under developed mess and there's lots of folks that are very conscious and have a huge chip on their shoulder. Aren't most countries in this position similar though? You should see how Chinese folks (and Chinese diplomats - the so-called wolf warriors) react on the internet to the smallest slight.

10 years is optimistic for a peace deal. Neither country has the real motivation to push for one.

- In India, The BJP has the political heft to get the current status quo enshrined in a peace deal but needs Pakistan as a bogeyman to bring up periodically during elections. There's no flipside for them in continuing the current ambiguous uneasy peace.

- In Pakistan, the Army (which as you rightly state looks like it will control Pakistan for the foreseeable future) has more than one issue. a) It needs India as a bogeyman to continue justifying the massive budget allocations and b) It doesn't have the political heft to withstand the blowback from the religious parties if they codify 'giving away' Indian Kashmir in a hypothetical peace deal.

The gains from a peace deal for both sides are definitely not enough to justify spending the needed political capital.

I concur with the majority of your assessments and the facts you have articulated. However, it is evident that the prevailing political narratives in both countries are inherently unsustainable; one is steeped in bigotry, while the other is stifled under dictatorial rule. Pakistan has already initiated fissures in its current narrative by participating in the previous elections. It remains to be seen how Indians will cast their votes in the upcoming elections.

The Pakistani military does not rely on India to rationalize its significant budget allocations; it simply allocates funds as it deems necessary.

 

[daytrader]

So Pakistan isn't a threat?

Only to India and mostly at election times. It's a threat that India knows it can't deal with by force. Hence why respect the atomic power

Why have UN banned pakistanis and pakistani organisations for terror attacks in India?

Why did Pakistan government accept that 26/11 attacks were planned in Pakistan.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124872197786784603?mod=googlenews_wsj

Surviving gunman`s identity established as Pakistani

ISLAMABAD Pakistani authorities during the course of their own investigations into the Mumbai carnage have...

www.dawn.com

There's a difference between an official government and non state organizations. It's not the state of Pakistan promoting terrorism in India. And from your articles, if you read them, you would acknowledge that the Pakistani government cooperated in sharing information with India. Now you want to turn it around and blame all of Pakistan.

Instead of doing the bare minimum to improve relations, you guys do the utmost to break them. Obviously we will remain a threat with this attitude. That's acceptable for the BJP and Modi bakhts because they know they can get votes this way.

 

[HalBass9]

India has healthy relationships with all of its neighbours barring Pakistan. India and China do 200 billion dollars worth of trade each year, despite all the border issues and sabre rattling. Even all the muslim countries other than Pakistan have good relations with India.
It is 'notably' Pakistan which is the problem here, not India. The onus is on Pakistan to improve its ways.

The responsibility lies squarely with India. The Indian establishment, particularly the ruling party, stands as a significant beneficiary in perpetuating hostile relations with Pakistan.

It is undeniable, even to the most discerning observer, that the anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistani narratives serve as foundational pillars easily disseminated among the Indian populace.

 

[Red-Indian]

I concur with the majority of your assessments and the facts you have articulated. However, it is evident that the prevailing political narratives in both countries are inherently unsustainable; one is steeped in bigotry, while the other is stifled under dictatorial rule. Pakistan has already initiated fissures in its current narrative by participating in the previous elections. It remains to be seen how Indians will cast their votes in the upcoming elections.

The Pakistani military does not rely on India to rationalize its significant budget allocations; it simply allocates funds as it deems necessary.

While I'm one of the first to acknowledge rising bigotry in India, I'm afraid you grossly underestimate ingrained bigotry in Pakistan and overestimate the constituency for peace with India. Imran Khan who presumably won the majority of votes in Pakistan was the one to suspend all ties including the meagre trade that was happening, the basic cultural exchanges and the humanitarian Samjhauta express & bus services. His returning to power would have no impact on the current narrative - maybe worsen it?

Similarly, whichever way the Indian public cast their votes in the ongoing elections will have zero impact on any peace negotiations over the medium term.

If you think the Pakistani military has the iron control it would need over the country to push for a status quo peace deal with India, I think you're mistaken. Any mention of giving up backing for Indian Kashmir would bring your loonies on to the streets. Conversely giving up notional rights to Pakistani Kashmir would have much less impact in India. Either way, the logical peace deal is not happening any time soon and it won't be purely, as you seem to think, because of bigotry in India.

 

[HalBass9]

While I'm one of the first to acknowledge rising bigotry in India, I'm afraid you grossly underestimate ingrained bigotry in Pakistan and overestimate the constituency for peace with India. Imran Khan who presumably won the majority of votes in Pakistan was the one to suspend all ties including the meagre trade that was happening, the basic cultural exchanges and the humanitarian Samjhauta express & bus services. His returning to power would have no impact on the current narrative - maybe worsen it?

Similarly, whichever way the Indian public cast their votes in the ongoing elections will have zero impact on any peace negotiations over the medium term.

If you think the Pakistani military has the iron control it would need over the country to push for a status quo peace deal with India, I think you're mistaken. Any mention of giving up backing for Indian Kashmir would bring your loonies on to the streets. Conversely giving up notional rights to Pakistani Kashmir would have much less impact in India. Either way, the logical peace deal is not happening any time soon and it won't be purely, as you seem to think, because of bigotry in India.

Imran Khan has failed to mobilize the masses in Pakistan for the Kashmir issue. A majority of Pakistanis seem to have waned in their concern for Kashmir.

It was evidently a calculated move that not only Imran Khan but any other Pakistani government would have had to undertake. This decision was not fueled by the populace's fervor but rather by the anticipation of the opposition's narrative.

The fringe elements are under the sway of the Pakistani Establishment, and their agitation would have erupted onto the streets had Imran Khan not responded as he did. Imran Khan comprehended the situation, and it seems that the common citizens of Pakistan were similarly indifferent.

It's no longer the 80s. I believe it's high time for Indians to develop a more nuanced understanding of Pakistan in 2024.

 

[Red-Indian]

Imran Khan has failed to mobilize the masses in Pakistan for the Kashmir issue. A majority of Pakistanis seem to have waned in their concern for Kashmir.

It was evidently a calculated move that not only Imran Khan but any other Pakistani government would have had to undertake. This decision was not fueled by the populace's fervor but rather by the anticipation of the opposition's narrative.

The fringe elements are under the sway of the Pakistani Establishment, and their agitation would have erupted onto the streets had Imran Khan not responded as he did. Imran Khan comprehended the situation, and it seems that the common citizens of Pakistan were similarly indifferent.

It's no longer the 80s. I believe it's high time for Indians to develop a more nuanced understanding of Pakistan in 2024.

I think I've lost track of your point.

- You claim that the Pakistani Establishment forced Imran's hand on the reaction to abrogation of Article 370 and won't allow peace with India but you also claim they will participate in a peace process since they don't need the enmity with India.
- You also claim that Imran Khan would not have overreacted if he hadn't been forced but state that he tried to mobilize the masses in Pakistan on Kashmir - a pointless mobilisation by any logical yardstick.

Who in your opinion would be a better negotiating partner for an Indian government to talk peace with under the stipulation that the only logical basis for peace would be legal codification of the long standing status quo? No additional concessions from either side.

Note that I'm not saying the Modi administration would be willing to extend the olive branch. It would have a tough job selling this to it's bigoted core constituency. Modi, like most populists, does however have a psychological need to seem the global statesman and therefore a peace deal is a small possibility since it would raise his global profile - all that Vishwaguru bull****.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Imran Khan has failed to mobilize the masses in Pakistan for the Kashmir issue. A majority of Pakistanis seem to have waned in their concern for Kashmir.

