Strangely New Delhi and Islamabad never became friends, even though they share the same culture, stock, geography and a common border of thousands of kilometres. Both China and America have taken advantage for their own purpose. The latest warning by President Barack Obama that America would act in its own interest without taking Pakistan into account may be harsh but nothing new. Washington’s policies have never been altruistic, especially when it comes to South Asia.
India could probably have changed history if it had trusted Pakistan at least in the initial years. For example, General Mohammad Ayub Khan, after assuming power in Pakistan, offered New Delhi a ‘defence pact’. India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, a democrat to the core, rebuffed the proposal, with the remark: Defence against whom? Imagine how different things would have been in the last five decades if India and Pakistan had a defence pact!
The training of terrorists in Pakistan has not only harmed India, it has hurt Pakistan as well. Islamabad woke up too late and still has not realised its folly. But it may not be able to do much to curb terrorism when a substantial portion of the population has been influenced by fundamentalism, which sees jihad as an integral part of their faith. The strategic partnership between India and Afghanistan should not be seen by Islamabad as an anti-Pakistan step. It would have been better if Islamabad had been in the loop before the treaty was signed. Yet, since Pakistan has spurned such gestures earlier, New Delhi and Kabul preferred to go separate. Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that “India is only a friend but Pakistan is a twin brother” alleging at the same time that Pakistan had given shelter to the Haqqanis.
Karzai’s problem is similar to the one which US Admiral Mike Mullen raised before retiring when he said that the Haqqani network was “a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency”. Mullen went further and had warned that if Pakistan did not discipline Haqqani’s network, America would do so, implying that this may go so far as the Americans operating inside Pakistani territory to deal with the Haqqani network.
Probably, all the three; India, Pakistan and Afghanistan can have a friendship treaty. But Islamabad will have to give up looking at Afghanistan through its so-called ‘strategic depth’ policy. Kabul has been resenting this for years because it does not want to be Islamabad’s satellite. Afghanistan is a sovereign country and has the right to formulate policies the way it deems fit.
Now that 2014 is the deadline for the withdrawal of US forces, it is all the more necessary for New Delhi, Islamabad and Kabul to come together to curb terrorism from the region. The point is not whether America would stick to the deadline, but whether the proposed exit by the US can bring Afghanistan and other countries in the region to chalk out a joint strategy to root out terrorism in the absence of American and Nato forces.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 19th, 2011.
COMMENTS (96)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Abbas from the US:
But, the bottom line is he is a Catholic. Imagine Obama declaring his middle name is Hussein for a reason and then stand for the next election. Let Sarkozy completely convert to any non-Christian Religion. Let him stand in a strictly secular Country and let us see what happens to him..
Only in India such wonders happen. That is due to the principles of Nehru and Gandhi, which the Constitution takes inspiration from.
What is your point at the end? India is communal? Even with a Sikh PM you say this? This reminds me of Jinnah labeling Congress a party of Hindus alone, when Maulana Azad was its president for 6 years, I think starting from 1938. How shallow did that sound? Your accusations sound the same way.
@BruteForce:
You remind me of the kids fifty years ago who would say anything to prove their point. Sarkozy is of Jewish descent and has Jewish roots. The Wikepedia article that you needed to make your point in fact says nothing about his own religious beliefs except that he went to a catholic school and he is divorced. Catholics dont divorce and retain their faith and you should know that. I went to a Catholic school and my name makes your compatriots jump to easy conclusions. Sarkozy has Jewish roots and is probably an agnostic or maybe even an athiest. Politicians talk of Christian values much like Obama does and may have no need for religion except to occaisionally garner votes.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=sarkozy%20jewish%20roots&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjoi.org%2Fbloglinks%2FFrance.htm&ei=ZOimTpyKFsnr0gGtrYjDQ&usg=AFQjCNFgcC9gTRgFyqJ8rRR_iEk-rl0Ug
@Abbas from the US:
"Sarkozy!!!!!!!!!!!! end of useless argument from your side."
