A password will be e-mailed to you.
Hide from Public

Commentary

False Equivalency in the “Indo-Pakistan” Dispute

June 16, 2015

In the wake of India’s hot pursuit of militants into Myanmar, Pakistan has raised numerous alarms about Indian aggression. It has issued various warnings that no such Indian incursion into Pakistan will be tolerated. As often happens in such circumstances, the international media has raised the tocsin of the potential for yet another “Indo-Pakistan” clash. Unfortunately, much of this coverage of the so-called India-Pakistan conflict is deeply problematic in that writers, perhaps with good intentions, seek to impose a false equivalence on both nations’ conduct, giving the impression that India and Pakistan contribute equally to the fraught situation that currently exists.

This is dangerously untrue and feeds into a policy-process that has failed to come to terms with the most serious problem in South Asia: Pakistan. Such coverage also rewards Pakistan for its malfeasance by attributing blame to India in equal share and thus legitimizing Pakistan’s ill-found grievances. The only parties who benefit from such an understanding of the “Indo-Pakistan” dispute are the Pakistan military and its terrorist proxies. One such article was published by the Washington Post on June 11 by Tim Craig and Annie Gowen. In this essay, I seek to provide the necessary historical and empirical background that is required to make sense of the current situation. In doing so I directly challenge such writers as Craig and Gowen, among others, to devote more time to understanding the conflict dynamics before they inadvertently obfuscate the situation more than they illuminate it.

Pakistan’s Tired Kashmir Claims

As the article notes, the origins of the India-Pakistan dispute date back to 1947, when the two countries were tweezed out from the detritus of the British Raj. Pakistan’s founders argued that Muslims of South Asia could never be safe and secure under a Hindu majority in a unified India and thus required a separate state after the British departed. This was the crux of the so-called Two Nation Theory, which held that Muslims and Hindus are equal nations despite the fact that Muslims were far fewer in number. The Two Nation Theory was deeply problematic from beginning. First, Muslims had lived under Hindu dominion in the past with no significant diminution of their basic freedoms. Second, as independence loomed, many of the Muslims in what became West Pakistan did not want to join Pakistan in the first place. Third, during and after Partition, about one third of South Asia’s Muslims opted to remain in India rather than join Pakistan. Fourth, the 1971 secession of East Pakistan based upon ethno-nationalist mobilization against West Pakistani oppression further undermined the notion that South Asian Muslim identity was a sufficient basis for nationhood. The Two Nation Theory has remained the motivation for Pakistan’s claims upon Kashmir, without which Pakistan believes Partition can never be a complete process and the Two Nation Theory remains a dream deferred.

Partition was conducted on the basis of geographical contiguity and Hindu-Muslim demographics. Three so-called Princely States — Hyderabad, Junagarh, and Kashmir — did not cast their lot with either of the new nations even though hundreds of other such states had done so. The Muslim sovereign of Hyderabad, a large swathe of territory deep within India, governed a mostly Hindu population. He preferred to remain independent of either dominion. After a prolonged skirmish with the sovereign’s own militia and their supporters, India forcibly annexed Hyderabad. Junagarh, a Hindu majority state also deep within Indian territory, was governed by a Muslim who signed an instrument of accession to Pakistan. Pakistan initially refused to accept it because it shared no border with Junagarh. In the end, Pakistan accepted the instrument, likely in hopes of using it as a bargaining chip for the prize: Kashmir. Kashmir’s sovereign was a Hindu who presided over a Muslim majority population. While Kashmir was the only Muslim-majority state in the Raj, the polity was diverse and included Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Muslim communities various sects of Sunnis and Shia. Kashmir’s sovereign also sought independence. He signed a stand-still agreement with Pakistan to stave off military action while he dithered in casting his lot with either India or Pakistan.

Despite the standstill agreement, Pakistani militias from the tribal areas and what was then the North West Frontier Province mobilized to invade Kashmir in an effort to seize it for Pakistan. Although Pakistan is wont to insist that this was an uncoordinated assault without state support, Shuja Nawaz (a brother of a former Pakistani army chief) has mobilized materials from the Pakistan Army’s archives to rubbish this claim. His work shows the extensive national and provincial support these marauders enjoyed. As the “tribal raiders” made their way to Srinagar, where Kashmir’s sovereign was located, he requested India’s assistance in fending off the Pakistani invasion. India agreed to send in troops provided that Kashmir accede to India. The sovereign signed the instrument of accession and India commenced the airlift of troops. India’s logic was that it could not dispatch troops unless it was to defend its sovereign territory. (As Whitehead explains, there is some question about when the signed instrument reached New Delhi. Pakistan for its part sometimes raises the canard that there was no instrument at all, citing the fact that the instrument cannot be located.) Thus, India has a legal instrument of accession to the entirety of Kashmir. No amount of Pakistani protests nor revisionism can change this simple historical fact.

This invasion, began by Pakistan, precipitated the first war between India and Pakistan. At the war’s end, Pakistan had about one third of the territory and India held the remainder. India took the matter to the United Nations, hoping to get Pakistan declared as the aggressor. The United Nations undertook various efforts to resolve the affair. One of these efforts resulted in the UN Security Council Resolution 47 of 1948. This resolution called for a plebiscite to be held in Kashmir to discern the will of the Kashmiris, a point that Pakistanis raise ceaselessly. Unfortunately, few Pakistanis or even journalists covering this region have bothered reading the text of the resolution. Even a cursory read demonstrates that the contemporary coverage of this dispute is factually impoverished.

This often-cited, but rarely consulted document, lays out two conditions that must be satisfied sequentially before the plebiscite was to be held. First, the government of Pakistan was enjoined:

To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State.

Second, when a UN commission was satisfied that “that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective,” India was to “put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for with-drawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order.”

Third, once these two sequential conditions were met, this plebiscite would be conducted.

Pakistan never met the first condition articulated in the resolution. Indeed, from 1947 onward, Pakistan sustained low-level sabotage and terrorism activities in Kashmir. Pakistan started two more wars with India over Kashmir — one in 1965 and a second in 1999. Simply put: Pakistan’s claims that India flagrantly disregards this resolution are grossly misleading.

The extent to which Pakistan goes to depict this conflict in explicitly fraudulent terms is evidenced by its own exposition of the Kashmir conflict and of the plebiscite’s language that is available on the website for Pakistan’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations. Not only does Pakistan’s official narrative make no mention of the conditions detailed in the plebiscite, the history it provides clashes violently with the scholarly historical account of the conflict and with various documents available at the United Nations’ own websites and those of the U.S. government. For example, it insists that it does not aid and abet the various terrorist groups fighting there. This is a canard that simply cannot be entertained credibly.

