Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest

[Contrarian]

---

---

Hindu Rate of Growth was the growth rate of India @ 3.5%. It was called Hindu Growth Rate because the government no matter how much money it pumped in(or even if it pumped in absolutely no money), could not make the country grow by more-so they decided that even without the money the economy was going to grow at 3.5% then why put money into it.

It was growth that offered stability, not strength.

[dk33]

I am not implying that. What i am implying is that Pakistan sided with the US in the first place to get the military aid and funding to match India. The reason why Pakistan was in the US camp was India.

What era of US-Pak relations are you referring to?

If your reference is to the US-Pak relationship after 911, then that is an inaccurate statement, since not supporting the US at that juncture meant making an enemy of them, which was a far stronger motivation than the reason you laid out, though India did factor into that equation in that it would then side with the US in targeting Pakistan.

Leaving apart that point-even after US left Afghanistan, Pakistan decided to divert the Jehadis comming out from Afghanistan and continued to build and expand on what was started by the US to target India-specifically create a massive insurgency in Kashmir. After 9/11, US started and entered Afghanistan, and now you are having this because jehadis are using Pakistan(as they always did) to launch attacks on US troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan has had to(under immense US pressure) exert its control for the first time in its history in FATA/NFWP-which has lead to this crisis.

Again, that Afghanistan was used as a training and staging area for insurgents in Kashmir had everything to do with the preceding events, that left Afghanistan in tatters. Till this day it is the Afghan legacy that is haunting Pakistan, not Kashmir, and why Pakistan took the route it did in Afghanistan (almost unavoidable given the choices it was presented with) I explained in an earlier discussion with you on a different thread.

Yes, it has nothing to do with Pakistan's progress till it is non violent and diplomatic support. Sadly that is not what Pakistan has done, it has engaged heavily in supporting an armed struggle in Kashmir, which is what has brought this turmoil to Pakistan. It is this desire to take Kashmir by any means which has brought you the military rule successively, and its consequences are there to see.

I again disagree - Military rule is not the result of Kashmir, it is the result of a host of domestic factors, such as feudal politics and mismanagement of the country.

[dk33]

Hindu Rate of Growth was the growth rate of India @ 3.5%. It was called Hindu Growth Rate because the government no matter how much money it pumped in(or even if it pumped in absolutely no money), could not make the country grow by more-so they decided that even without the money the economy was going to grow at 3.5% then why put money into it.

It was growth that offered stability, not strength.

I am not arguing that strength leads to stability, I am suggesting that stability, political and law and order related (which Pakistan does not currently have), will lead to economic growth.

My correlation is validated by the eight years under Musharraf - where we had political and domestic stability, and also experienced tremendous growth in many sectors, which also subsequently lead to a strengthening of the Pakistani military.

[Goodperson]

I am not arguing that strength leads to stability, I am suggesting that stability, political and law and order related (which Pakistan does not currently have), will lead to economic growth.

My correlation is validated by the eight years under Musharraf - where we had political and domestic stability, and also experienced tremendous growth in many sectors, which also subsequently lead to a strengthening of the Pakistani military.

Musharaf also lost plenty of public trust towards end of his rule.

[Contrarian]

What era of US-Pak relations are you referring to?

If your reference is to the US-Pak relationship after 911, then that is an inaccurate statement, since not supporting the US at that juncture meant making an enemy of them, which was a far stronger motivation than the reason you laid out, though India did factor into that equation in that it would then side with the US in targeting Pakistan.

No, i am referring to the the early years of independence. When Pakistan joined SEATO/CENTO, and the years preceeding that. Pakistan did so, to get military hardware and aid to be able to invade India.

When i say, that Pakistan has had to stop or atleast slow down its pace of supporting terrorists in Kashmir-that is because of the US's pressure and not because of Pakistan's own hindsight and introspection of the results of the policies it had pursued till then.

Again, that Afghanistan was used as a training and staging area for insurgents in Kashmir had everything to do with the preceding events, that left Afghanistan in tatters. Till this day it is the Afghan legacy that is haunting Pakistan, not Kashmir, and why Pakistan took the route it did in Afghanistan (almost unavoidable given the choices it was presented with) I explained in an earlier discussion with you on a different thread.

I told you earlier-that Pakistan was squarely in the American camp in the first place was because of India. Thereafter they obviously had to cater to the Soviet threat and then the use of jehad was fine.

But after the Soviet's left, and the US left, Pakistan continued to sustain and expand its jhadi infrastructure, with the aim to channeling these people to Kashmir.That was the second biggest flaw of Pakistan.

I again disagree - Military rule is not the result of Kashmir, it is the result of a host of domestic factors, such as feudal politics and mismanagement of the country.