At first I was taken aback from this new information. It was too good to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy
He is a Christian in a Christian majority Country.
@Abbas from the US:
I am still waiting for the institutionalized communal-ism example from India. The idea of India is embedded in its Constitution.
@BruteForce: Show me one modern, Democratic, forward, Western power which has chosen a non-Christian in a Country where there are majority Christians?
Sarkozy!!!!!!!!!!!! end of useless argument from your side.
@Abbas from the US: A Pakistani giving a talk on Communalism vs Secularism and acussing India of Communalism!!! And whats more funny is Pakistan is based on the very concept of communalism...... LOL..
@Abbas from the US:
Why are you redirecting me to vague Google search links? Show me one law which is communal, show me one line of the great Constitution of India which is communal?
Can you?
People of India are inherently non-Communal, pluralistic and peaceful. It is when people like You-know-who demand unreasonable demands and aim to breakup a Country for fulfilling his own ambitions that communalism gets a shot in the arm.
Saying something to the effect that India is culturally inclined to be communal is laughable considering the present PM is a Sikh, a member of a Community only 5% in strength, and the most powerful woman is a Catholic.
Remember, India is a Secular Country not because it minorities demand it to be, but its majority want it to be. Show me one modern, Democratic, forward, Western power which has chosen a non-Christian in a Country where there are majority Christians?
Indian cultural is programmed to be tolerant.
@BruteForce:
Communalism is a fact of life in India, the powers that be in Pakistan can possibly add to it, but even without any outsiders influencing it, Indian Muslims live with it.
here is the sanest and most secular of the Indian Muslims giving his views on the accepted facts of a communal society.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20many%20communal%20riots%20in%20india%20since%20independence&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sacw.net%2F2002%2FEngineerJan03.html&ei=q1KgTuCqLYbe0QHngpiIBw&usg=AFQjCNEOykVZ7u3xBrizVP2bh2z6TWIecQ
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20many%20communal%20riots%20in%20india%20since%20independence&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cscsarchive.org%3A8081%2FMediaArchive%2Fliberty.nsf%2F(docid)%2F235506797872792665256A450069E00A&ei=q1KgTuCqLYbe0QHngpiIBw&usg=AFQjCNEDy1sanCaepagDIu9baOiqCjusPQ
@G. Din:
The write up is not intended as a vieled or otherwise threat. You need to re-read about possiblities that I have outlined and what it does to both India and Pakistan.
By the way I have no religion, I don't need the crutches of religion in my life, if that can sink into your mind. I am glad you can identify with the Ambani's the Mittal's the Birlas, the Tatas and their kind, and not the 41 % of Indians still living under $1.03 as identified by the World Bank, and still find time to argue on this forum.
@G. Din:
Haha! You are right. My bad.
@Abbas from the US:
"The kashmiri voices that one can hear or read in response to Prashant Bushan's recommendation advocating a return to the idea of plebiscite is a wake up call for India."
There is a fundamental question I can pose here: How is one to decide what people of a certain area think? What is the best method to do gauge their opinions? I say elections. Pakistan on its path to somewhat a semblance of a Democracy would set a dangerous precedent for itself if it says otherwise.
If you accept this, then the elections say that people of J&K will let their elected representatives do the talking. What Kashmir voices are you talking of here, in that case?
"which is inclusive of the majority of Indian Muslims who have missed out mainly on the economic upswing"
So letting a wave of Communal-ism flourish by giving what Pakistan wants on the poor, hungry Muslims of India is seems like a good idea for you? When in after 1947, India had the secular statesman Nehru to steer India and fight the Hindu Right-Wing forces which Jinnah had managed to encourage(unwittingly) with his communal demand for Pakistan. India cannot afford that and do not increase the misery of the poor Muslims of India by peddling your theories.
India will be least harmed by the present status quo. The Muslims of India will be most harmed by any change. Pakistan had once given a raw deal to the Muslims of India, by doing what it is doing it is worsening their condition.