Under the security of its expanding nuclear umbrella, Pakistan has sustained a lethal proxy war over Kashmir since 1989. Kashmiris launched an indigenous insurrection that year in response to Indian malfeasance in managing Kashmiri aspirations, including massive electoral fraud. Pakistan quickly mobilized battle-hardened militants who had fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan to Kashmir, where they quickly worked to eliminate indigenous Kashmiri fighters who wanted independence. Since then Pakistan has used Deobandi and Salafi fighters who are indifferent to Kashmir’s traditional Sufi moorings and who use violence in Kashmir and the rest of India to coerce India to make territorial concessions.

The Importance of Naming Victims and Perpetrators

There is nothing equivalent about the actions of India and Pakistan in this dispute. Pakistan’s role in supporting terror in India is well-documented. Numerous groups have been identified by the United Nations Security Council, by the U.S. Department of State as well as the European Union. Despite Pakistan’s fondness for citing the sanctity of a bastardized account of Security Council resolutions pertaining to the plebiscite, it has outright disregarded the various UN designations of key terrorist groups such as Jamaat-ud-Dawa (previously known as Lashkar-e-Taiba) and its key leaders who freely roam about Pakistan and engage in public demonstrations on any number of issues.

As Craig and Gowen note, Pakistan claims that India supports a range of insurgent and terrorist groups operating in Pakistan. In the past, there was speculation about Indian support to Baloch and Sindhi nationalists who have sought independence from Pakistan. Hard evidence for Indian support for these militants remains elusive. However, the best scholarly assessment is that any Indian involvement in these activities cannot compare to the scope, scale or duration of Pakistan’s support of non-state actors in India. Pakistan also alleges that India supports the various terrorists operating under the banner of the Pakistani Taliban. Unfortunately, Craig and Gowen failed to note that, unlike Pakistani sustained support for terrorism in India (and Afghanistan) for which there is Himalayan mounds of evidence including that which has been gathered from U.S. intelligence sources, Pakistan has provided no support for its varied claims. Unlike India, which has captured or killed numerous Pakistanis engaging in terrorism in India, Pakistan has caught no such Indian infiltrators. Instead Pakistan is wont to assert that some of its terrorists are not circumcised with the intention of intimating that they are Hindu. It is a well-established fact however that the Mehsuds (a tribe in Pakistan’s tribal areas) do not circumcise and the ranks of the Pakistani Taliban are festooned with Mehsuds.

Not only is the characterization of India and Pakistan as being equally culpable empirically incorrect, it contributes to the underlying problem: Pakistani behavior. After all, why does Pakistan do what it does? It seeks to continue focusing international attention upon Kashmir in hopes of sustaining legitimacy for its ill-founded claims to the territory. The position staked out by Craig and Gowen not only misleads the Washington Post’s readership, it also rewards Pakistan for its various criminal enterprises.

The Most Recent Turn of Events

Pakistan has been able to get away with relying upon Islamist militants to prosecute its policies with respect to India with impunity due to its nuclear weapons. (It should be noted that Pakistan has also supported terrorists and insurgents that are not Islamist. From the early 1980s to mid-1990s, it supported Sikh terrorists in the Punjab and it has had a long history of supporting ethno-nationalist militants in India’s north east.) However, Pakistan believes that its nuclear arsenal — inclusive of tactical nuclear weapons — makes any Indian punitive action too risky because of the potential for escalation. Pakistan also uses its nuclear weapons to coerce the United States to intervene in any crisis principally by putting pressure on India not to respond to any Pakistani-based terrorist outrage. This effectively shields Pakistan from the consequences of its own actions.

Curiously, all of the factors that allow Pakistan to use non-state actors to coerce India with impunity in principle should allow India to do the same. However, India has been remarkably constrained in the face of decades of Pakistani provocation. Incidentally, few media accounts of this dispute acknowledge this, including the piece by Craig and Gowen. After all, India’s own nuclear arsenal, larger conventional capabilities, large economy, and more reputable standing in the comity of nations arguably position it to reciprocate in similar ways. Pakistan has no paucity of ethnic, sectarian, and socio-economic fissures that could be exploited by Indian covert operations and funds. Moreover, India enjoys much better ties with all of Pakistan’s neighbors with the exception of China and could easily be more aggressive in using these neighboring states to return the favors that Pakistan has bestowed upon India since 1947. Yet it hasn’t.

The reasons for this restraint are numerous. Perhaps the most important explanation stems from India’s governance under the Congress Party. The Congress Party in recent decades preferred economic growth as a means of bolstering India’s national power and international standing. The Congress Party avoided confrontation with Pakistan despite such outrages as the Pakistan-backed, multi-day assault on Mumbai in 2008 by Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Congress Party seemed to think its citizens could and indeed should endure such Pakistani-backed terrorism rather than confront it.

The current government under the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seems less insouciant about Pakistan’s behavior and seems more inclined to find ways of punishing Pakistan for such outrages and deterring it in the future. The country’s National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, is a decorated veteran of India’s intelligence community. This government, under Narendra Modi, responded very aggressively to shelling across the international border in Kashmir in the fall of 2014. (This was also likely motivated by the elections in Kashmir held at the end of 2014). Moreover, Doval very provocatively warned the Pakistanis that if they conduct another attack like Mumbai, Pakistan will lose Balochistan.

Last week, in response to militants killing 20 security personnel in Manipur in India’s northeast, India engaged in hot pursuit into Myanmar. It wasn’t the first time it did so; but this time, India was very public about it. Indian officials gave various press statements that implied that the operation should be read as message to all terrorists and the states that harbor them that India will pursue threats across its borders if need be.

Pakistan responded with alarm. After all, only one of India’s neighbors deliberately harbors such terrorists who operate in India. Pakistan’s leadership responded with nuclear saber rattling. As predicted, the regional and international media began raising the flag of alarm. Equally predictably, the United States asked both India and Pakistan to take steps to defuse the situation.

How to Prevent Future Conflict?

If the United States wants to prevent future conflict, it should consider a very different approach to the South Asia region.

Admittedly, the problem with U.S. policy in South Asia is that it still is overly reliant upon Pakistan for its operations in Afghanistan and in support operations against al Qaeda and their allies in Pakistan’s tribal areas. This policy has been flawed from first principles because Pakistan has consistently undermined U.S. objectives in Afghanistan. The United States found itself in the peculiar position of being logistically dependent upon Pakistan to fight the war in Afghanistan, while Pakistan was working to undermine U.S. efforts there by continually supporting the Taliban. However, as the United States draws down its footprint in Afghanistan, it needs to radically rethink its policies towards South Asia. Below I identify several steps that the United States can consider as it re-optimizes its dependence upon Pakistan to sustain operations in Afghanistan.