No, it is a result of enemity with India. Because Pakistan constantly was at war with India and the hostility was every present. The reason why the military got so much influence in the first place was because it was thought to be the first line of defence against India. The reason military still commands power in Pakistan is because of India.

When you give that much power to the military, it will take over citing a thousand reasons like mismanagement/corruption/whatever.

[Goodperson]

When i say, that Pakistan has had to stop or atleast slow down its pace of supporting terrorists in Kashmir-that is because of the US's pressure and not because of Pakistan's own hindsight and introspection of the results of the policies it had pursued till then.

You hit the nail on the head.

[dk33]

Musharaf also lost plenty of public trust towards end of his rule.

That is unrelated to the issue I am pointing to - of stability in Pakistan ushering in growth and a strengthening of the military.

[Contrarian]

I am not arguing that strength leads to stability, I am suggesting that stability, political and law and order related (which Pakistan does not currently have), will lead to economic growth.

Yes, but limited economic growth. The above factors donot necessarily lead to a high economic growth. A low economic growth, does not impart strength, but only more stability.

And as an example, i quote the Hindu Growth Rate-it offered and was a result itself of stability, but it did not offer strength.

My correlation is validated by the eight years under Musharraf - where we had political and domestic stability, and also experienced tremendous growth in many sectors, which also subsequently lead to a strengthening of the Pakistani military.

Musharraf offered stability no doubt, but i strongly contest the growth of the economy and the military. It was all on aids. I had mentioned it before to Neo, but he thought otherwise. The Pakistani economy in the Musharraf era was a result of excessive debt rescheduling and aid from the US and other Western countries-not something Pakistan did. There was also consistent number fudging by the Musharraf government to make it appear better than what it was-and i have been proved correct by the new government trading this very exact charge.

Had Pakistan truely started on a path to industrialization, the current situation would not be half as bad as it is even including the global factors.

[dk33]

No, i am referring to the the early years of independence. When Pakistan joined SEATO/CENTO, and the years preceeding that. Pakistan did so, to get military hardware and aid to be able to invade India.

I again disagree - that is tantamount to saying that anything India did to strengthen its own military was to invade Pakistan. Strengthening a military does not mean one wants invade another country - for that matter, entering into any sort of alliance or pact cannot be reduced to merely 'because of enmity with XYZ'. Its entirely speculative - there are a whole host of advantages and factors that feature into such issues.

When i say, that Pakistan has had to stop or atleast slow down its pace of supporting terrorists in Kashmir-that is because of the US's pressure and not because of Pakistan's own hindsight and introspection of the results of the policies it had pursued till then.

While the initial reduction in support for militancy may have been due to some US pressure, I disagree that Pakistan continued with that policy because of US pressure. Musharraf's out of the box proposals on Kashmir and concerted efforts to move beyond the UNSC resolutions to seek a resolution on the dispute are indicative of the fact that Pakistan had on its own moved beyond that policy, and moved far more than anyone expected. Had this shift been solely due to US pressure, all you woudl have seen was a drop in infiltration, and none of the other political moves Pakistan took.

I told you earlier-that Pakistan was squarely in the American camp in the first place was because of India. Thereafter they obviously had to cater to the Soviet threat and then the use of jehad was fine.

But after the Soviet's left, and the US left, Pakistan continued to sustain and expand its jhadi infrastructure, with the aim to channeling these people to Kashmir.That was the second biggest flaw of Pakistan.

I disagreed with your first assertion, as it was structured.

Channeling the people to Kashmir was not the issue, nor was it the main reason for supporting the Taliban. The Kashmir camps in Afghanistan were an add on, the primary motivation for the policy in Afghanistan was always stability and friendly government. Today it is the Afghan actors we supported that are the biggest threat to Pakistan, not the Kashmir ones.

No, it is a result of enemity with India. Because Pakistan constantly was at war with India and the hostility was every present. The reason why the military got so much influence in the first place was because it was thought to be the first line of defence against India. The reason military still commands power in Pakistan is because of India.

When you give that much power to the military, it will take over citing a thousand reasons like mismanagement/corruption/whatever.

This is really an Indian mode of thinking, where all of Pakistan's ills are reduced to Kashmir, since that is the lens India sees Pakistan through. The military gained strength due to hostility with India, but lots of nations in the world have powerful military's without military rule. Your hypothesis does not make sense unless there was an effort by the politicians to just hand over Kashmir to India, which led to a military then stepping in to prevent what they saw as a 'sellout'.

[dk33]

Yes, but limited economic growth. The above factors donot necessarily lead to a high economic growth. A low economic growth, does not impart strength, but only more stability.

And as an example, i quote the Hindu Growth Rate-it offered and was a result itself of stability, but it did not offer strength.