@Babloo: That is the problem, you read Pakistani History Textbooks some of which also state that Most of the current land mass of the subcontinent was known as Pakistan and then over the period of time it shrank to its 1947 size.
@Analyst
"Complete Arabization of Pakistan is the total solution. Make Arabic and Chinese compulsary languages at primary level. Wipe out any trace of Indian sub-continental ties."
Interesting! Md Bin Qasim (true Arab) in, Qaid-E-Azam (grand son of Poonja Gokuldas Meghji, a hindu) out.
now this is time to rebuild your nation on your on with out any sport plz just work for Pakistan.o0ur rulers are busy in corruption.no one is concern with the situation of Pakistan and its peoples.can we say that we are a nation.for then heaven seek we are responsible for all that.and only our nation can set that by revaluation plz speak against USA.
Complete Arabization of Pakistan is the total solution. Make Arabic and Chinese compulsary languages at primary level. Wipe out any trace of Indian sub-continental ties.
@ Ali Tanoli
The Arabs were pagans (you spelt it 'pegans' by the way) before Islam, what u gonna say about that?
@Abbas from the US: Please don't issue veiled threats. Do your damnedest. And if we fail to stand front and centre to you, then you would be the rightful victor. Has any one told you that the State of Pakistan is floundering to such an extent that the only reason your US government is not attacking Pakistan is that it may destabilize both civil and military structures in Pakistan? But leave it to a Muslim to brag and bombast on an empty stomach! We have known that for a few centuries. Now even US is getting it! @BruteForce: "India secretly thinks it is resolved," If this isn't an escapist statement, I don't know what is. Where were you, sir, when Nehru declared that "Kashmir is an integral part of India" just after Pakistan joined the Baghdad Pact? Every government after that has said that. How and when did all those statements turn into secret thinking?
Read Pakistani history books to know more about them.
That is the problem with you guys. You have been fed doctored history which you think is true. Otherwise who will say 'Pakistanis are the original arabs' blah blah blah
@BruteForce:
The answer really is both India and Pakistan continue to lose if Kashmir remains unresolved. The Pakistan's military's standing troop strength and the scaling down of pouring Pakistani resources into its military cannot be justified if Kashmir and related issues remain unresolved. The Pakistani civilian governments cannot eliminate a power center that is a constant hinderence to the development of democracy and focusing on important economic development issues, while the military demands and is provided with ever increasing funding. For Pakistan's strategic thinkers in the absence of a resolution, Kashmir is the cheapest way to keep a major segment of the Indian military tied down in anti insurgent warfare and activities
The kashmiri voices that one can hear or read in response to Prashant Bushan's recommendation advocating a return to the idea of plebiscite is a wake up call for India. The issue may continue to fester and return to the headlines with more violence, underwritten by Kashmiris within the valley as well as those on the Pakistani side besides giving Jihadis to create more instablity in other parts of India.
For the long term economic opportunities that India wants to provide to more than the half a billion Indians which is inclusive of the majority of Indian Muslims who have missed out mainly on the economic upswing and have yet to experience the benifits, peace on India's northern front is a prerequisite.
One need only to read the flagrant comments on this board to understand why Indo-Pak friendship has never come to fruition.
Excrllent piece, Sir!
@ Gul Bahuder singh, The Europeans were pegans before christianity what u gonna say about that?
@kdp Pakistanis are the original arabs. Pakistanis are inheritors of the 5000 year civilization that sprung in the Arabian desert that invented science, literature, arts and maths. Read Pakistani history books to know more about them.
@Babar: If thats what you believe Pakistan should Declare official support and legal shelter to Help Haqqanis achieve freedom for Afghanistan. Why play double game with the USA? Although it is connively smart on the part of Pakistan to play that game and get golden eggs without killing the mother goose. If Haqqanis are outed from Pakistan goose will stop producing eggs!!!