First, rather than adopting milquetoast statements that imply that both states are equal contributors to the problems, it should insist that Pakistan is the primary problem. Accordingly Washington should be adamant that Pakistan must cease and desist its support for all terrorists operating in and from its territory, many of whom actually have killed thousands of Americans and allied civilians and soldiers in Afghanistan. This demand is enshrined in numerous laws as a conditionality that must be satisfied before various kinds of aid can be given to Pakistan. The United States has largely waived these conditionalities, which further signals to Pakistan that it can do whatever it wants without consequence.

Second, the United States must remove itself from Pakistan’s coercion loop by declaring that it will not step into the conflict should a Pakistani terrorist group attack India in the future. Whether or not India responds with force should be India’s choice, not that of the United States.

Third, the United States should reconsider how it discusses the issue of Kashmir. An unimpassioned reading of the history clearly suggests that Pakistan has no equities in this dispute. India has an instrument of accession. This does not mean that India’s behavior in Kashmir has been acceptable. It has not been. (Pakistan’s own record in the part of Kashmir it governs has also sustained severe criticism by human rights organizations.) However, the United States can best help the situation by viewing it as an internal issue and encouraging India to resolve it. Not only does Pakistan have no legal claim to the territory, its use of brutal terrorists to kill innocent civilians as well as military personnel deprive it of any moral claim. To this end, the United States should signal that it views the Line of Control, which divides the territory between parts administered by India and Pakistan, as an international border rather than a disputed boundary. It should begin working with the United Nations to make this a reality.

The best way of dealing with the various security challenges in South Asia is by being forthright in identifying them correctly and then adopting appropriate policy responses. Little good can come from denying reality in preference to more convenient narratives that hold India and Pakistan equally responsible for the dangerous situation that obtains in the region.

 

C. Christine Fair is an assistant professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. She is also a visiting fellow at the Gateway House in Mumbai, India. She is the author of Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War and co-editor of Pakistan’s Enduring Challenges.

 

Photo credit: Global Panorama

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

65 thoughts on “False Equivalency in the “Indo-Pakistan” Dispute”

  1. Is Ms. Fair a paid, lobbyist-cum-mouthpiece for the Indians? She should disclose such arrangements if any. Otherwise, a lopsided propaganda is not worth reading or commenting.

  2. There should be a clarification of the term ‘Kashmir’. The disputed territory was the Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu, which included various regions, and took its name from the two most prominent. Kashmir is the valley of Kashmir and the surrounding mountains, where the Kashmiri language is spoken. It is easily identifiable on a terrain map, and it is entirely within Indian territory. The only Kashmiri speakers in Pakistan administered ‘Azad Kashmir’ are small numbers who migrated, mostly during and after Partition. Pakistan did not gain any of the Kashmir region. Pakistan got Gilgit Baltistan and a section of northern Punjab that had been included in the Princely State. Azad Kashmir has little or nothing to do with Kashmir, linguistically, culturally and historically. It’s on the other side of the Himalayas. Those who claim to be diaspora Kashmiris are mostly from this area, particularly Mirpur. They have no right to speak for real Kashmiris, and are just mouthpieces for the Pakistani regime and its lies.

    1. Kashmiris on both side of LoC share more culturally and ethnically with Pakistanis than indians; majority of Indians are Dravidian race people. Nothing to do with Kashmir. Kashmir never was and never will be Indian.

      2. You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Every ethnic group in the subcontinent is a mongrel of various genetic admixtures, from Kashmiri Pandits (who are Hindu and have as much of a claim to the Kashmir as its Muslims) to the Adivasis of central India. There are no pure ‘Aryans’ or ‘Dravidians’ today, we are all mixtures of various waves of immigration into the subcontinent that go back thousands of years.

        See here and educate yourself on the science:

        http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/indo-aryans-dravidians-and-waves-of-admixture-migration/#.VYsEpEZvAXQ

  3. Excellent & wonderful read!.
    You did it better than many Indo-Pakistan historians & academics!.
    Perhaps the law makers at the Capitol Hill will (should) go through this. I was / am aware of most of these except the “circumcision part”!. Being a Hindu, guess I could travel to Pakistan, because of the “part” I mentioned.
    Keep it Up!.

  4. Ms. Fair has rubbished the Pakistan’s position in her characteristically abrasive manner but her views are mired with hypocrisy and perpetuate a false narrative.

    1) She has wilfully ignored the Indian role in the 1971 War because it completely demolishes her case wrt India being on the moral high ground. India dismembered Pakistan in two by logistically supporting and training insurgents. This is exactly the same action that she criticizes when Pakistan does it in Kashmir. Apparently, oppression in Bengal weighs heavier on her conscience than oppression in Kashmir.

    2) She blames Pakistan for the US failure in Afghanistan when it is squarely a failure of US policy-makers. Post 9/11, the US needed to send a punitive mission to Afghanistan with a massive force to punish the Taliban and kill OBL. Instead, the US opted for the ridiculous policy of “light footprint” and essentially delegated their dirty work to the Pakistanis. Even worse, the US then aimed for the impossible task of transforming a barely literate and tribal society into a democracy.

    3) Pakistan is perhaps the country in the world that went to civil war for the interests of a foreign power when it decided to send its troops to the tribal regions in 2004. Since then, Pakistan has lost over 20,000 civilians, 6,000 armed personnel and borne the expense of millions of IDPs.

  6. Kashmiri means any one from the princely state (which is majority muslim) or ethnic kashmiri (which iz majority muslim )remember jammu and kashmir is an empire of different ethnic groups if one ethnic preacher for another ethnic so what nothing new .We all know pak support terroism nothing new. But you need you need go to law school pak does hav claim jundadagh/kashmir under international law . No hard proooof who met with indira gandhi 80s and high jacked a plane . And was trained by khad and Raw as said by bruce riedel and many other sources..also who trained khamba terroist in china oh who india and usa. Who trained sikh terrorist usa and pak yes the usa you hav kept quiet about that lol.. U dont tell the whole story obvioudly there is a false eq**** .but terrorism just not justify terrorism.india support of rebels in pak atleast since 1970s continously till today and still line hadn’t been has not been cut as shown with sharm el shiekh signage.also who conducted bombing camping in 2010 to 2013.india india refused to share power with pakistan founding fathers also indian indepenndence leaders and did not put the whole country first as said by jaswsnt singh this ulltimately led to pakistan . Pak is india problem let them destroy each other.1.4 billion less problem.sorry for grammer on mob got to go.

  8. Readers ! Don’t take her seriously . There is a plethora of scholarly work produced in Washington that has contributed to creating the disaster that Middle East is today. If South Asia is destined for better days that pieces will this will keep rotting in some trash can

  9. It is strange and somewhat surprising to see the voice of reason, truth and balance emanating from the West, even if it is in little known and muted sources and eddies.

