On Wednesday 20 Jul 2011 5:47:18 pm M.K.Pai wrote: > The point I was trying to make was that it does not matter what the > Pakistanis say. What they do, matters. What we do, matters. >
While I have no disagreement with your statements, I think that in the post 9-11 situation. the Pakistan army has tried to use the "India threat" to avoid doing the job they were paid (by the US) to do in the north west - the Af-Pak region. 26/11 is said to have been conducted just to provoke an Indian response based on an old Pakistani military calculation - one that isopenly stated by Pakistanis army spokespersons. 1. Any war with India will be short because the "international community" will step in 2. Because fo Pakistani nuclear weapons India will not have the gumption ot the time to take over parts of Pakistan The idea that India is set to take over Pakistan is important in Pakistan. Narratives of the 1965 war in Pakistan ignore the Pakistani attacks of Operation Gibralter and Op. Grand Slam and claim that India attacked Lahore, and was beaten back, making the 1965war an Indian attempt to take over and berak up Pakistan. I suspect that there was no military reaction from India after 26/11 because IMO there is a quid pro quo about dealing with Pakistan betwen India an the US - a rather new development. The point is India is trying to maintain a low profile in Pakistan and not provoke Pakistani paranoia. Not provoking Pakistani paranoia forces Pakistan to fight their own home grown jihadis rather than stir up "Let us defend Pakistan against India" rhetoric that will allow them to take the attention off their Talibaniac allies. Pakistan is so paranoid and so ready to pick a fight with India that when Indian political parties or military men mention Pakistan - that mention appears in the Pakistani news and commentary as evidence of an "Indian threat". That is why Indian political parties do not generally raise the name of Pakistan in their parleys even if the issue is a hot favorite for Pakistanis -such as Muslims or Kashmir. There was "relief" in the Pakistani press when there was no mention of Pakistan after the recent Mumbai blasts. The Hindu-Muslim issues that existed before 1947 were "solved" unsatisfactorily by partition. Pakistan was unhappy with what they got and Indians were unhappy with what happened. What has happened has happened and both countries need to move on. Pakistan no longer has a Hindu-Muslim problem because Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan have dropped in percentage from about 15-20% in 1947 to 3% now. (I wonder why?) It is only India that has to think of Hindu-Muslim relations within India. Pakistan has no role in this and it is patently ridiculous to pull in Pakistan's name every time there is a mention of Hindu Muslims relation, or talk about the treatment of Muslims in India when Pakistan is mentioned. It is almost as though a sub set of Indians has not figured out that a partition has occurred and are still debating the Pakistan question in relation to Hindu- Muslim issues in India. Weird. shiv
