- It is incorrect on your part to say that whatever happens in Pak will have the same impact on South India as Sudan would impact Indian-southies. Perhaps it was figure of speech. Because I doubt you spend the same amount of your precious time on Sudanese forums, as you do over here.
Barring terrorism sponsored by Pakistan, Indians have much more vested interest in Sudan. There are several Indian companies operating in Sudan, in various fields, including oil exploration and drilling. In some sense, the well being of Sudan has a much more direct consequence in India.
But your point is well taken, I don't frequent Sudanese forums. However, India has good relations with Sudan. That is not the case with Pakistan.
- FYI. Indian psyche (based on extensive travel and interaction with both North and South Indians) is less driven by North vs. South, and much more driven by Indian nationalism. Indian nationalism's worst possible form (luckily practiced by smaller percentage of Indians) is the Hindutva driven nationalism.
The first form of Indian nationalism is willing to tolerate Muslims WITHIN India under Hindu control. The second form of Indian nationalism does not tolerate other religions within India.
However both sides of Indian nationalism at its core DOES NOT accept partition of 1947.
They consider Pakistanis as the one who chopped up the sacred Bharat Matha. Nothing could be further from truth, however this POV is part of the Indian belief system as strongly as their believe in God Vishnu.
I have no idea which Indians you have interacted with and where in India you have traveled. I also have no want to re-litigate ancient history.
I am very active in the Indian community, in the US. I am active politically, contribute to PAC's and Indian lobbying efforts, and I have business interests in India. I see lots of Indians, though I'm not influential, I do meet with lots of Indians that are. I have never run across anyone, who is less than 60, that doesn't think Pakistan has a right to exist. That's just a ludicrous notion.
Indian policy makers are much more concerned with the 'what now' as opposed to the 'why does Pakistan exist'. Frankly, it's a silly notion. I think Pakistanis are the only ones struggling with the notion of the meaning of Pakistan, the reason for Pakistan, or the ideology of Pakistan. Pakistani newspapers are littered with opinion pieces as to why Pakistan exists, why it had to come to being, and why it must exist. Ask the same question of me, and most Indians I know, and you'll get the same answer: Pakistan exists for the exact same reason India exists...for the well being of it's citizens.
Parsad bhai,
Constipated Conspiracy theorists exist on both side of the Pak-India border. Blaming one side will not solve the problem.
The main reason for the conspiracy theories to survive is more than simply deflecting the blame.
These theories however false exist because:
Majority of Indians and Pakistani intellectuals DO NOT conduct their own historical analysis of the events in the subcontinent. They instead rely on heresay, yellow journalism, and the sermons in the mosque/temples.
Thus it is safe to say that 99% Indian and Pakistani educated elite's knowledge of past events remains at the level of 12th grade highly biased history lessons.
you say that INdians do not sponsor terrorism in Pak. Perhaps then, your definition of terrorism is based on very narrow strip of time and space. And that would easily take away any shred of sincerity from your analysis.
Modern day India and Pakistan both are the products of history that is at least as old as the history of "Great Game" in the central Asia and Indian ocean.
Even the cold war was simply a manifestation of the same old great game between Ruskies and the West.
In that great game, Indians allied themselves with the commies. while Pakistan allied itself with the West.
As an agent of commies, Indians supported and still support leftist-nationalist elements against Pakistan.
While Pakistan supported and still supports religious elements against India.
And terror is committed by both leftist-nationalists in Pak and the Islamists in India.
That fact in itself negates your assertion that Indians do not sponsor terror against Pak.
Therefore I urge you (because you seem to be sincere about the cause of peace in the region), to go beyond the tabloid newspapers of the region and develop your independent view of our history and present.
Only then you will be able to accept the wrong doings of India's policy makers, instead of defending them at every cost.
Those epicenters are great. My hats off to them. But all that epicentrism came to India when finally Indians ditched commies and got into the American club.
We in Pakistan have been in the same club for long long time.
Thus the development that Indian south has seen in the last 15 years have been part and parcel of every major city in Pak.
You see a difference with Pak only because I suspect you have never been to major cities of Pak.
While Indians have been lapping up to Americans in the last 15 years, we in Pak have been able to keep the American businesses out during the last 15 years.
However things are bound to improve in the next 10 years.
And then hopefully both the countries will be bhai bhai, in the same American club.
Unfortunately you are repeating the tabloid newspaper statements without even realizing what you are trying to say.
The day Indian leadership and policy makers quit being petty with 10 times smaller cousin aka Pakistan, the things in our region will hopefully turn for the better.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, in terms of biased history lessons. If it's any consolation, including the Indian Prime Minister, the leadership in India was largely educated in Cambridge, Harvard, and Yale. Indian institutions, as they are now, were not to par back in the 60's and 70's. Indian policy makers are foreign policy realists as opposed to ideologues.
Recent history contra-indicates you. India has been anything but petty. In 1999, most observers agreed that Vajpayee and Sharrif were going to make peace. India was going jettison a portion of the Kashmir valley to Pakistan, placating the Pakistani position, and the line of control was going to become a demilitarized border. Vajpayee and Sharrif were going to walk away with the Nobel Peace prize and an intractable problem was going to be solved. However, Musharraf and the Pakistani military had other plans. In return for the Indian PM's peace trip, we got Kargil.
Then, after Musharraf's coup, the Indian Parliament was attacked by Pakistan based jihadis. According to a Jane's article at the time, India was so close to striking that American's had B1-B and B-52's were on stand-by in Diego Garcia to neutralize Pakistan's nuclear first strike capability. With 9/11 looming and Collen Powell's declaration in Congress that Pakistan was the global hub of terrorism, Pakistan again came to the negotiation table. India's want for peace was such that Indians agreed to what were called 'back channel' negotiations while Pakistan based jihadis continued, and stepped up, attacks in Kashmir and India.
Again, Musharraf and India, now with Singh, came to the same agreement that was reached with Nawaz. Zardari and Kayani also agreed to the terms. It was going to be implemented and sold to the public. This time, it was the ISI and members of the Military that were unhappy. For this deal, India got attacks in Mumbai.
I'm not really sure where India has been petty. If anything, India has been restrained.
But here is the real question: Is there any one in Pakistan to make peace with?
Pakistan stands to gain millions of dollars in transit fees for Indian goods and oil and gas through Pakistan. Indians are willing to basically open up the Indian market to Pakistan, duty free, subsidize the sale of machine tools to Pakistan, open up Indian capital markets, and lift all trade restrictions without any reciprocity. Seriously, what does it take?
Pakistan can continue to blame anyone. It’s largely irrelevant and an internal Pakistani matter. I, and many like me, want peace. We can continue to litigate ancient history, or we can look ahead.