  10. A fair assessment of the facts by the author, presented in a lucid manner. Many may take it supporting India’s position, but it presents the facts in a balanced way. This should be read by those in US State Department who just cannot seem to shake off the cold war hangover of supporting Pakistan to destabilise South Asia.

  11. Before writing and promoting an anti-Pakistan book in India, American analyst and author Christine Fair said in 2009,

    “Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity. Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Balochistan.”

  12. This is a very brave article calling for and overhaul of the American position vis a vis Pakistan and its Terrorist supporting army. The agressor in most atrocities inside Afghanistan, Pashtunkhwa, and India are Punjabi supported Terrorist in the guise of religious terrorist. Punjabi establishment,its army,and isi is the main cause of all the evil, killing and asscre of Pashtun, Baluch and Indians. The US should support Pashtun secular and moderately religious groups and Baluch independence. Agree 100 % Punjabi Fascism disguised as Islamism is the chief problem and Punjabis should be targeted and sanctioned in all their endeavours. Support development in Baluchistan,Pashtunkhwa and Sindh.Cut Punjabis off any aid from the West and access to any higher study in west.No more military equipment to be sold to the Punjabi fascist state if US is serious about fighting terrorism and peace in South and south Central asia.

  14. Pakistan is a nation founded in Islamic Terrorism & Hatred for it own Hindu origin.

    1) The very creation of Pakistan was via mass genocide of Hindus & Sikhs by separatist Muslims – the islamic hatred was responsible for deaths of millions during the parition.

    2) The percentage of Hindus in Pakistan in 1950 (3 years after Pakistan was formed) was 12% & Pakistan was the 2nd largest Hindu nation after India at the time. Today the Hindus have been massacred to a mere 2% as of 2015

    3) In 1971, Pakistan (with US & UK passive support) caused the holocaust of 2.4 Million Bengali Hindus in the largest genocide of a religious people since WW2. Along with 2.4 Million Hindus, 0.5 Million Secular Bengali Muslims were also massacred by Pakistan. This holocaust led India to intervene, support & train Bengali freedom fighters & defeated Pakistan in a mere fortnight & forced the Pakistani Army of 90,000 to surrender to a mere 4000 Indian soldiers – unconditionally, thus was born Bangladesh. The 90,000 Pakistani soldiers were as per international norms protected by the 4000 Indian soldiers from the wrath of Bengalis who wanted to kill every last Pakistani soldier for causing the Holocaust of nearly 3 Million Bengalis, mostly Hindus.

    3) Pakistan is the ONLY country in the whole world founded solely on the principle of Islam & to kill all Non-Muslims of world.

  15. Professor Fair should seriously consider writing about the repression of Sindhis and Baloch by Pakistan. Because the elephant in the room, which even the brilliant Professor Fair seems to ignore, is the fact that Pakistan is de facto “Punjabistan.” The bigger province of Punjab is colonizing smaller provinces. Therefore a peaceful balkanization of Pakistan in which at least the secular Baloch and Sindhis get freedom from Punjab/Pakistan can go a long way in bringing stability to the Indian Subcontinent. Independent countries of Sindh and Baluchistan, free from Pakistan’s colonization, will be natural allies of India and the free world.

  16. Just because her sir-name is Fair doesn’t mean she is. Her opinion is most unfair and bordering on racism. Kashmiri people’s right of self determination has absolutely no value in her opinion. To her the instrument of accession (if indeed there is one) obtained under duress is enough to give India a right over the will of the people. She conveniently also forgets the role India played in dismembering Pakistan, which has been proudly accepted by PM Modi last week. She says there is no evidence to prove Pakistan’s allegation of Indian support for terrorist activities in Pakistan. She should consult US defence Secretary Hagel who vouched for it. Pakistani people have been a victim of terrorism. No nation has lost as many people to this menace more than Pakistanis. But she her extreme prejudice against a people have blinded her

  17. “Thus, India has a legal instrument of accession to the entirety of Kashmir. No amount of Pakistani protests nor revisionism can change this simple historical fact.”

    And ‘Thus, Pakistan has a legal instrument of accession to the entirety of Junagadh. No amount of Indian protests and Christine Fair histrionics can change his simple historical fact’, just as no amount of revisionism and Christine Fair obfuscations can change the fact the India unleashed State-Sponsored terrorism in both Junagadh and Hyderabad States in order to lay the groundwork for forcible accession.

    The same template (albeit with the intention to dismember rather than annex) was followed in India’s State support for terrorism and atrocities in East Pakistan, actions that contributed to destabilizing the territory to the extent that the conditions (that India herself played a significant role in creating) were used by the Indian government to justify the military invasion of East Pakistan.

  18. The article is balanced! Thats my opinion! I feel pained that India and Pakistan; primarily an outcome of malicious British farsighted post partition ploy continues to serve the Brits as the two nations remain at loggerheads. Muslims and Hindus co-inhabited peacefully and fought together for independence. Now self serving and power mongers persons in both India and Pakistan are the reason for the standoff!
    The fact that those who live by the sword perish by the sword is as true as it was and will remain so. Perpetrators of terror will pay back; and if they escape by chance; their progeny will pay! Thus why dig our graves ourselves; or in advance through terrorism which will hit back. India and Pakistan are developing countries. Together perhaps we account for largest number of souls under poverty level. Yet we spend so much to fight! And in the fight between cats seeking adjudication from a monkey; monkey takes away the cake.Unfortunately cats dont see the monkey’s game as they are kind of blinded by their hatred between each other. I have many Muslim friends where I never even for once fleetingly thought that we were divided on the basis of religion. I am not pronouncing my judgement on those who are pro or against the opinion of Prof Fair. But I sincerely wish, pray and urge my Paki friends and my countrymen; that we need to be cats; but then when will we open our eyes; lest its too late! One anecdote of mine will perhaps put the matter straight! In Dubai; I hailed a taxy for the day and the cabbie was a Pakistani. In the tour of the day, he sure had learnt that I was a Hindustani. While in the evening returning to the hotel; I asked the cabbie if he knew I happened to be a Hindustani! On his answer in the affirmative; I inquired of him if he harbored any abomination towards me as I was a Hindustani! Pat came the reply, “Mai to mazdoor hoon; mazdoori karke roti khata hoon; mujhe koi gila shikwa kyoon ho zenaab; ye to wo karte hain jo siyasat karte hain”. For those who can not get the text in quotes; it stated that cabbie had nothing against me or Hindustani, while he used to live off his labour! He further stated that the hatred was perpetrated by the politicians to serve their own ends. The translation is not perfect so I may be condoned if it is not an exact match.) I still salute the CABBIE! Can we learn from him or continue to fight and try to show down each other! Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.
    May the peace prevail!