@ KDP, om shanti peace love aman ki asha man thats it from khyber to kerala.
@John B: Nehru was (if I can say naive) did not think that China would attack India either especially just one year after 1961 India visit of Chinese prim minister Chau when Indians screamed slogans like "Hindi Chini Bhai bhai" means Indians and Chinese are brothers. India did not have army on the border when well armed Chinese attacked. Nehru took this as betrayal and India's defeat and loss of thousands of square miles of its land probably hastened his death.
i have noticed one thing in most article.. whereas the indian readers always pass comments derogatory and contemptuous towards the pakistanis.. the pakistani readers even when criticizing india or its policies refrain from passing obscene comments on the 'indian mindset' and 'these people'.
@Babloo: Writers of Pakistani History text books will be happy to read your comments and rejoice at their success to make all Pakistani Arabs with a stroke of pen !!! I hope Arabs would understand this fact and treat Pakistanis working and living in their countries as fellow Arabs instead of second class people. (I almost wrote citizens LOL)
@ Hari hermani, After reading your last comment sir, i decid it i am not gonna send any anti india comment from now on final and i think its better we live as it is no love no hate situation after all we lived for centuries together but still dont wanna use small glass for water we still have Muslim water and Hindu water.
@ Harihermani, U said this 16 hours ago about pakistan and indian common culture is just to whole punjab east and west and little further to Aligarh U.P area i agreed just a north of india are one culture peoples and was not that better we had two countires north india and south india. south are any way more look like little more southren af,,.....
@Terrorising and true:As per (Indian) State Human Right Commission's report,some 2370 unidentified bodies are buried at 57 locations in Kashmir.The SHRC surveyed North Kashmir and found a large number of unmarked graves.With around 700000 army men India is ruling the State (the highest civil/military ratio in the world)against the wishes of the people of J&K.There is no need to be ashamed of or feel guilty as Indian are riding on an economic roller coaster sans morality.
For Sub-continent to progress like a modern civilization,it must think like one.It can not have one foot in medivial times and other in in modern time,one will be in 2 boats at the same time,we all know what happens next?We have several milestone around our both neck and ankels,and thus are unable to move.We had Quaid,Gandhi and Nehru,they got us no where as they had confused vision,and confused idealogy,we rever them so much we really do not objectively view their achievment,if I say something even remotely critical,"Tribune will censor it,under this set of rules how do you promote free thinking?Beside uncontolled population,that alone is debiliating,negates most progress,we have intolerant religious out look,both Islam and hindu suffer in their own way,some more,some less.The hindu/muslim divide is real.It has been their ,more or less from the time of first coming of Islam in sub-continent,those who converted,are not looked kindly,even to-day.Girls who inter marry,are out caste.I'm very close to a muslim family,they are extremely fine people,her daughter who is college going girl,tells me matter of fact'Uncle,I can not think of,or allowed to marry your son,regardless ,how loving we are to each other,I simply can not,it is fact of life,so I have never entertain that idea",this is our 2 family,it is what it is.That is in good old USA.Sub-continent forget it.I understood this when Mr Jinnah explained,his 2 nation theory,back in 1935,when he finally subcribed to 2 nation theory,nothing much has now changed.All rest is pipe dream,at best we can have mutual respect and move on,Indians have realized this,most of the elite,at least,for now.This is about as fair as I can say,without assigning blame or any one blame,itIS WHAT IT IS,let us accept this and move ON.
@aakash: Ali Tanoli,has inffluenced your grammar,now you spell'waist' ,the word waste.Did you realize,how his research has even found your weakness.?Stop dignifying his off the rocker point of view.Will you?
@G.Haider: He might have said, but then India has been making a sincere attempt at solving a problem but do you realize who created it and who is trying to scuttle it? And i don't thing any Indian govt is willing to and should try to involve a non party trying to make itself a party called Pakistan especially when it has vested interests. Anything with in Indian borders is a problem of India and its democratic processes.