It was evidently a calculated move that not only Imran Khan but any other Pakistani government would have had to undertake. This decision was not fueled by the populace's fervor but rather by the anticipation of the opposition's narrative.

The fringe elements are under the sway of the Pakistani Establishment, and their agitation would have erupted onto the streets had Imran Khan not responded as he did. Imran Khan comprehended the situation, and it seems that the common citizens of Pakistan were similarly indifferent.

It's no longer the 80s. I believe it's high time for Indians to develop a more nuanced understanding of Pakistan in 2024.

Another long word salad.

So what would a more nuanced understanding of pakistan would result in? more trade? visa free travel?

 

[rpant_gabba]

I think I've lost track of your point.

- You claim that the Pakistani Establishment forced Imran's hand on the reaction to abrogation of Article 370 and won't allow peace with India but you also claim they will participate in a peace process since they don't need the enmity with India.
- You also claim that Imran Khan would not have overreacted if he hadn't been forced but state that he tried to mobilize the masses in Pakistan on Kashmir - a pointless mobilisation by any logical yardstick.

Who in your opinion would be a better negotiating partner for an Indian government to talk peace with under the stipulation that the only logical basis for peace would be legal codification of the long standing status quo? No additional concessions from either side.

Note that I'm not saying the Modi administration would be willing to extend the olive branch. It would have a tough job selling this to it's bigoted core constituency. Modi, like most populists, does however have a psychological need to seem the global statesman and therefore a peace deal is a small possibility since it would raise his global profile - all that Vishwaguru bull****.

Good luck getting any traction

 

[rpant_gabba]

It's no longer the 80s.

Can you highlight 3 things which different about Pakistan wrt it relations with India compared to the 80’s

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That's a naive assumption. Most of China's neighbours don't like it. Yet you can't deny it's a regional or indeed global power.

Neighbouring countries with imbalanced power equations can have all sorts of relationships. They can be like USA and Canada at one end of the spectrum. They can also be like Russia and Ukraine at the other end.

Given where we stand today, the best we can hope for in the near future is a China-Taiwan sort of relationship. Let's try and do some business but everything else will have to wait a perhaps indefinitely till saner heads prevail. Modi or not, I doubt anything can be done until Pakistan becomes a democracy. Talking to the army or it's stooges is of little use for India. They have no motivation to want a better relationship. Given that Pakistan hasn't been a democracy for 90% of it's history, I don't see that happening any time soon.

What does the Pakistan military gain from nurturing a hostile relationship with India? I know the Indian motives as they have been outlined plenty of times as part of the hindutva movement which currently dominates the country, so am curious about why this is still presented as a Pakistan directive.

 

[RexRex]

It's no longer the 80s. I believe it's high time for Indians to develop a more nuanced understanding of Pakistan in 2024.

What has changed ? I am genuinely curious.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Yeah sure.

So all you have is picture almost 10 years old.

I congratulate on you on maintaing the quality of your posts over the years

 

[HalBass9]

I think I've lost track of your point.

- You claim that the Pakistani Establishment forced Imran's hand on the reaction to abrogation of Article 370 and won't allow peace with India but you also claim they will participate in a peace process since they don't need the enmity with India.
- You also claim that Imran Khan would not have overreacted if he hadn't been forced but state that he tried to mobilize the masses in Pakistan on Kashmir - a pointless mobilisation by any logical yardstick.

Who in your opinion would be a better negotiating partner for an Indian government to talk peace with under the stipulation that the only logical basis for peace would be legal codification of the long standing status quo? No additional concessions from either side.

Note that I'm not saying the Modi administration would be willing to extend the olive branch. It would have a tough job selling this to it's bigoted core constituency. Modi, like most populists, does however have a psychological need to seem the global statesman and therefore a peace deal is a small possibility since it would raise his global profile - all that Vishwaguru bull****.

I have articulated distinct points delineating the current stance.

• The populace of Pakistan exhibits a waning interest in the Kashmir issue, perceiving it as a resolved matter. This narrative holds little sway among Pakistanis, with scant receptivity evident. Rather than advocating for military engagement over Kashmir, Pakistani sentiments veer towards a preference for diplomatic resolutions. Unlike in India, where leveraging an anti-Muslim sentiment remains politically expedient, such rhetoric fails to resonate significantly in Pakistan.
  
  
• Imran Khan found himself compelled to respond as he did, owing to the relentless opposition, which, it now transpires, enjoyed tacit backing from the establishment. Any alternative course of action would have left Khan vulnerable to heightened scrutiny and opposition assaults in 2019. However, whether the Pakistani populace would have embraced such a narrative remains dubious, given the indifferent response to Khan's calls for protest. This underscores the establishment's and opposition's disregard for electoral mandates. An appreciation of Pakistan's domestic political dynamics and foreign policies is imperative. While Pakistan's foreign policy advocates for normalized relations with India, the establishment appears disinclined to permit a popular leader to serve a full term.
  
  
• While I refrain from prognosticating which political faction will hold sway during a potential normalization of Pakistan-India relations, it is evident that such a rapprochement is imperative for India's ascendance as a regional power, both within South Asia and globally. Western powers, too, have a vested interest in fostering this normalization to perpetuate their global hegemony. Presumably, the Indian establishment comprehends this calculus. Pakistan's establishment, alongside its populace, has evinced a commitment to pursuing such normalization. However, the Indian government and populace appear reticent to embrace this trajectory at present.

In essence, while Pakistan displays a resolute commitment towards fostering new norms in relations, the hesitance observed within the Indian government and populace impedes progress towards this shared goal.

I think I've made my viewpoint pretty clear.

 

[JaDed]

They always do the most trying their hardest to make it seem like they don’t care.

But then they go hundreds and thousands of posts started discussions about Pakistan on a Pakistani website.

Think about that. Taking time out of your day to talk about a people or country you say you don’t care about… Every. Single. Day.

It’s not just on PP. But same on their news channels, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram etc.

Millions of people from India have internet even 1% of that would be huge..new generation is more likely to not care, Boomer to Millennials probably do because Pakistan was a big topic during our lifetime from sports to politics to arts.

Doesn’t mean 1% is negative but definitely still compete.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

So all you have is picture almost 10 years old.

I congratulate on you on maintaing the quality of your posts over the years

A picture is worth a thousand words. Take a look at the smile on Modi's face. This is how normal relation between India and Pakistan will look like. Not sure why you got offended lol? And it's nice to know you've been following me for many years. Now, please share your old username here.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

this maniac is still at it

@The Bald Eagle was right. They are obsessed with Pakistan

"If Pakistan does not wear bangles, we will make the country wear these. I knew they did not have food grains. Now, I come to know they do not even have an adequate supply of bangles," the PM said.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The responsibility lies squarely with India. The Indian establishment, particularly the ruling party, stands as a significant beneficiary in perpetuating hostile relations with Pakistan.

It is undeniable, even to the most discerning observer, that the anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistani narratives serve as foundational pillars easily disseminated among the Indian populace.

There cannot be any relationship with a country that supports a secessionist terrorist movement in India.

Pakistan has fought 4 wars with India and all of them before Modi came to power.

What anti muslim? Major muslim powers like UAE or Saudi get along with Modi quite well.

India loses nothing by not engaging with Pakistan. Modi has proven it in last few years. And unless Pakistan changes its policy of supporting armed secessionists in Kashmir, nothing will change from India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

this maniac is still at it

@The Bald Eagle was right. They are obsessed with Pakistan

"If Pakistan does not wear bangles, we will make the country wear these. I knew they did not have food grains. Now, I come to know they do not even have an adequate supply of bangles," the PM said.