  19. “In this essay, I seek to provide the necessary historical and empirical background that is required to make sense of the current situation. In doing so I directly challenge such writers as Craig and Gowen, among others, to devote more time to understanding the conflict dynamics before they inadvertently obfuscate the situation more than they illuminate it.”

    So the empirical and historical evidence came straight from certain versions of evidence, talking points and “scholarship” produced by wait for it, fellow “scholars” who shared the same agenda toward Pakistan. This trend is what makes blabbering about “empirical and historical background” quite funny.

    In one brush, Kashmir is reduced to be an internal issue of a colonizing empire called India. Can you imagine what kind of hate led to such a blinded blabber? And, why this kind of piece continued to be produced?

  20. This is a superb article by Miss Fair.
    For those readers who want to be enlightened and make South Asia a safer place.

    I enjoin you to lookup videos by Tarek Fatah on Youtube.

    Pakistan is a dangerous breeding ground for Islamic Extremism and Anti-Semitism of the most murderous kind.

    The capacity for the average Pakistani to murder in a wanton manner is just mind boggling.

    Pakistan is the only country in the world where 5 year old children are systematically educated to turn into murderers in their Sectarian Madrasas which only preach religious hatred and the most virulent form of Islamism.

    Pakistanis in the UK and USA are also a very dangerous minority who can turn to terrorism overnight.

    The recent arrest of two Pakistanis in the USA who wanted to bomb and kill is testimony to this truth.

    1. And India is the only country in the world with caste system where Muslims and Christians have trouble buying property. The only country where pigeons are arrested for being spies, the only country where a religious extremist and terrorist becomes a prime minister (a man who was denied visas and boycotted the world over)

  21. The sheer fact that such articles and OPEDS are written suggests that we are giving equal importance to both nation. Media in India and abroad should stop writing anything about Kashmir if this problem is to be resolved. Without Kashmir and Afghanistan news there won’t any regular news about Pakistan anywhere. Intense front page media coverage encourages more terrorist attacks keep the attention on Kashmir. If this ROI for Paksitan Military and terrorist reduces the problem will dissipate over time

  23. The Author failed to mention the sacrifices given by the people of Pakistan in the so called ‘War Against Terror’.We have more soldiers martyred than all US losses in Afghanistan. Moreover the author is asking US govt to safeguard Indian interests in the region rather than have a balanced approach. The article is Anti-Pakistan but even I am astonished for the use of word ‘terrorists’ for the pro-Khalistan Sikhs who are only holding peaceful demonstrations. Anyways as a Pakistani I still believe Kashmir solution can be resolved with UN resolutions and hope there is no war with India because it will be the end of us all.

  24. Dear Christina,

    That is an interesting approach. I feel you are on to something.

    If one dehyphenates India and Pakistan, then one deals with India’s behavior in isolation (as opposed to a reactive framework based around Pakistan).

    The hyphenation framework was only relevant to the extent that it helped contain India’s desire for proliferation. If the threat of a nuclear escalation with Pakistan is no longer sufficient to deter India from a proliferation of its native weapons technology, then it is time to retire the Pakistani end of things.

    I understand if this means that Pakistani self esteem will take a hit, but that is better than them losing their lives.

    Pakistanis everywhere will oppose this kind of loss, because to them – that apparent parity with India is the only thing keeping their heads up (given how bad things have gotten over the years inside Pakistan), but right now egging them on in a fight with India, will start something really nasty.

    In the movie, Dr. Strangelove – Gen. Turgidson tells President Muffley, that it is “necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.”…

    I think one is at a similar point in the South Asian Region.

    1. Actually things in Pakistan are quite okay – they were much worse under previous corrupt government. Issues linger but economy and security situation has improved and we defeated indias proxies in Afghanistan

      1. Dear Sonny,

        As I understand it – Pakistan has assured the new Afghan leader that it will not destabilize his regime if he refrains from assisting India’s ambitions in the region.

        Afghanistan remains a divided land, and the burden of history can be onerous. Just as Pakistanis cannot forgive India’s actions in 1971, many Afghans cannot forget Pakistani behavior since 1989.

        The writ of the Kabul government on approximately operates in Afghanistan. It will not be able to guarantee things beyond a certain point. As the regime in Kabul is young it will seek allies to secure itself. Once it is secure, it will seek leverage against former allies as a means to perpetuate itself. This will lead to a cyclical pattern of behavior that alternates between hostility and pragmatic compromise.

        I feel only a more narrow interpretation of the pact between the Ghani government and the leaders of the Pakistani deep state is appropriate. Wider notions like “Pakistan has defeated India’s proxies in Afghanistan” will only feed a misguided sense of security about the Pak-Afghan border.

        All economic or security progress will evaporate if India decides to escalate towards nuclear armament. Pakistan’s economy will collapse under the cost of maintaining a larger nuclear arsenal.

        1. Afghans ,then should jog their memories, if they cannot forget after 1989, then whos stopping them to remember before 1989, it hasent been that long.
          And which country supports the most number of afghan refugees for the last three decades?
          Mind you 3 decades is not a smalll time, at least they could remember till then?But why should they ?Answer: victim mentality.

          1. Dear Pacman,

            People have a funny way of remembering history. They tend to recall bad things with greater ease than good things.

            The core calculus of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations will remain one of mutual hostility. Long before the idea of Pakistan existed, Mughal Emperors in India and Afghan Emperors fought over things.

            I don’t think one can change these things, just as a toddler first walks by holding its parent’s hand, and then a few years later rejects that very hand… so it shall be with the newborn regime in Afghanistan. Initially it will seek an alliance of convenience with Pakistan and then whenever convenient, it will dump that alliance for a position of greater leverage.

            There is nothing peculiar about the Ghani regime, the Karzai regime and the Taliban regime that preceded it did pretty much the same thing. Karzai was perhaps the most vocal in his hostility towards Pakistan, repeatedly appointing anti-Pakistani Panjshiris to lead the Afghan intelligence agency.

            There is no sense in deriving a false sense of security out of any arrangement with Kabul.

  25. 1. What’s the raison d’être of Pakistan if there are nearly as many Muslims in Hindustan?
    2. If everyone in India flushed their toilet at the same time would it wipe Bangladesh off the map?

    Gotta have a sense of humor.

    1. What a childish point / argument . According to this POINT , india should hand over junagarh, Pakistan has it’s instrument of accession.So why doesnt india?Becasue india has held referendum in junagarh and it’s majority hindu population voted in favour of india.