India has paid a hell a lot of price to get to where it is today and that its citizens don't enjoy their due being Indian citizens where ever they come from Kashmir to Kanyakumari is not done...
And last of all quit making an attempt to make any Indian feel guilty because we are all the more confident now after watching what is happening in Pakistan that Kashmir and its people are where they always belonged... Safe in the lap of Mother India and ready to hop around with joy...
@Amjad:
My friend the UN Resolution on Kashmir also says that referendum should be held AFTER withdrawl of Pakistan's troops from POK. Is your Army ready for this?
India has constantly dragged it feet to reach peaceful solution to all the outstanding issues with all its neighbor and it is not liked by any neighbor, not even the smallest ones i.e. Nepal, Sri Lanka. Even when Mr Gandhi protested that Pakistan given its share of wealth; he was killed by not any militant muslim but Hindu themselves.
It takes two to tango; India is equally (if not more) to blame for the predicament affecting sub continent. Indians have a big country but very small hearts.
if america sorts out haqqani's and all other lashkars based even deep inside pakistan we should say thank you america by hanging 'thankyou america' plates in our necks and also in the necks of pakistani camels, horses and donkeys since only then we will be able to live in peace and in one piece.
@Terrorising and true:I just have reminded indian the promises the great Indian leader had made with the people of Kashmir.Please have a look at telegrams sent by Mr.Jawahar Lal Nehru on October27,28,and 31,1947 to the then Prime Minister of Pakistan and his address to the Nation broadcast by All India Radio on November02,1947.Please also have a look at his statements made in the Indian Parliament on March 31,1955 and February 12,1951.IS it not the moral responsibility of Indian leadership to fulfill the promises made by their great leader?
Pakistan is a train pulled in multiple directions by multiple engines. Defense pact or no pact, it wouldn't have made one iota of difference. The Pakistani military can go and wage war without asking the leadership as shown in Kargil.
The change in Indian Prejudiced attitude will be displayed when Kashmir is resolved in the light of UN resolution for an un-biased plebiscite.
Thereafter, we can start with CBMs.
The Nations who donot learn from History cannot flourish in the future.
Pakistan has suffered a long history of Indian malicious conspiracies, let it be now India to repair the damage, which is in the better interest of the entire region.
We should also defy US to take advantage of non-resolution of disputes among India & Pakistan.
@G.Haider: Indo-Pak relations would have been different had Pakistan accepted Kashmir as India's part long back at the birth of these countries and Pakistan would have been better off than India keeping in mind it inherited much better resources and less debt than India. Look where the two countries stand now. One is realistically ambitious and poised to be one of the super powers and possibly a permanent member of united nations security council and another is for you to see being blamed as an "International Migraine" and epicentre of global terrorism. You decide...
The Express Tribune is either owned? but certainly recieves guidance from the NEW YORK TIMES. It is no surprise that the tribune will pander NYT's views about pakistan and dictate through it to the Pak public our 'correct' foreign policy which coincidently is what America also wants. The big one (no surprise) is for PAkistan to abandon the Haqqanis and accept Karzai/Northern Alliance/India hegemony in Afghanistan. I don't ever remember the NYT say a positive thing Pakistan as its every edition swoons over India. The more I read the Tribune, the more I hate it.
@Abdul rehman Gilaani -
if the Balochis so peacefully acceded why did -
1)Maj Gen Akbar Khan caaptured the Khan of Kalat after invading his sovereign country , took him to karachi as a prisoner and made him sign the Accession document.
2)Why did Prince Abdul Karim Khan immediately and spontaneoulsy rose up in rebellion and the Baloch have fought five wars of independence right from 1948 when Kalat was invaded by pakistaani Army ?
Really you guys are brainwashed for good.
@Punjabi Zubaaan -
Well then he must have mentioned 50% number in his article. Just dont generalize all of India.
And btw he not only said same language but some genetics, same stock etc..
So at the most only the border regions have anything in common not the vast majority of India.