Where have you got this quote from?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Where have you got this quote from?

PM Narendra Modi in Bihar: 'Will make Pakistan wear bangles if...'

National Conference leader Farooq Abdullah, reacting to Rajnath Singh's vow to take back Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, had said the country was not wearing bangles

www.hindustantimes.com

 

[cricketjoshila]

Only to India and mostly at election times. It's a threat that India knows it can't deal with by force. Hence why respect the atomic power



There's a difference between an official government and non state organizations. It's not the state of Pakistan promoting terrorism in India. And from your articles, if you read them, you would acknowledge that the Pakistani government cooperated in sharing information with India. Now you want to turn it around and blame all of Pakistan.

Instead of doing the bare minimum to improve relations, you guys do the utmost to break them. Obviously we will remain a threat with this attitude. That's acceptable for the BJP and Modi bakhts because they know they can get votes this way.

Its Pakistan's official stand that they support the armed violence in Kashmir and call them freedom fighters.

Pakistan was forced by various world powers.Read Condeleeza Rice's statements. All perpetrators of 26/11 in Pakistan are alive and well.

Sorry, but i see Indians around me quite happy with the present policy of not engaging with Pakistan at all.

Pakistan's atomic bomb doesn't care another nuclear power with hydrogen bombs.

Pakistan is ignored. Imran Khan had to take to Twitter to whine about article 370 as India paid him no heed.

 

[cricketjoshila]

PM Narendra Modi in Bihar: 'Will make Pakistan wear bangles if...'

National Conference leader Farooq Abdullah, reacting to Rajnath Singh's vow to take back Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, had said the country was not wearing bangles

www.hindustantimes.com

Though he was replying to the provocative statements of Aiyar and Farooq Abdullah who were trying to scare the public by mentioning Pakistan's atomic bomb, Modi's reply isn't a great one.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Though he was replying to the provocative statements of Aiyar and Farooq Abdullah who were trying to scare the public by mentioning Pakistan's atomic bomb, Modi's reply isn't a great one.

I agree. I don't think a sitting PM should stoop to this level. This is school kid level stuff.

Even if he wanted to reply to their statements he should have illustrated India's strength rather than try to highlight Pakistan's woes.

 

[HalBass9]

There cannot be any relationship with a country that supports a secessionist terrorist movement in India.

Pakistan has fought 4 wars with India and all of them before Modi came to power.

What anti muslim? Major muslim powers like UAE or Saudi get along with Modi quite well.

India loses nothing by not engaging with Pakistan. Modi has proven it in last few years. And unless Pakistan changes its policy of supporting armed secessionists in Kashmir, nothing will change from India.

Indeed, the rapport between the leaders of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Prime Minister Netanyahu is noteworthy. However, I'm curious, what precisely is the significance you wish to convey?

Throughout history, numerous nations were once adversaries engaged in frequent warfare, yet they now maintain peaceful relations. How does this fact relate to our current discussion, and what specific point are you endeavoring to emphasize?

At present, India may not be at risk of losing anything tangible, yet it possesses abundant potential to benefit from fostering amicable relations with its neighboring countries in the future.

Over the past several years, Pakistan has not actively pursued armed secessionists. Even in the wake of Amit Shah's recent remarks concerning Pakistani Kashmir, the present Pakistani administration chose not to respond, dismissing them as mere election rhetoric aimed at appeasing the public. It appears that India, rather than Pakistan, is leveraging the Kashmir issue for political gain, perpetuating narratives that are antagonistic toward Muslims and Pakistan.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Its Pakistan's official stand that they support the armed violence in Kashmir and call them freedom fighters.

Pakistan was forced by various world powers.Read Condeleeza Rice's statements. All perpetrators of 26/11 in Pakistan are alive and well.

Sorry, but i see Indians around me quite happy with the present policy of not engaging with Pakistan at all.

Pakistan's atomic bomb doesn't care another nuclear power with hydrogen bombs.

Pakistan is ignored. Imran Khan had to take to Twitter to whine about article 370 as India paid him no heed.

Not even worth reading beyond that first line. Much like the usual carefully selected reference to justifying no cricket with Pakistan due to an event in Mumbai staged almost 20 years ago. All it really proves is that the permanent hostility and hatred comes from the hardline hindutvas who are dominating politics in India, not Pakistan.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I agree. I don't think a sitting PM should stoop to this level. This is school kid level stuff.

Even if he wanted to reply to their statements he should have illustrated India's strength rather than try to highlight Pakistan's woes.

As i said, not a great statement at all.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Not even worth reading beyond that first line. Much like the usual carefully selected reference to justifying no cricket with Pakistan due to an event in Mumbai staged almost 20 years ago. All it really proves is that the permanent hostility and hatred comes from the hardline hindutvas who are dominating politics in India, not Pakistan.

Pakistan and India have fought 4 wars. All of them before the current government came to power.

India has faced numerous attacks leading upto 26/11.

No matter who is in power, Pakistan remains a hostile nation.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Indeed, the rapport between the leaders of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Prime Minister Netanyahu is noteworthy. However, I'm curious, what precisely is the significance you wish to convey?

Thought it was obvious. Islamic nations seem to have no issues having cordial relation with PM modi/inida. Seems less of a muslim/islam issue and more of pakistan specific issue

Throughout history, numerous nations were once adversaries engaged in frequent warfare, yet they now maintain peaceful relations. How does this fact relate to our current discussion, and what specific point are you endeavoring to emphasize?

Show two neighboring countries which have engaged in 4 wars after WWII, all of which was initiated by one party and are now at peace

\At present, India may not be at risk of losing anything tangible, yet it possesses abundant potential to benefit from fostering amicable relations with its neighboring countries in the future.

Please list what abundant potential benefit pakistan can provide to india. May be the top 3.

Over the past several years, Pakistan has not actively pursued armed secessionists.

Less to do with change in heart and more to do with Uncle Sam's disapproval (threat of FATF black list) combined with crappy pakistani economy.

 

[HalBass9]

Thought it was obvious. Islamic nations seem to have no issues having cordial relation with PM modi/inida. Seems less of a muslim/islam issue and more of pakistan specific issue

Show two neighboring countries which have engaged in 4 wars after WWII, all of which was initiated by one party and are now at peace

Please list what abundant potential benefit pakistan can provide to india. May be the top 3.

Less to do with change in heart and more to do with Uncle Sam's disapproval (threat of FATF black list) combined with crappy pakistani economy.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE maintain friendly relations with Pakistan as well; recently, the Prime Minister of Pakistan had a cordial meeting at one of their palaces.

Some of your compatriots attempted to refute accusations of anti-Muslim sentiment within the Indian ruling party with the following statement: "What anti-Muslim? Major Muslim powers like the UAE or Saudi Arabia get along with Modi quite well."

In response, I suggested that you chose to defend the statement with a more nuanced perspective. This tendency to deflect from the main point is quite common among supporters of the BJP.

The number of wars or who initiated them doesn't relate to the main point I've presented.

I prefer not to list specifics; this is a broader discussion, and I'd like to keep it as such.

Pakistan's economy is facing challenges, a reality recognized by its citizens. Despite the reasons behind these challenges, it's certain that the Indian government will have to initiate diplomatic engagement with Pakistan sooner or later. It appears that Pakistani officials will find it easier to communicate this message as long as Pakistani security remains uncompromised.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Saudi Arabia and the UAE maintain friendly relations with Pakistan as well; recently, the Prime Minister of Pakistan had a cordial meeting at one of their palaces.