  27. The author portrays as if pakistan’s response to indian action in burma was unwarranted. Here’s the fact:
    Responding to a query as to whether India can conduct such an operation inside Pakistan, Indian Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore said: “This should be a message to all countries and organizations who foster terrorism against India, including Pakistan.”
    The complete story is here http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/restraint-no-more-india-reassesses-its-hard-power/
    So if a minister of another country is subtly threatening another country,should that other country respond?….I leave the complete facts with the readers.
    This author has a habit of fibbing.Yellow journalism at its best.

    1. What I find most unusual about this statement from Rajvardhan Singh Rathore is that he speaks about overt cross border strikes into Pakistan with no regard to the attendant nuclear escalation.

      This does not appear to be a slip of the mind either. It genuinely looks like Minister Rathore (and apparently others in the Government) think that Pakistan’s nuclear threats can never come to anything. There is a strange sense of “let’s see what they can do” in New Delhi.

      I really don’t know what to make of this. I have seen such a sense appear in India in the past, after major mass casualty terrorist strikes, but to see it appear without any overt cause like this is very strange.

      I have long felt that this Modi government had become quite full of people who wanted to put Pakistan (read Muslims) “in their place” but during the election and afterwards, it looked like that usual rhetoric was giving way towards a less virulent and more development focused posture. But now it has re-emerged in Minister Rathore’s statements.

      One wonders if the Hindu-far-right’s desire to commit a “Godhra-Ahmedabad” style ethnic cleansing of India has really been diluted by talk of India becoming a developed country. Has the urge for a secular development really overcome the decades long yearning for genocide of Muslims?

      I simply do not know the answer to such questions.

      There are so many young people in India and they talk so much on open fora about things they think they understand, I find it very hard to tell what is real and what is not.

      One thing is clear though, human life is exceedingly cheap on the region. Whether it is the Pakistani Deep Staters, or the elements of Hindu Far Right, there is no mental barrier to mass murder. People are totally oblivious to the damage that kind of thing causes society in the long run. Stupidity is certainly not in short supply.

      1. Uban in response to you earlier comment regarding forgetfullness of afghans:
        The summary to your large comment is ,afhanis are people who forget their benefactors(>2million people for 3 decades is no small feat). I am not talking about what the panjsheri narration of events which has clogged the mind of the afghan, but people who dont know friend from foe, have no future.
        You must have very bad relations with your parents. Poor them and am I wrong to assume you are either a woman or an indian?….

        1. Neither the Panjshiris, nor the Heratis nor the Uzbeks nor the Hazaras, have a positive view of Afghanistan. Barring a handful of Pashtun tribes who are still subaltern to their Punjabized cousins in the east, no one inside Afghanistan has any love lost for Pakistan.

          I feel some people in Islamabad misconstrue traditional Afghan hospitality to mean a sense of debt towards Pakistan for helping with the refugees. The reality of Afghan sentiments appears to me to be different.

          Most of the refugees that came back to Afghanistan speak of poverty, mistreatment and exploitation not of a land of milk and honey. The general consensus in Kabul is that if Pakistan did spend money out of pocket on Afghan refugees, Pakistan more than made it back in international donations and white powder heroin and arms trading. The Afghans feel that the war and the refugee crisis simply served to drain them of revenues and monies that were owed to them. And that all the Zia-era Pakistanis got rich on the bodies of dead Afghans.

          Historically Afghanistan has maintained a certain level of independence of powers to the east and west by practicing a Machiavellian policy of selective and temporary alliances. It has been the key to Afghanistan’s survival as an independent entity.

          This is aspect of Afghanistan is unchanging. Islamabad was very wise in recognizing the opportunity to the west. With the imminent withdrawal of US troops, there was no sense in investing hostility with the Ghani government. In the best traditions of Emperor Babur, Islamabad made a temporary peace.

          FWIW – I am not Indian or a woman and I don’t have bad relations with my parents.

          I just tend to listen when Afghans speak their minds.

          I hope that gives you a gauge of how far off you are.

          1. Sorry,

            “Neither the Panjshiris, nor the Heratis nor the Uzbeks nor the Hazaras, have a positive view of Afghanistan.”

            should read

            “Neither the Panjshiris, nor the Heratis nor the Uzbeks nor the Hazaras, in Afghanistan have a positive view of Pakistan.”

          2. Uban said>>“Neither the Panjshiris, nor the Heratis nor the Uzbeks nor the Hazaras, in Afghanistan have a positive view of Pakistan.”

            But is either one of them the dominant ethnicity of afghanistan. 99% of the refugges are the pathans, which ARE the dominant ethnicity and share common values with their Pakistani counterparts.Uzbek, panjshiris etc were / are part of northern aliance, they will (nee should) hate us, we supported the govt of their rivals. So, this is no news and interestingly you have left out pathans (pashtuns) in your Great statement.

            Uban said>>FWIW – I am not Indian or a woman and I don’t have bad relations with my parents.
            Uban earlier said>> just as a toddler first walks by holding its parent’s hand, and then a few years later rejects that very hand…

            Yeah, with your views on parents…lets leave it at that. And on not being woman/indian, your logic in your large comments begs to differ. Are you sure your not having a bruce jenner going on??.

            Uban said>>Most of the refugees that came back to Afghanistan speak of poverty, mistreatment and exploitation not of a land of milk and honey. The general consensus in Kabul is that if Pakistan did spend money out of pocket on Afghan refugees, Pakistan more than made it back in international donations and white powder heroin and arms trading.

            Pakistan, I hope you know, is not a wealthy country, rather a beggar country, see the news- 200 people die due to heartstoke in karachi. Pakistan didnt spend money on afghans per se because it never had any, but it opened its economy to the refugees. Refugees were allowed to do what ever business without restriction. Yes, pakistan is definately not a land of milk and honey, anybody having this idea has something wrong with his head, and I suspect you have been having a lot of conversation with that person. Pak has no money but a large heart.Rich countries like australia who can afford to support refugees simply turn them around and dont give shelter but even pay the trafficker hard cash to change the direction of boats from australia. There is a strong debate in Pak to kick these thankless ‘milk and honey’ people back to their country, but there are always pleas from afghan that to not rush it. Can you beat that?….

            And can you tell me which country is the largest producer/exporter of white powder?…And is this production level of white powder lower or higher than in the previous govt. of taliban? I will not even touch the subject of arms.

            Uban said>>I feel some people in Islamabad misconstrue traditional Afghan hospitality………..I just tend to listen when Afghans speak their minds.I hope that gives you a gauge of how far off you are.