Frankly I dont want to do anything with Pakistan.
@Amjad: * I think when Indians speak of state terrorism, Pakistanis only smirk and laugh because we know that occupied Kashmir has been subject to state terrorism for over 60 years.* Anything else. We take that as a pinch of salt... another set of propanganda and lies from across the border. What actually is funny is Pakistanis talking about human rights, caring, democracy, sovereignty and elimination of terrorists. That is actually funny.
Indo-Pak relations would have been different had India taken steps to resolve the issue of Kashmir as per promises and public statements made by its great leader and first Prime Minister,Mr.Jahwar Lal Nehru.
@Ali Tanoli,: And so the deluded pakistani continues... Dude if india ever wanted to re-integrate pakistan it would have done it in 1971 when the indian army got pakistani army to surrender and had gone all the way upto lahore. Indians simply did not expect pakistan to go insane after the independence. If you go through history, you will find that your Quaid e azam expected india and pakistan to share a relation similar to that of US and Canada but for your army....
For indians like punjabi zabaan, one can only smirk, as Amjad said, difference is that the world that the Balochis acceded to Pakistan, unlike Kashmir where india ran to the UN and had a resolution passed calling for a plebiscite. Look at the hypocrisy, and get some intelligence before comparing Balochistan to Kashmir.
Fact is Kuldip nayyar is wrong when he says people consider Jihad to be part of their faith, it is a part of Islam. Mr, Nayyar needs to enlighten himself as to what Jihad truly means.
And instead of discussing Pakistan's foreign policy, he should discuss the massacres done in indian held Kashmir, as well as india's policy of trying to gain "influence" in Afghanistan, just for the sake of encircling Pakistan. And Amjad here is correct.
Read "strategic depth" as "vested interests"
@Amjad:
If that is the only way to settle things, let things be continue as it now, we have no complaints.
Kuldip Sahib - This a very well intended article.
I feel that all but one dynamic of the strategic environment are considered. The fact that Haqqanis are the indigenous people of Afghanistan and they belong to the majority ethnic group of Pashtoons is worth a thought. In my opinion this is one key factor playing against Americans in gaining support. One may not agree with the Haqqanis culturally (event most Pakistanis don't) but it is their legal right (under UN conventions) to fight against a foreign occupation on the occupied land.
After all, they do inherit (in part at least) the rich history of India struggles against British occupation.
@punjabi zubaan: I think when Indians speak of state terrorism, Pakistanis only smirk and laugh because we know that occupied Kashmir has been subject to state terrorism for over 60 years. We all know that there is a UN resolution on Kashmir which would allow the residents to freely choose their own destiny. This was denied and a conspiracy was cooked up by the British and the Indians. Think about how things would settle if India would simply allow the people there to determine their own future freely between India and Pakistan as mandated by the United Nations.
@CP
It only shows the inferiority complex of indians that they are pakistani wannabes and not proud of their own race, ancestors and genes so they start claiming pakistani ancestory
Views of people like Mr Nayar and even Indian Prime Minister who were born in present day Pakistan are influenced more by emotions and less by hard ground realities. If after living together for hundreds of years Hindus and Muslims could not develop trust, what makes him think that it will happen now. India and Pakistan have to learn to live with all their differences without resorting to violence. Forget about VISA free travel as that will never happen. There are too may peace spoilers on both side now. Younger Indians simply don't want anything to do with Pakistan. Its only the oldies like us who get emotional and talk of open borders. To be in peace requires the cooperation of all, where as for violence only few are enough. There will always be few in Pakistan who will be hell bent upon Jihad come what may.
@CP: dude he's talking about the border india and pakistan share,u may be a tamil but ur an indian aswell ,and india does share a border with pakistan,and does share many languages with it. and im pretty sure that he's atleast talking about 50% of india coz atleast 50% indians speak a language spoken in pakistan,be it hindi/urdu,punjabi,sindhi or dogri/kasmiri.