Some of your compatriots attempted to refute accusations of anti-Muslim sentiment within the Indian ruling party with the following statement: "What anti-Muslim? Major Muslim powers like the UAE or Saudi Arabia get along with Modi quite well."

In response, I suggested that you chose to defend the statement with a more nuanced perspective. This tendency to deflect from the main point is quite common among supporters of the BJP.

The point could be that UAE and Saudi Arabia being bit farther away (geographicaly and "emotionally") recognize that Modi and BJP are not anti muslim as they are portrayed to be by Pak.

The number of wars or who initiated them doesn't relate to the main point I've presented.

Yes it does. The view presented by you is that India should push for and have amicable relations with a country wihc stated 4 wars against it after WWII. I'm asking if there is any precedence to such a thing. you are refusing to answer becos you know the answer.

I prefer not to list specifics; this is a broader discussion, and I'd like to keep it as such.

Becos you don't have specific thing that you can point to. More like entitlement on your part that burden is on India. Like I said before, India just needs to sit back and watch

Pakistan's economy is facing challenges, a reality recognized by its citizens.

Ok

Despite the reasons behind these challenges, it's certain that the Indian government will have to initiate diplomatic engagement with Pakistan sooner or later.

There we go with same assertion. What is asserted without reasoning can and will be dismissed without any due consideration.

It appears that Pakistani officials will find it easier to communicate this message as long as Pakistani security remains uncompromised.

And India will be stand by and watch as long its security will be compromised by engaging with Pakistan. history shows that India's security will be compromised by engaging with pakistan

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Pakistan and India have fought 4 wars. All of them before the current government came to power.

India has faced numerous attacks leading upto 26/11.

No matter who is in power, Pakistan remains a hostile nation.

Nothing less than the usual formulaic propaganda we have come to expect.

 

[Red-Indian]

I have articulated distinct points delineating the current stance.

• The populace of Pakistan exhibits a waning interest in the Kashmir issue, perceiving it as a resolved matter. This narrative holds little sway among Pakistanis, with scant receptivity evident. Rather than advocating for military engagement over Kashmir, Pakistani sentiments veer towards a preference for diplomatic resolutions. Unlike in India, where leveraging an anti-Muslim sentiment remains politically expedient, such rhetoric fails to resonate significantly in Pakistan.

Fair enough. I'll take your word for it though you've provided no evidence either via a survey or by statements from politicians/generals in terms of them being willing to accept status quo as a permanent solution.

• Imran Khan found himself compelled to respond as he did, owing to the relentless opposition, which, it now transpires, enjoyed tacit backing from the establishment. Any alternative course of action would have left Khan vulnerable to heightened scrutiny and opposition assaults in 2019. However, whether the Pakistani populace would have embraced such a narrative remains dubious, given the indifferent response to Khan's calls for protest. This underscores the establishment's and opposition's disregard for electoral mandates. An appreciation of Pakistan's domestic political dynamics and foreign policies is imperative. While Pakistan's foreign policy advocates for normalized relations with India, the establishment appears disinclined to permit a popular leader to serve a full term.

This is where I have a problem though. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Pakistan's foreign policy supported both by politicians as well as the Army advocates for normalized relations with India, all they would have to do is show it in actuality by either not overreacting to the changes in 2019 or by subsequently revoking the bans they put in place. I was in Kashmir last year and folks there still grieve for the closure of the Srinagar-Muzaffarbad bus service that allowed them to meet with relatives on the other side of the border. The Pakistan government closed it and has made no offer to reopen. Cricket is possibly the only forum where India has unilaterally refused engagement with Pakistan. On the other hand, I can point to a bunch of unilateral active disengagements on the Pakistan side - The Samjhauta express still doesn't run. Indian movies are still not allowed to be shown in Pakistan etc.

• While I refrain from prognosticating which political faction will hold sway during a potential normalization of Pakistan-India relations, it is evident that such a rapprochement is imperative for India's ascendance as a regional power, both within South Asia and globally. Western powers, too, have a vested interest in fostering this normalization to perpetuate their global hegemony. Presumably, the Indian establishment comprehends this calculus. Pakistan's establishment, alongside its populace, has evinced a commitment to pursuing such normalization. However, the Indian government and populace appear reticent to embrace this trajectory at present.

Unfortunately, while you may believe this, it isn't backed by reality on the ground. USA's relations with Cuba or China's relations with Taiwan have done nothing to impede their ascendance and continuation as global powers.

There is a constituency for permanent peace with Pakistan in India's establishment and media. There are any number of op-ed pieces which advocate for it and propose the common sense solution on the ground today as the basis. Permanent peace with Pakistan is a 'nice to have' but I can't point to a recent concrete example of the Indian government pushing for it.

Can you point to recent concrete examples of anyone in the Pakistani politico/mlitary establishment pushing for it though? Maybe you can refer to quotes from Pakistan's continued annual "Kashmir Day" commemoration in 2024?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Pakistan and India have fought 4 wars. All of them before the current government came to power.

India has faced numerous attacks leading upto 26/11.

No matter who is in power, Pakistan remains a hostile nation.

Worth also noting that this tactic of referring to historical wars dating back to the 1960's EXACTLY proves my point that the hindutva movement which currently dominates Indian politics never had any interest in any sort of peaceful relations with Pakistan whereby Pakistan might prosper. Why would it when the very idea of a prosperous Pakistan is anathema to the hindutva movement?

By carefully referring to historic clashes, this rules out any sort of progress in the future between the two nations unless it is detrimental to Pakistan.

 

[Red-Indian]

What does the Pakistan military gain from nurturing a hostile relationship with India? I know the Indian motives as they have been outlined plenty of times as part of the hindutva movement which currently dominates the country, so am curious about why this is still presented as a Pakistan directive.

Yes you're the right the Hindutva movement in India does need the Pakistan bogeyman to keep the loonies feeling threatened.

On the other hand, the entire rationale offered by the Military for taking up 12.5% of Pakistan's entire budget is that it needs to maintain a high capability to protect against a hostile neighbour. If a permanent peace deal was signed, I don't doubt there would be calls for a downsizing of that spending. I doubt the military actually wants even low level armed hostilities with India at this point but I expect they prefer the status quo to point to.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes you're the right the Hindutva movement in India does need the Pakistan bogeyman to keep the loonies feeling threatened.

On the other hand, the entire rationale offered by the Military for taking up 12.5% of Pakistan's entire budget is that it needs to maintain a high capability to protect against a hostile neighbour. If a permanent peace deal was signed, I don't doubt there would be calls for a downsizing of that spending. I doubt the military actually wants even low level armed hostilities with India at this point but I expect they prefer the status quo to point to.

I have heard that argument before, but it only works if the country itself is prospering. Pakistan has been referred to as a basket case/failed state for decades now. Even many of the hindutva posters on here can't resist mocking Pakistan's subsistence on IMF loans and other handouts. Why would the military prefer to sign off on an unsustainable model where they get a larger percentage of a shrinking budget rather than support a model where growth would be encouraged?

Truthfully, even without Indian hostility, given Pakistan's geopolitical importance worldwide, there would always need to be a significant budget set aside for military expenditure. If anything, with a civilian govt allowed to develop growth in a booming region, you could argue there would be more scope for military spending in a thriving economy.

 

[Red-Indian]

I have heard that argument before, but it only works if the country itself is prospering. Pakistan has been referred to as a basket case/failed state for decades now. Even many of the hindutva posters on here can't resist mocking Pakistan's subsistence on IMF loans and other handouts. Why would the military prefer to sign off on an unsustainable model where they get a larger percentage of a shrinking budget rather than support a model where growth would be encouraged?