            One should also try to think besides FEELING when listening and learn to use google. I would draw your attention to googling heroin and afghanistan ;). Americans also listened and not googled, what the iraqi turncoats in the early 2000 were harking about WMDs, but did it come out to be true?…The people and their views you talk about were in the opposition and will again be in opposition when americans go bye bye.
            And as to the gauge you are peddling around… and me being far off, I would advise you to stop taking “milk and honey” from afghans, I hear their ‘milk and honey’ is very strong.

          3. Dear Pacman,

            I’ll take the flame baits as a sign that you are close to accepting my point that Islamabad hasn’t defeated anything in Afghanistan.

            The Pathans are a numerical majority in some provinces and not in all of Afghanistan. The Pathan majority areas are not necessarily connected or very economically productive. This limits the ability to form very permanent alliances.

            The Pathans are not a monolithic entity. If they were they would pose a far greater threat to Pakistani security than they presently do. Pathan tribal loyalties are typically strong but the inter-tribal relationships are very complex and driven by local geographic and economic factors. From time-to-time in Afghan history, Pathan tribes do form political alliances but these fall apart as easily as they are put together.

            This notion of a numerically superior Pathan population that is “dominant” in Afghanistan doesn’t really work like one would expect. Afghanistan is not a Westphalian type state where a single ethnic group dominates over others, it is a more complex organism where delicate alliances of otherwise disparate cultural groups lead to political action. This is the big lesson imo from all the nation building in Afghanistan over the last decade.

            The broad sense among Afghan refugees is that Pakistan didn’t so much as open up its heart as it unzipped its fly. Most of the Afghans that had some sense of loyalty towards Pakistan joined the Mujaheddin and the Taliban, but then grew tired of the manner in which ISI people tried to push the Afghan leadership around to their agendas. It was this sentiment that led to gradual detachment of the Afghan components of the Taliban.

            In the field I think this manifested as a decline in the reliability of the Afghans in battles. That is why – when the war reached Taloqan in 97, the SSG and PA regulars had to be inserted into the ranks of the Taliban to stiffen them up. All these Pakistan Army people remained on the scene in Afghanistan, under the leadership of a Brigadier who later rose to the rank of Lt. Gen. and was once considered a prime candidate for COAS. Everyone returned home via the famed “Kunduz Airlift”.

            I feel that the Pakistani attempts to play the Pashtun card in Afghanistan is understandable given the peculiar security concerns in Islamabad, but this card has a progressively limited reach. For one most of the children born in refugee camps, i.e. the ones that signed up for Mullah Omar’s Taliban are now dead, wounded or worse. I feel that after the Dasht-e-Leili event, the fight simply went out of these boys. At the prisoner exchange, where the zero threat ones were released back to their relatives, the tears simply didn’t stop.

            I don’t think these people are a reliable asset for Pakistani strategies. These people may have been somewhat combat effective in late 80s and 90s but now they are middle aged men with health problems and PTSD issues.

  28. A very well researched article which must be read by many noise mongers and propogandists of South Asia…One thing is sure,with all its proxy war being waged against India by using terrorists sent from across the terrorist training camps in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir,Jammu &kashmir proved several times to the world that it believes in democracy and elections..The state has got an elected government which is governing…The number of terrorists in the kashmir has gone down and are only few..may be a hundred plus who are not able to make much of the nuisance to the thriving tourism and agriculture of the valley…Kashmiris are basically a peaceloving community whose secularist credentials are well rooted…The average kashmiri muslim s beliefs and ideology is much rooted in the much liberal sufi ideology which doesnt co exist with the hardliner islamic fundamentalists..

  29. In response to Uban,
    you do go off on a tangent, dont you. What I said was that you didnt recognize or even mention pashtuns in your statement, and now you start babling about how the pashtuns dont go along well with each other etc, etc.

    uban said>>Uban said>>“Neither the Panjshiris, nor the Heratis nor the Uzbeks nor the Hazaras, in Afghanistan have a positive view of Pakistan.”

    Yes, there are regional pockets where pashtuns dont dominate, but overall they have the majority in afghanistan and according to wiki, they makeup 40 -60%,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan
    We can argue if the pashtuns can work with Pak or not,that another topic, but the point remains, you are dodging and have convieniently failed to mention pashtun is your previous assertions.

    Uban said>>I’ll take the flame baits as a sign that you are close to accepting my point that Islamabad hasn’t defeated anything in Afghanistan.

    Please indicate where I or u have mentioned in our previous threads that pakistan is trying to defeat afhanistan?…Where are you trying to take this discussion…and then accusing me of flame baiting you.?! you are a joke
    To jog your memory, I’ll remind you, we were discussing the thanklessness of afhans.
    Furthermore, You havent answered my questions / assertions regarding herione because I assume you by now must have realized your blatant lie which was of accusing pakistan of running herione cartels in afghanistan. I draw you attention to you earlier message below:

    Uban said >>Pakistan more than made it back in international donations and white powder heroin and arms trading.

    Again I ask, can you beat that before opening up an another tangent for diversionary discussion. Dont dodge, first reply to my earlier questions, which were countering your false assertions, or forever be known as a Hindu Bruce Jenner.

    1. P.S. on a lighter note

      Uban said>> Afghanistan is not a Westphalian type state where a single ethnic group dominates over others, it is a more complex organism where delicate alliances of otherwise disparate cultural groups lead to political action. This is the big lesson imo from all the nation building in Afghanistan over the last decade.

      LOL

      What are you by the way?…This level of ignorance is astonishing.
      I take back calling you a hindu bruce jenner because
      Calling you a hindu Bruce Jenner is an insult to a hindu Bruce jenner.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pashtun_empires_and_dynasties

      Please read up parwai dynasty which ruled from 1713-1948 and the rest of the article.
      Only one ethnicity always dominated i.e. pashtuns with brining other ethinicities onboard, but pashtuns have always been in the driving seat.

      You are officially an idiot.

      1. Pacman: I welcome you to express your opinion, but please stop calling people names and acting like a jerk. That goes for everyone else commenting on this article. Violators will be temporarily banned from the comments section.

    2. Dear Pacman,

      My comments were a response to your statement

      “we defeated indias proxies in Afghanistan”

      I don’t think anything has been defeated in Afghanistan by Pakistan’s latest alliance with the Ghani regime. In my opinion an ever-present threat to Pakistani security from Afghanistan remains and only its outward nature may have changed.

      IMO the Great Game is far from over.

      Your wikipedia link demonstrates the accuracy of my view that political alliances are very temporary in Afghanistan. Those Pashtun dynasties didn’t last half as long as their Mughal counterparts. These were very unstable affairs, with Pashtun kings and a persianized class of officials composed of non-Pashtun groups (i.e Heratis, Panjshiris etc…) who collaborated with Pashtun leaders out of self-interest.