@Sal: "In 1971 was Pakistan supporting terrorism in India that India decided to help bangladesh breakup Pakistan ? "
In 1971 10 million refugees came from East Pakistan to India. India was a poor country and could not afford such a flood of people at that time. Remember Pakistan still complains about the 3 million Afghan refugees even though it was paid generously by US for the Afghan jehad. How could India which was much poorer at that time deal with 10 million refugees? Still India supported the Mukti bahini due to this reason but the actual attack cam e on India's western front from Pakistan. These are well documented facts of history and if you go to any neutral site you will find them.
@Ali Tanoli,: "Indian forces in kargil right after Vajpayee was due in lahore that was also indian violation of agreement please dont blame every thing to pakistan".
India only defended itself in Kargill after Pakistan tried to occupy Kargill heights with its soldiers which they pretended at that time that they ere mujahids not Pak soldiers. Later Musharraf admitted in his book that he started Kargill. Nawaz also agrees that it was Pakistan that started Kargill and Vajpayee had a reason to feel betrayed.
@Komal: haha,pot calling the kettle black eh.....look at balochistan first and then stand on higher ground to lecture on kashmir otherwise ur "kashmiri concern" is fake. and kuldip nayar has the right to talk about ur foreign policy because of something called freedom of opinion,and even i can say ,that being a pakistani u have no right to talk about kashmir in india because its india's internal matter.
@ Indian, Siachan and kargil both areas are in problem its just because of india please read the history of areas.
Mr Nayar , is ill informed. India has offered no-war pact to Pakistan many times, even in last 10 years. Mr Vajpayee too offered it. Pakistan refuses it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please read news and history. Pakistan says it cannot sign no-war pact with India until Kashmir issue is settled. Well as far as India is concerned, Kashmir issue is settled. as far as Pak Kashmir is concerned, India says, we dont need war to settle that.
Friendship between the two is in the hands of Indians, they are the dominant neighbors and it will happen when they are ready for it. Give it another 20-30 years.
A well-knitted and balanced article. Friendly too. I see no bias in any of Nayar's articles.
@Ali Tanoli, I have heard a lot of theories from Pakistan about India: Pakistan won the 1965 war, Mumbai attacks were done by Indian forces ..... But India 'violated' in Kargil?? Dude you definetely take the cake!!
@Babloo:
Jinnah said no such thing in the political argument that he was presenting about ethnicity, nor was language an issue with him he felt uncomfortable communicating in Gujrati his mother tongue or for that matter Urdu. Amongst the benificiaries of his last will and testament was also Delhi University besides Aligarh and others.
“even though they share the same culture, stock, geography and a common border of thousands of kilometres. ..”
No we do not-
I am a Tamilian from South India whic means I am also an Indian..What have I got to share with the Pakistanis ?Same is the case for Bengalis, Maharastrians,Telugu,Kannada,Sikkimese etc.
Speak for yourself Mr.Nayyar. Not on behalf of the 1.2 billion Indians.
No matter how much you guys say that India doesn't care and fear about Pakistan it's not true. India will grab every opuurtunity to breakup Pakistan no Matter what. In 1971 was Pakistan supporting terrorism in India that India decided to help bangladesh breakup Pakistan ? NO. Pakistan is afraid that India will use afganistan to launch attacks in balochistan and pakhtunkhwa
Mr Nayer is talking to the people who are obsessed with anti India syndrome.The fact is that a large population of Pakistan consists of those people who were once Hindus by faith.These converted people have developed a grudge against their past time brothers.This is very common in human attitude that you don't like the successes of your brother once he has broken the bondage of faith.Even the brothers in faith of the subcontinent are jealous of the material success of the other person.This trait seems to be genetic in the East and also includes people of the Arab descent.After the advent of Islam,the teaching of the religion laid much emphasis on human bondage and values,but our intrinsic flaws in our genes kept us below the human levels and the subhuman expression remained unchecked.We are now killing each other in the name of religion,ethnic affiliation and our Ill conceived ideologies.Our multicoloured caps and turbans are testimony to our idiosyncratic behaviour.The nation is led by mediocre leadership and the country is heading towards self distruct.We survive on daily timetable and our future is bleak to say the least.