Truthfully, even without Indian hostility, given Pakistan's geopolitical importance worldwide, there would always need to be a significant budget set aside for military expenditure. If anything, with a civilian govt allowed to develop growth in a booming region, you could argue there would be more scope for military spending in a thriving economy.

The proof's in the pudding though. Whether the rationale I offered for continuing hostility with India is the right one or not, the truth is that the Pakistani military establishment has shown no appetite for changing status quo. It would take a small gesture - say resume the non-controversial Samjhauta express to get the ball rolling.

In fact, the opposite is the case.

I remember in April 2021, there was a decision by Pakistan's Economic Co-ordination Committee to import of cotton and sugar from India when there was an urgent need in Pakistan. There seemed to have been an immediate rap on the knuckles from the Establishment because Imran Khan killed it the very next day.

Similarly recently Ishaq Dar raised the possibility but the foreign office spokesperson denied that was a possibility.

One the way or the other, the military establishment in Pakistan obviously is not very keen on turning ground realities into a formal peace agreement. Maybe they're afraid of the blowback if they actually say Indian Kashmir becomes India's...Pakistani Kashmir becomes Pakistan's? Maybe it's an ego issue? I confess I actually don't know.

 

[JaDed]

I have heard that argument before, but it only works if the country itself is prospering. Pakistan has been referred to as a basket case/failed state for decades now. Even many of the hindutva posters on here can't resist mocking Pakistan's subsistence on IMF loans and other handouts. Why would the military prefer to sign off on an unsustainable model where they get a larger percentage of a shrinking budget rather than support a model where growth would be encouraged?

Truthfully, even without Indian hostility, given Pakistan's geopolitical importance worldwide, there would always need to be a significant budget set aside for military expenditure. If anything, with a civilian govt allowed to develop growth in a booming region, you could argue there would be more scope for military spending in a thriving economy.

Pakistan was doing well until 1996.. after that when downhill trajectory started…

 

[Hitman]

Pakistan was doing well until 1996.. after that when downhill trajectory started…

They kept receiving foreign aid till the early 90's, around the time the Soviets left Afghanistan. And then reality started.

 

[FearlessRoar]

They kept receiving foreign aid till the early 90's, around the time the Soviets left Afghanistan. And then reality started.

India has received help from various countries and organizations to tackle specific challenges and improve the lives of its people. For example:

Countries like Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have provided financial aid and loans to support India's efforts in building its economy, developing infrastructure, and addressing poverty.

Organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF have extended their support to India for healthcare programs, controlling diseases, and running vaccination campaigns, ensuring better health outcomes for Indian citizens.

During natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, and cyclones, countries and organizations have stepped in with humanitarian aid, emergency supplies, and efforts to rebuild affected areas, providing crucial assistance to affected communities.

Institutions like UNESCO and the World Bank have offered funding and technical assistance to India for educational initiatives, including building schools, training teachers, and promoting literacy, thereby improving access to quality education for children across the country.

With the help of countries like Japan, Germany, and France, India has undertaken significant infrastructure development projects, including building roads, railways, ports, and energy facilities, to enhance connectivity and drive economic growth.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Fair enough. I'll take your word for it though you've provided no evidence either via a survey or by statements from politicians/generals in terms of them being willing to accept status quo as a permanent solution.


This is where I have a problem though. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Pakistan's foreign policy supported both by politicians as well as the Army advocates for normalized relations with India, all they would have to do is show it in actuality by either not overreacting to the changes in 2019 or by subsequently revoking the bans they put in place. I was in Kashmir last year and folks there still grieve for the closure of the Srinagar-Muzaffarbad bus service that allowed them to meet with relatives on the other side of the border. The Pakistan government closed it and has made no offer to reopen. Cricket is possibly the only forum where India has unilaterally refused engagement with Pakistan. On the other hand, I can point to a bunch of unilateral active disengagements on the Pakistan side - The Samjhauta express still doesn't run. Indian movies are still not allowed to be shown in Pakistan etc.


Unfortunately, while you may believe this, it isn't backed by reality on the ground. USA's relations with Cuba or China's relations with Taiwan have done nothing to impede their ascendance and continuation as global powers.

There is a constituency for permanent peace with Pakistan in India's establishment and media. There are any number of op-ed pieces which advocate for it and propose the common sense solution on the ground today as the basis. Permanent peace with Pakistan is a 'nice to have' but I can't point to a recent concrete example of the Indian government pushing for it.

Can you point to recent concrete examples of anyone in the Pakistani politico/mlitary establishment pushing for it though? Maybe you can refer to quotes from Pakistan's continued annual "Kashmir Day" commemoration in 2024?

@Rajdeep @Red-Indian is it just me of Halbass9 posts sounds like created by chatGPT? The vague repeated assertions the refusal to get into any specifics is a bit intriguing.

 

[Rajdeep]

@Rajdeep @Red-Indian is it just me of Halbass9 posts sounds like created by chatGPT? The vague repeated assertions the refusal to get into any specifics is a bit intriguing.

Brother @HalBass9 's english is at too high level for a mere mortal like me to understand. Though I studied Shakespeare in school but this is at another level. So I keep pedestrain distance from his posts.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The proof's in the pudding though. Whether the rationale I offered for continuing hostility with India is the right one or not, the truth is that the Pakistani military establishment has shown no appetite for changing status quo. It would take a small gesture - say resume the non-controversial Samjhauta express to get the ball rolling.

In fact, the opposite is the case.

I remember in April 2021, there was a decision by Pakistan's Economic Co-ordination Committee to import of cotton and sugar from India when there was an urgent need in Pakistan. There seemed to have been an immediate rap on the knuckles from the Establishment because Imran Khan killed it the very next day.

Similarly recently Ishaq Dar raised the possibility but the foreign office spokesperson denied that was a possibility.

One the way or the other, the military establishment in Pakistan obviously is not very keen on turning ground realities into a formal peace agreement. Maybe they're afraid of the blowback if they actually say Indian Kashmir becomes India's...Pakistani Kashmir becomes Pakistan's? Maybe it's an ego issue? I confess I actually don't know.

You are talking about a period of time when Modi's govt is in power, I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that they have any interest in pursuing good relations with Pakistan unless they are actually detrimental to Pakistan itself. Neither am I here to defend the Pakistan establishment, I have been hypercritical of them from day one on here. You mention Imran Khan, if he was the type to fall in line with the establishment I doubt he would be in jail today.

 

[Local.Dada]

You are talking about a period of time when Modi's govt is in power, I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that they have any interest in pursuing good relations with Pakistan unless they are actually detrimental to Pakistan itself. Neither am I here to defend the Pakistan establishment, I have been hypercritical of them from day one on here. You mention Imran Khan, if he was the type to fall in line with the establishment I doubt he would be in jail today.