      That age is past. Today there is no Pashtun monolith to carve a power base on. There may be Pakistan-friendly Pashtun tribes, but there are large numbers of people opposed to Pakistan. It is not clear who will prevail.

      Gone are the days when a single speech from Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi would make people jump into buses and trucks and ride out to Sarhad. Most of those boys are gone now.

      All this Pushtuns-on-top-stuff has been tried before by Sultan Amir Tarar, Javed Nasir and Nasserullah Khan Babar. It doesn’t work. The Islamabad Accords come to mind. Maybe it is time to learn from history. Attempts to impose Pashtun leadership of Islamabad’s liking on Kabul will simply result in another civil war.

      This war will not play to Pakistan’s interests in the region. Pakistan’s national security calculus cannot drift towards fantasies. It has to remain anchored in reality and pragmatism.

      The biggest reality right now in Afghanistan is that Pashtuns are no longer willing to drop to their knees at Pakistan’s command. They are less and less inclined to participate in Pakistani strategic initiatives and the relationship is at a delicate stage where pushing too hard will most likely result in an adverse reaction towards Pakistan.

      1. Dear Pacman,

        Regarding Pakistani involvement in the heroin trade. There is ample evidence. The most credible testimony has come from Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg whose brother died in a battle in Afghanistan.

        Gen. Beg indicated to Prime Minister Sharif that the ISI was involved in the Afghan drug trade and using profits from it to pay for its operations in Afghanistan.

        A number of organizations in Pakistan published a list of “robber billionaires” who had become rich in trading heroin from Afghanistan.

        Numerous journalists talked about “Houbara Hunts” near Shamsi airport and seeing what exactly was in the “medical coolers” that were being loaded into the aircraft.

        There is the testimony of Pakistanis in foreign courts to judges on the matter of drug trafficking during the Afghan War years.

        There was a rather long CIA report on narcotrafficking in Pakistan and its size relative to the “white” economy in Pakistan and the report implicated major political friends and allies of the Pakistani Prime Minister.

        Many Pakistani journalists have profiled a “White House” which belonged to one prominent trafficker in the region. He was also invested in the arms trade in Darra.

        There are numerous sources. So most of this stuff is facts you can easily verify.

        The Afghans simply feel that Pakistan took more than their fair share of the profits of the trade. Their perspective is obviously different from the views in Islamabad.

  31. Dear Pacman,

    Afghanistan and Kashmir are two facets of the same coin, figuring prominently in Pakistani national security desires to acquire strategic depth.

    The story put out from Islamabad is the same for both places. In Afghanistan the Pashtun is supposed to be eternally grateful for being allowed refugee status. In Kashmir, the Kashmiri from Srinagar is supposed to be eternally grateful for being given shelter in Pakistani held Kashmir.

    In both places – whatever gratitude may have existed in the past – it has run out now. Both Kashmiris and Afghan Pashtuns feel used and don’t want to be part of Pakistani attempts at producing strategic depth. Both Kashmiris and Afghan Pashtuns are tired of the endless civil war of the last four decades.

    In Kashmir more than half of the Hizbul Mujaheddin has defected to the Indian side. Former HM cadre now work as elected officials in the local government.

    In Afghanistan, no Durrani wants to have anything to do with a Pakistani, most Ghilzais are wary of any contact with Pakistan after the way Mullah Omar was treated. The Ghilzais are about 12% of the total Afghan population. If you were to conduct a opinion poll among tribal elders in the Ghilzai community, I would be very surprised if more than 25% supported Pakistan with no reservations. I suspect that less than 4% of the total population of Afghanistan wants to have anything to do with Pakistan.

    This is the new reality of the region. People there are exhausted and they are no position to serve as Pakistan’s proxies. Their war is over. This picture peeks out repeatedly in US Army HTS reports and studies of the region. HTS data collection is far superior to anything I have seen from the region.

    It is best to recognize this reality and adjust Pakistan’s security calculations accordingly.

    This last bit – IMHO – is the crux of what Christina is saying.

    In a time when India’s economy in PPP terms is more than 10x the size of Pakistan’s economy in PPP terms, there is no sense expending energy in Islamabad on tilting at windmills.

    Rather than focus on old and outdated notions of strategic depth, it is better to focus on a more minimalist picture – a core national security calculation – if I may call it that.

    This core calculation would seek to shore up the fundamentals of Pakistan’s economy, i.e. shift to from the Zia-Beg-Gul era Kashmir-Afghanistan-Jihad-etc… to the real basics – aggressive land and water resource management, education and high-tech industry growth, energy security.

    A sharply focused policy of that nature would lead Pakistan to a better place in the future.

    If all goes well, and India becomes a new China under Modi’s leadership, Pakistan would become Taiwan (as opposed to becoming Vietnam).

    If things go bad and India becomes Nazi Germany under Modi’s leadership, then Pakistan could become Switzerland (instead of being the next Poland).

    You seem to be a guy that thinks a lot, even though sometimes you come across as something less than what you are.

    Please take some time to read Christina’s article carefully and go through what I am saying here. There is an element of sense in it that is hard to deny.

  32. Pacman has been banned from commenting at War on the Rocks for one month for his abusive comments. Adults can make their point without calling people names.

  33. Dear Pacman,

    >> As someone once said, a disease can be cured, a problem solved but stupidity, that ‘s another beast.

    The problem with you Zia-era AFBs is that you either don’t know or don’t want to know what really went on in those days. You guys took that man’s propaganda as gospel.

    It kind of works out well for you guys, you live in big houses in prime areas of the city, your dads own dozens of apartments in newly constructed complexes with running water and generator sets. You can sit there in the AC and watch all the TV from India and the West and eat burgers and talk about your uncles in Dubai or Qatar or America and have your key parties.

    The streets of Pakistan are something you see from the window of your car as it travels in protocol somewhere. If you start thinking about those things, and the damage that the concepts you hold dear has done to Pakistan, you will not be able enjoy life.

    I realize letting go of old ideas is hard, but once you get over that part – you will realize that there are totally viable alternatives to Gen. Zia’s peculiar brand of national pride i.e. alternatives that don’t involve filling graveyards with dead innocents.

    > Peace out, I will not be schooling you further.

    Oh dear and we haven’t got to the part where I ask you to please consider signing the benefits of Pakistan signing the NPT as a “non-nuclear weapons state”.

    1. It was a utopian theory from the very beginning and destined to fail as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad said.
      The agitation began as soon as Jinnah stepped of the podium after making a speech at Dhaka University in which he declared urdu to be the national language.Seriously , if he had done that in Lahore or Karachi or even Rawalpindi id get it but in Dhaka? No wonder Bengalis was distraught from day 1 and it became worse as West Pakistan stole all the jute earnings and deprived Bengalis of their resources.