Musharraf offered stability no doubt, but i strongly contest the growth of the economy and the military. It was all on aids. I had mentioned it before to Neo, but he thought otherwise. The Pakistani economy in the Musharraf era was a result of excessive debt rescheduling and aid from the US and other Western countries-not something Pakistan did. There was also consistent number fudging by the Musharraf government to make it appear better than what it was-and i have been proved correct by the new government trading this very exact charge.

Had Pakistan truely started on a path to industrialization, the current situation would not be half as bad as it is even including the global factors.

I am referring to political and law and order stability, and I fail to see how you can argue that those two are not important in economic growth. As we can see now, no one is going to invest in a country with terrorist bombings etc.

Musharraf's growth rates remain validated by international institutions, and where the new government has contested Musharraf is on issues such as budget deficits. Given political motivations, unless a third party validates the accusations made, I see no reason to believe some of them.

The restructuring of the debt did indeed help the Pakistani economy, but on its own it would not have lead to the growth rates we saw - those were a result of domestic and foreign investment and growth in various sectors.

[Contrarian]

I again disagree - that is tantamount to saying that anything India did to strengthen its own military was to invade Pakistan. Strengthening a military does not mean one wants invade another country - for that matter, entering into any sort of alliance or pact cannot be reduced to merely 'because of enmity with XYZ'. Its entirely speculative - there are a whole host of advantages and factors that feature into such issues.

Pakistan could have just as easily remained non aligned. But it chose to enter SEATO/CENTO-that was for military equipments/aid/etc. That was primarily intended to gain military superiority over India. The '65 war proved that correct.

While the initial reduction in support for militancy may have been due to some US pressure, I disagree that Pakistan continued with that policy because of US pressure. Musharraf's out of the box proposals on Kashmir and concerted efforts to move beyond the UNSC resolutions to seek a resolution on the dispute are indicative of the fact that Pakistan had on its own moved beyond that policy, and moved far more than anyone expected. Had this shift been solely due to US pressure, all you woudl have seen was a drop in infiltration, and none of the other political moves Pakistan took.

Now that Musharraf has gone, the very next day onwards, the Pakistani Army has become aggressive on the border, as it to undermine the civilian authority deliberately.

Channeling the people to Kashmir was not the issue, nor was it the main reason for supporting the Taliban. The Kashmir camps in Afghanistan were an add on, the primary motivation for the policy in Afghanistan was always stability and friendly government. Today it is the Afghan actors we supported that are the biggest threat to Pakistan, not the Kashmir ones.

Yeah, but as soon as the Russians left, Pakistan diverted the entire infrastructure to target Kashmir and it has continued ever since.

This is really an Indian mode of thinking, where all of Pakistan's ills are reduced to Kashmir, since that is the lens India sees Pakistan through. The military gained strength due to hostility with India, but lots of nations in the world have powerful military's without military rule. Your hypothesis does not make sense unless there was an effort by the politicians to just hand over Kashmir to India, which led to a military then stepping in to prevent what they saw as a 'sellout'.

Yes, most of nations that have a strong military are civilian run. But the importance given to the PA is because of their primary role against India. Pakistan is a country different from others. The reason why PA steps in to take control of Pakistan is because the COAS is given unnatural authority and power in Pakistan. That is again because of India. None of the politicians have ever even thought to hand over Kashmir to India, but the Army has always stepped in. Cant you see Agno, how being Kashmir centric and thus anti-India has been the single biggest factor in Pakistan's development from its independence? How it has constrained Pakistan in every sense and hurt Pakistan?

[Contrarian]

I am referring to political and law and order stability, and I fail to see how you can argue that those two are not important in economic growth. As we can see now, no one is going to invest in a country with terrorist bombings etc.

They are the single most crucial factors-without them, there can be no growth. What i am talking about is high growth rate, which imparts the necessary free cash to make the Armed Forces strong. LIke i said, stability not strength can be achieved very easily by limited economic growth. Political stability and law and order guarentee growth, they dont guarentee a high rate of growth. Again-my example being the period of Hindu Growth rate in India.

Musharraf's growth rates remain validated by international institutions, and where the new government has contested Musharraf is on issues such as budget deficits. Given political motivations, unless a third party validates the accusations made, I see no reason to believe some of them.

The restructuring of the debt did indeed help the Pakistani economy, but on its own it would not have lead to the growth rates we saw - those were a result of domestic and foreign investment and growth in various sectors.

The rise of Pakistani economy was based on 2 factors - debt waiver/aid and the global economic rise. A rising tide lifts all boats, when almost every country on the planet was witnessing high economic growth, why do you credit Pakistan as having done something fundamentally different to achieve their high growth rate? It was natural that Pakistan too witnesses a higher growth rate.

The military was modernized off of US's money-the unaccounted money for which Bush has come under a lot of criticism.