@gp65, Indian forces in kargil right after Vajpayee was due in lahore that was also indian violation of agreement please dont blame every thing to pakistan.
So when U say wars of 65 and 71 then its not all about pakistan there are indians factor involved too for example Gen Ayub Khan did offer india for def pact but they refused they have something else in there mind i think Nehru was still in dellusion that might some day pakistan will reamerged in greater india may be this was the reason for not accepting after all nehru,vellabhai,and others were very anti pakistan and anti QUAID AZAM.
" Strangely New Delhi and Islamabad never became friends, even though they share the same culture, stock, geography and a common border of thousands of kilometres. "
Back to square one.
Mr Nair, You said "even though they share the same culture, stock, geography and a common border of thousands of kilometres. .."
Pakistan does not accept that. period. Pakistan is inheritor of the legacy of the Arabs. The state is based on the ideology that no two states and people can be as different as India and Pakistan. Culture, History, religion, lanuguage, ethnicity -- everything is opposite.
Please respect that and what Jinnah said about that. I need not repeat.
The hottest arms market is the world is the Indo -Pak border worth billion of dollars to the arms industry. Humans are a disepnsable commodities in this whole business .
"Defense against whom"?
Nehru spoke in great length about why he considered that such a pact between Ind and PAK was unnecessary. In his view defense pact is only needed when there are external aggressors and he never viewed that PAK would one day become an external aggressor. Except for the brief China fiasco of 1962, he was right all along.
Lamenting how things could have been different had there been a defense pact between IND-PAK is illogical.
Lack of defense pact between PAK-IND does not give PAK the right to become an aggressor towards India.
India and China do not have defense pact, yet they are living happily without firing a single shell since 1962 and so are other Neighbors of India.
Today PAK may give up Haqqani. Tomorrow?
I am yet to read a well synthesized foreign policy of PAK from her national leaders.
India foreign policy since Nehru's time in jail is of global out look, whereas, PAK's is India centric whether it is her relationship with China, Afghanistan, US, Russia, Sri Lanka, or Burma and it is reactionary without a set goal.
Nayyar Sab - Being an Indian, don't expect Pakistan to accept your views though they will find acceptance across the world.
@Roflcopter: Yes, an ally in hate
An excellent article by the author after a long time. I agree that Pakistan should have been the part of agreement between India and Afghanistan but for its fatal attraction towards the terrorists groups, which many analyse as a self destructive policy. The peace will remain elusive in Afghanistan after foreign forces leave in 2014 and civil war would break out in the whole country once again.
This is an unfortunate situation and will take generations before the view that the Indian and Pakistani establishment takes of each other can be changed. If the Pakistani military leadership views are India centric, so is the Indian military and its strategic thinkers programmed to view Pakistan as a threat, now in combination with the Chinese overall threat perception. Indian General Deepak Kapoor expressed it elequently when he expressed Indian readiness and capablity to fight a two front war with Pakistan and China, which is presumably the Indian military expectations.
Since partition so much water has flowed under the bridge, that it will take a real effort to undo the damage. However it is even now in India's long term interests to ease the Pakistani concerns, and as the larger dominant power in the region and its long term economic interests to help change the Pakistani economy from a confrontational basis to a complimentary neighbourly economy that is benificial to the overall progress of the South Asian economies and delivering on the promise of SAARC.
The iniitative needs to come from India for the future civilian governments in Pakistan to build on.
The author says "Imagine how different things would have been in the last five decades if India and Pakistan had a defence pact!"
If defense pact were to prevent wars, then why did Kargill happen right after Vajpayee had initiated the peace process. Why were strategic assets send to Indi in 1989 despite Simla treaty?
Haqqani is an ally
A very sensible article by Nayyar.