No one needs to convince anyone, based on Modi govt’s attitude towards Pakistan. They have 0 intetest in having any kind of diplomatic or trade relationship. As far as Imran Khan goes, he is irrelevant. A former Pm being jailed immediately after stepping down more or less should make world headlines but it is clear that no one outside Pakistan cares. That’s exactly how India’s approach is. No disrespect to Imran but maybe in Pakistan Imran, Shahbaz, Zardari etc might be seen as independent entities but India be it BJP or opposition, they view them the same way as nominal posts with no voice. clearly your “establishment” is anti-India and BJP govt reciprocates the same sentiment. What’s so confusing?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No one needs to convince anyone, based on Modi govt’s attitude towards Pakistan. They have 0 intetest in having any kind of diplomatic or trade relationship. As far as Imran Khan goes, he is irrelevant. A former Pm being jailed immediately after stepping down more or less should make world headlines but it is clear that no one outside Pakistan cares. That’s exactly how India’s approach is. No disrespect to Imran but maybe in Pakistan Imran, Shahbaz, Zardari etc might be seen as independent entities but India be it BJP or opposition, they view them the same way as nominal posts with no voice. clearly your “establishment” is anti-India and BJP govt reciprocates the same sentiment. What’s so confusing?

Where is the confusion? I don't think there is that much disagreement here. India's current govt is virulently anti-Pakistan and always will be, mainly due to ideological reasons which date back from pre-partition. Pakistan's establishment is up for sale to the highest bidder, that could be India itself if the BJP govt was in a position - or inclined - to take advantage. There are no good guys here, at least not from a Pakistan point of view.

 

[Red-Indian]

You are talking about a period of time when Modi's govt is in power, I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that they have any interest in pursuing good relations with Pakistan unless they are actually detrimental to Pakistan itself. Neither am I here to defend the Pakistan establishment, I have been hypercritical of them from day one on here. You mention Imran Khan, if he was the type to fall in line with the establishment I doubt he would be in jail today.

No one needs to convince anyone, based on Modi govt’s attitude towards Pakistan. They have 0 intetest in having any kind of diplomatic or trade relationship. As far as Imran Khan goes, he is irrelevant. A former Pm being jailed immediately after stepping down more or less should make world headlines but it is clear that no one outside Pakistan cares. That’s exactly how India’s approach is. No disrespect to Imran but maybe in Pakistan Imran, Shahbaz, Zardari etc might be seen as independent entities but India be it BJP or opposition, they view them the same way as nominal posts with no voice. clearly your “establishment” is anti-India and BJP govt reciprocates the same sentiment. What’s so confusing?

Mr.Dada has put it crudely but he's essentially right. Despite the solution staring everyone in the face, there's very little appetite on either to expend the political capital to get the peace deal done.

Having said that, there is some meagre hope. Modi is pretty egotist and if the deal was fed to him right as an opportunity to consolidate an image as a 'Vishwaguru' and leave a legacy in what should be his final term, he might go for it. The BJP could lay off Pakistan bashing and continue Indian Muslim bashing.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

See my above reply to Dada.

 

[RexRex]

@Rajdeep @Red-Indian is it just me of Halbass9 posts sounds like created by chatGPT? The vague repeated assertions the refusal to get into any specifics is a bit intriguing.

He does speak like a lawyer, what with all the formal language. Kinda funny.

 

[Local.Dada]

Having said that, there is some meagre hope. Modi is pretty egotist and if the deal was fed to him right as an opportunity to consolidate an image as a 'Vishwaguru' and leave a legacy in what should be his final term, he might go for it. The BJP could lay off Pakistan bashing and continue Indian Muslim bashing.

How was India-Pakistan relationship before 2014?

Also to refresh your memory, the glory days of jeetlo-dil days there was a BJP prime minster at the helm.

If we go back even in time to the 80’s and 70s when there was no BJP: how was the relationship then?

Let’s go back even further since 1947 you are telling me everything was fine?

Forget lack of history, it reeks lack of basic awareness if you think only BJP-RSS-Modi are the only reason for the sour relationship between the 2 countries.

 

[rpant_gabba]

He does speak like a lawyer, what with all the formal language. Kinda funny.

The refusal to get into details does add up if he is a lawyer. Confirms that he is full of hot air. Lawyers will pound the points/details if it favors them. They will pound the desk if they don’t have any.

All he has been doing is pounding the desk

 

[HalBass9]

Fair enough. I'll take your word for it though you've provided no evidence either via a survey or by statements from politicians/generals in terms of them being willing to accept status quo as a permanent solution.


This is where I have a problem though. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Pakistan's foreign policy supported both by politicians as well as the Army advocates for normalized relations with India, all they would have to do is show it in actuality by either not overreacting to the changes in 2019 or by subsequently revoking the bans they put in place. I was in Kashmir last year and folks there still grieve for the closure of the Srinagar-Muzaffarbad bus service that allowed them to meet with relatives on the other side of the border. The Pakistan government closed it and has made no offer to reopen. Cricket is possibly the only forum where India has unilaterally refused engagement with Pakistan. On the other hand, I can point to a bunch of unilateral active disengagements on the Pakistan side - The Samjhauta express still doesn't run. Indian movies are still not allowed to be shown in Pakistan etc.


Unfortunately, while you may believe this, it isn't backed by reality on the ground. USA's relations with Cuba or China's relations with Taiwan have done nothing to impede their ascendance and continuation as global powers.

There is a constituency for permanent peace with Pakistan in India's establishment and media. There are any number of op-ed pieces which advocate for it and propose the common sense solution on the ground today as the basis. Permanent peace with Pakistan is a 'nice to have' but I can't point to a recent concrete example of the Indian government pushing for it.

Can you point to recent concrete examples of anyone in the Pakistani politico/mlitary establishment pushing for it though? Maybe you can refer to quotes from Pakistan's continued annual "Kashmir Day" commemoration in 2024?

Apologies if my response seems a bit confusing; I'm not very tech-savvy and might be too old to fully grasp technology, hence unable to figure out how to quote each point of yours and post it.

I can't offer concrete evidence, as it would be unlikely for establishment figures and politicians to make explicit comments about Kashmir, as it could provide fodder for opposition. However, one piece of evidence I can cite is that despite calls for protest within Pakistan by Imran Khan, there wasn't a significant movement of the Pakistani population after Modi's actions in Kashmir in 2019.

You seem to be nitpicking. Before 2019, the Samjhauta Express was operational, yet there were no attempts to normalize relations with Pakistan. I doubt reopening the Samjhauta Express now would make any substantial difference.

Comparing the situation between the US and Cuba to that of Pakistan and India is flawed. While the US and Cuba lack diplomatic relations and are geographically distant, Pakistan and India, both nuclear powers, share a land border. These different dynamics cannot be overlooked.

There are numerous articles on Google discussing Imran Khan's speech after becoming PM and General Bajwa's offer to improve trade with India. One simply needs to search for them.

You're attaching too much significance to 'Kashmir Day'; it's primarily for optics and lacks substantial impact.

Each point you've highlighted indicates that politicians and establishments in both countries manipulate narratives for domestic gain. However, we should strive to overlook such narratives and comprehend the emerging reality in South East Asia. It's inevitable that India will eventually have to engage with Pakistan diplomatically, as Pakistan is already moving in that direction.

Even after Modi inaugurated the Ram Mandir, there wasn't a strong reaction from Pakistan or its politicians beyond a few minutes of airtime.

 

[HalBass9]

The point could be that UAE and Saudi Arabia being bit farther away (geographicaly and "emotionally") recognize that Modi and BJP are not anti muslim as they are portrayed to be by Pak.

Yes it does. The view presented by you is that India should push for and have amicable relations with a country wihc stated 4 wars against it after WWII. I'm asking if there is any precedence to such a thing. you are refusing to answer becos you know the answer.

Becos you don't have specific thing that you can point to. More like entitlement on your part that burden is on India. Like I said before, India just needs to sit back and watch

Ok

There we go with same assertion. What is asserted without reasoning can and will be dismissed without any due consideration.