And during that period, Pakistan did try and do some reforms-im not taking that away. But the reason why it all came crashing down the moment Musharraf left, and US started checking its purses carefully is that it was artificial.

[dk33]

Pakistan could have just as easily remained non aligned. But it chose to enter SEATO/CENTO-that was for military equipments/aid/etc. That was primarily intended to gain military superiority over India. The '65 war proved that correct.


Now that Musharraf has gone, the very next day onwards, the Pakistani Army has become aggressive on the border, as it to undermine the civilian authority deliberately.

Gaining support, economic and military, was a necessity given that the newly independent nation had precious little to work with - it does not however automatically point to plans to 'invade India' as you argued.

Your point about 1965 being a validation of your argument is also flawed, since the Indian defeat to China in 1962 and Pakistan's success in the Rann of Kutch contributed to the mindset that the time for a military campaign was optimal - Pakistan could not have foreseen those events. In addition, Pakistan's plan was not to start a full fledged war, but rather initiate a rebellion in IK, which also shows your argument of pursuing military aid and equipment for the sole purpose of 'invading India' to be flawed.

Yeah, but as soon as the Russians left, Pakistan diverted the entire infrastructure to target Kashmir and it has continued ever since.

I disagree - a vast majority of the camps continued to be used to train Taliban recruits from the madrassa's and refugee camps, and a large amount of resources went into equipping those Taliban cadres in a long and expensive war against the NA.

So I don't think your argument holds water, though it is true that Kashmiri militants did also use some of those facilities, but the primary use of infrastructure and resources was for supporting Hekmatyar and then the Taliban.

Yes, most of nations that have a strong military are civilian run. But the importance given to the PA is because of their primary role against India. Pakistan is a country different from others. The reason why PA steps in to take control of Pakistan is because the COAS is given unnatural authority and power in Pakistan. That is again because of India. None of the politicians have ever even thought to hand over Kashmir to India, but the Army has always stepped in. Cant you see Agno, how being Kashmir centric and thus anti-India has been the single biggest factor in Pakistan's development from its independence? How it has constrained Pakistan in every sense and hurt Pakistan?

No I do not see that - what I do see is a failure of a political system that had a feudal stranglehold, and Greedy generals stepping in to take advantage.

There is no 'unnatural authority and power' for the COAS in Pakistan, please do tell what it is, if you think so. Whatever 'unnatural authority and power' the COAS does enjoy, is because of institutional failures in the past, which have set a precedent for military intervention.

That precedent is what has allowed the military to gain power, not Kashmir, and that precedent is why so many in Pakistan wanted Musharraf tried for treason, though he was perhaps more moderate and gentler than the civilians. The military rulers who have taken over have never paid for their crimes, and their families have continued to enjoy the fruits of their time in power. This lack of accountability leaves open for future generals the option to intervene militarily, since consequences for such acts in the past have been non-existent.

[dk33]

They are the single most crucial factors-without them, there can be no growth. What i am talking about is high growth rate, which imparts the necessary free cash to make the Armed Forces strong. LIke i said, stability not strength can be achieved very easily by limited economic growth. Political stability and law and order guarentee growth, they dont guarentee a high rate of growth. Again-my example being the period of Hindu Growth rate in India.

We are not talking in the same context here. But for the moment, even if I take your argument of 'high growth rates', then it appears to me that you are suggesting that Pakistan should not have high economic growth, since a strong economy and a prosperous Pakistan will mean a militarily strong Pakistan.

And during that period, Pakistan did try and do some reforms-im not taking that away. But the reason why it all came crashing down the moment Musharraf left, and US started checking its purses carefully is that it was artificial.

That is absurd - the reason it came crashing down is completely related to the spike in terrorism, political uncertainty, the chronic power shortage and skyrocketing global commodity and food prices. The current GoP stated as early as May this year that over 3 billion dollars in export proceeds were being held back overseas because of the sinking value of the rupee.

The drop in US reimbursements, due to greater accountability, was entirely insignificant compared to the impact elsewhere from shrinking foreign investment and repatriation of export proceeds. If you have any hard numbers that show the drop (in US reimbursements) to be high enough to be of significance, I'm willing to hear you out. It must also be noted that the majority of US reimbursements were for expenses incurred for logistical support and troop deployment, they were therefore not much more than some bolstering of foreign exchange, since it was primarily 'money in for money out'.

There was nothing artificial about that growth, you have taken some speculative arguments built around minor disruptions to capital inflow, and ignored some fundamental and deeply destabilizing events in Pakistan that had a far larger impact on the economy to make your case.

[dabong1]

---

---

Same can be said about Pakistan, and far more truthfully also.

Pakistan has not gone to war against iran,china and afghanistan.

India has gone to war against pakistan,china and was involved in the war in bangladesh.......how long before you attack nepal..

Simple facts