And India will be stand by and watch as long its security will be compromised by engaging with Pakistan. history shows that India's security will be compromised by engaging with pakistan

The dictators of Saudi Arabia and the UAE probably don't care much about whether Modi is perceived as anti-Muslim or anti-Pakistan. However, that doesn't necessarily mean Modi isn't, it's just that these Arab dictators aren't particularly concerned about it.

I never stated that India should actively pursue it, but it's inevitable that India will eventually need to establish cordial relations with Pakistan.

You keep asking for specifics on how India would benefit from improving relations with Pakistan. I can provide a few examples, and then you can counter each one, followed by my response. This isn't a trivial matter; it's the reality that will unfold whether the Hindus of India like it or not. It's just a matter of time. As I mentioned, I'll keep my discussion general.

Anyone not influenced solely by domestic media and political rhetoric understands that not engaging with Pakistan is not a sustainable approach.

 

[HalBass9]

How was India-Pakistan relationship before 2014?

Also to refresh your memory, the glory days of jeetlo-dil days there was a BJP prime minster at the helm.

If we go back even in time to the 80’s and 70s when there was no BJP: how was the relationship then?

Let’s go back even further since 1947 you are telling me everything was fine?

Forget lack of history, it reeks lack of basic awareness if you think only BJP-RSS-Modi are the only reason for the sour relationship between the 2 countries.

In the 80s and 90s, India was focused on building enough toilets. Looking ahead, India is not only aiming to become a regional power but also striving to rank among the top three countries in the world.

At some point, countries were adversaries; it's a part of the history of every nation. However, things change, and that change is currently unfolding in Southeast Asia.

 

[HalBass9]

Pakistan was doing well until 1996.. after that when downhill trajectory started…

Pakistan's downhill trajectory began in the 80s, with some attributing it to the Zia coup, and the unfortunate results started becoming apparent in the 90s. On the other hand, India's upward trajectory began in the early 90s, and India started witnessing the positive results in the 2000s.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The point could be that UAE and Saudi Arabia being bit farther away (geographicaly and "emotionally") recognize that Modi and BJP are not anti muslim as they are portrayed to be by Pak.

Yes it does. The view presented by you is that India should push for and have amicable relations with a country wihc stated 4 wars against it after WWII. I'm asking if there is any precedence to such a thing. you are refusing to answer becos you know the answer.

Becos you don't have specific thing that you can point to. More like entitlement on your part that burden is on India. Like I said before, India just needs to sit back and watch

Ok

There we go with same assertion. What is asserted without reasoning can and will be dismissed without any due consideration.

And India will be stand by and watch as long its security will be compromised by engaging with Pakistan. history shows that India's security will be compromised by engaging with pakistan

That's a knockout punch.

 

[cricketjoshila]

In the 80s and 90s, India was focused on building enough toilets. Looking ahead, India is not only aiming to become a regional power but also striving to rank among the top three countries in the world.

At some point, countries were adversaries; it's a part of the history of every nation. However, things change, and that change is currently unfolding in Southeast Asia.

India-Pakistan have fought 4 wars since the ww2 Which other countries have done the same?

India has no reason to initiate any dialogues and has no reason to trust pakistan.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Where is the confusion? I don't think there is that much disagreement here. India's current govt is virulently anti-Pakistan and always will be, mainly due to ideological reasons which date back from pre-partition. Pakistan's establishment is up for sale to the highest bidder, that could be India itself if the BJP govt was in a position - or inclined - to take advantage. There are no good guys here, at least not from a Pakistan point of view.

All the Indo-Pak wars were before this government came.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Worth also noting that this tactic of referring to historical wars dating back to the 1960's EXACTLY proves my point that the hindutva movement which currently dominates Indian politics never had any interest in any sort of peaceful relations with Pakistan whereby Pakistan might prosper. Why would it when the very idea of a prosperous Pakistan is anathema to the hindutva movement?

By carefully referring to historic clashes, this rules out any sort of progress in the future between the two nations unless it is detrimental to Pakistan.

Present is created on history.

We are doing well as a nation and see no reason to change our policies vis a vis Pakistan.

It's well known what Pakistan has done and if given a chance may do.

 

[HalBass9]

India-Pakistan have fought 4 wars since the ww2 Which other countries have done the same?

India has no reason to initiate any dialogues and has no reason to trust pakistan.

And what, precisely, is your point? Could you please elaborate further on the argument you're implying by referencing historical events?

I don't anticipate a sensible response from you, given that your reaction to accusations of Modi being anti-Muslim was to cite his good relations with Arab dictators as evidence to the contrary. This reasoning is akin to that of a racist person who claims not to be racist because they have friends of different ethnicities.

 

[Hitman]

India-Pakistan have fought 4 wars since the ww2 Which other countries have done the same?

India has no reason to initiate any dialogues and has no reason to trust pakistan.

We have been showered with such never ending love every time we have trusted them. Vajpayee did with good motive, and we all know what happened next. Then the Parliament Attack. Despite that we were willing to forgive and forget. We once again started relations and even sent our cricket team there in 2004 and 2006. We were rewarded with Mumbai Attacks.​

 

[cricketjoshila]

And what, precisely, is your point? Could you please elaborate further on the argument you're implying by referencing historical events?

I don't anticipate a sensible response from you, given that your reaction to accusations of Modi being anti-Muslim was to cite his good relations with Arab dictators as evidence to the contrary. This reasoning is akin to that of a racist person who claims not to be racist because they have friends of different ethnicities.

1. Pakistan can't be trusted. Hence no need to change the Pakistan policy and endanger our security. Even the slightest risk of the slightest injury to any indian isn't worth changing the Pakistan policy.

2. Pakistanis can keep crying all over that Modi is anti muslim, most muslim leaders don't believe that.

Sensible? You make a lot of sense when you claim India will have to initiate dialogue with Pakistan.

 

[cricketjoshila]

We have been showered with such never ending love every time we have trusted them. Vajpayee did with good motive, and we all know what happened next. Then the Parliament Attack. Despite that we were willing to forgive and forget. We once again started relations and even sent our cricket team there in 2004 and 2006. We were rewarded with Mumbai Attacks.​

The door is shut. Its locked. Hopefully someone throws the key away may be Yogi.

 

[daytrader]

Its Pakistan's official stand that they support the armed violence in Kashmir and call them freedom fighters.

Pakistan was forced by various world powers.Read Condeleeza Rice's statements. All perpetrators of 26/11 in Pakistan are alive and well.

Sorry, but i see Indians around me quite happy with the present policy of not engaging with Pakistan at all.

Pakistan's atomic bomb doesn't care another nuclear power with hydrogen bombs.

Pakistan is ignored. Imran Khan had to take to Twitter to whine about article 370 as India paid him no heed.

Well you do engage with Pakistan but only negatively. Just recently you guys made a claim about RAW targeting people in Pakistan. Then you go out of your way to influence others to be against us. You previously had your proxies in Afghanistan and Iran and meddled through those borders as well

 

[rpant_gabba]

Pakistan's downhill trajectory began in the 80s, with some attributing it to the Zia coup, and the unfortunate results started becoming apparent in the 90s. On the other hand, India's upward trajectory began in the early 90s, and India started witnessing the positive results in the 2000s.

Pakistan's glory days were the Zia era in the 80's. They had money rolling in from the US. they were collaborating with israel, china, KSA, Egypt to kick soviets out of Afghanistan.

They had India under the thumb by funding Khalistan.

Of course it royally messed them up in the long run ...

 

[cricketjoshila]

Well you do engage with Pakistan but only negatively. Just recently you guys made a claim about RAW targeting people in Pakistan. Then you go out of your way to influence others to be against us. You previously had your proxies in Afghanistan and Iran and meddled through those borders as well.

Who made a claim about RAW?

Iran is a sovereign nation with its own issues with Pakistan. Iran recently bombed Pakistani territory.

Ignoring Pakistan doesn't mean we don't take our security threats from Pakistan seriously. Next you will see since Indo Pak border has 1000s of soldiers, India isn't ignoring pakistan.

India has brought down its engagement with pakistan to zero. No talks no visas nothing. Heck except the odd EAM spokesman statement no one even replied to Imrans continous statements and rants.

 

[HalBass9]

Pakistan's glory days were the Zia era in the 80's. They had money rolling in from the US. they were collaborating with israel, china, KSA, Egypt to kick soviets out of Afghanistan.

They had India under the thumb by funding Khalistan.

Of course it royally messed them up in the long run ...

I believe Pakistan's heyday peaked prior to Bhutto's election, and subsequently, Zia's reign extinguished those glories entirely. Pakistan, traditionally conservative yet inclusive, underwent a transformation under Zia's dictatorship, fostering a radical narrative enforced through fear-mongering tactics. Journalists endured public floggings, and dissenters faced arrest for daring to oppose the regime openly.

Presently, India is mirroring Pakistan's trajectory of the 1970s. The distinction lies in India's populace willingly electing radical politicians who espouse ideologies steeped in bigotry and religious supremacy. Similar to how Western nations turned a blind eye to Pakistan's plight, India faces a dearth of international criticism due to its perceived importance in Western hegemony. However, India's potential salvation from this era of bigotry lies in its attainment of economic freedom.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I believe Pakistan's heyday peaked prior to Bhutto's election,

Prior to 1973? Bhutto was PM from 73 to 77 and president from 71 to 73.

Things were bad for Pakistan when Nixon went away. Not sure which time period you are talking about.

and subsequently, Zia's reign extinguished those glories entirely. Pakistan, traditionally conservative yet inclusive, underwent a transformation under Zia's dictatorship, fostering a radical narrative enforced through fear-mongering tactics. Journalists endured public floggings, and dissenters faced arrest for daring to oppose the regime openly.

Money wise, things were good during Zia's era for pakistan. Socially, he was pushing things backwards and Pakistan hasn't found a way

Presently, India is mirroring Pakistan's trajectory of the 1970s. The distinction lies in India's populace willingly electing radical politicians who espouse ideologies steeped in bigotry and religious supremacy. Similar to how Western nations turned a blind eye to Pakistan's plight, India faces a dearth of international criticism due to its perceived importance in Western hegemony. However, India's potential salvation from this era of bigotry lies in its attainment of economic freedom.

Guess you don't much about Indian situation in the 70's. Read up. Don't want to spoil it for you

 

[daytrader]

Who made a claim about RAW?

Iran is a sovereign nation with its own issues with Pakistan. Iran recently bombed Pakistani territory.

Ignoring Pakistan doesn't mean we don't take our security threats from Pakistan seriously. Next you will see since Indo Pak border has 1000s of soldiers, India isn't ignoring pakistan.

India has brought down its engagement with pakistan to zero. No talks no visas nothing. Heck except the odd EAM spokesman statement no one even replied to Imrans continous statements and rants.

The point is India only disengages or ignores Pakistan when its convenient for them.

During elections engagement, although only in a negative way, soars from the Indian side as evident by the 'surgical strikes' that backfired on India prior to last elections. Because at those times, theatrics against Pakistan brings guys like Modi votes.

Most Pakistanis support a no engagement policy with India but we will not support undue aggression.

 

[Red-Indian]

How was India-Pakistan relationship before 2014?

Also to refresh your memory, the glory days of jeetlo-dil days there was a BJP prime minster at the helm.

If we go back even in time to the 80’s and 70s when there was no BJP: how was the relationship then?

Let’s go back even further since 1947 you are telling me everything was fine?

Forget lack of history, it reeks lack of basic awareness if you think only BJP-RSS-Modi are the only reason for the sour relationship between the 2 countries.

You misunderstand me. I fully believe that if a permanent India-Pakistan peace deal is to be done, it has to happen under a Modi and/or BJP government. His hate for Pakistan is well-ingrained in the public consciousness and if he does decide to strike a deal, the opposition will find it very difficult to exploit his "concessions" to Pakistan as an election issue. They're not set up to appeal to that audience.

On the other hand - a Congress or regional party coalition government would have to be very conscious of the possibility that even a deal with minimal concessions - essentially enshrining the status quo could easily be exploited by a BJP in opposition as a sale of our birthright by Pakistan/Muslim loving traitors. Given how little they have to gain from it, I don't think there's any chance of them engaging in the discussion.

I was just suggesting what may be the best way to sell Modi on the deal. Since there's obviously minimal economic gain at least in the short to medium term, the best chance might be to position it as a chance for him to be seen as the Global Statesman who brought peace to one of the most conflict prone regions in the world.

 

[uppercut]

Presently, India is mirroring Pakistan's trajectory of the 1970s. The distinction lies in India's populace willingly electing radical politicians who espouse ideologies steeped in bigotry and religious supremacy.

What is the absolute worst thing that has happened in the last 10 yrs under the supposedly very radical leadership of Modi? Can you name these events and the approx casualty figures?

Just so you know I have asked this question many times in the past and so far not one single Pakistani poster has any answers to that. So hoping that you will be the first one with an answer

 

[HalBass9]

Prior to 1973? Bhutto was PM from 73 to 77 and president from 71 to 73.

Things were bad for Pakistan when Nixon went away. Not sure which time period you are talking about.

Money wise, things were good during Zia's era for pakistan. Socially, he was pushing things backwards and Pakistan hasn't found a way

Guess you don't much about Indian situation in the 70's. Read up. Don't want to spoil it for you

Before Bhutto became Prime Minister, it seemed that the Pakistani establishment was willing to split the country into two separate nations if it meant retaining control over the rest. This marked the beginning of Pakistan's decline, as maintaining power required controlling the narrative, which was easier in those days due to the absence of social media.

 

[HalBass9]

What is the absolute worst thing that has happened in the last 10 yrs under the supposedly very radical leadership of Modi? Can you name these events and the approx casualty figures?

Just so you know I have asked this question many times in the past and so far not one single Pakistani poster has any answers to that. So hoping that you will be the first one with an answer

BJP supporters should cease pretending that they don't endorse and propagate the anti-Muslim rhetoric promoted by the ruling party in India. As ardent supporters, they should openly acknowledge and champion this stance, similar to how many Israelis openly endorse the Gaza genocide, without the need for evasion to further their anti-Muslim agenda.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Present is created on history.

We are doing well as a nation and see no reason to change our policies vis a vis Pakistan.

It's well known what Pakistan has done and if given a chance may do.

Your history is coloured by saffron lens, and your future will also remain so because you can't see much beyond the Mahanharata. I don't think there is anything wrong with this per se, hindutva is an understandable reaction to most people's perception of a more submissive religion. But as a country I think the politicians have to have a more wider regional vision.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Before Bhutto became Prime Minister, it seemed that the Pakistani establishment was willing to split the country into two separate nations if it meant retaining control over the rest. This marked the beginning of Pakistan's decline, as maintaining power required controlling the narrative, which was easier in those days due to the absence of social media.

Wasn’t Bhutto the one who rejected the 1970 election and was encouraging Yahya to conduct Operation Searchlight?

Anyway, 70’s was a bad period for Pakistan, India and Bangladesh economically.

80’s worked well for pak economy wise