The Asian Waltz

Kudos to you Feroz, for the sheer hardwork and thoughts you have put into writing this piece. It really took a lot of my time assimilating all of it... Most of the tidbits of information that you have provided on your way to putting together your `hypothesis` are, in fact, facts... to quote one example, its a fact that the state of indigenous military research and development is one of the major impediments facing india to realize her ambition of becoming a wider regional military power...rhetoric notwithstanding, it would be quite long before India realizes her ambition...

That aside, i do have serious problems comprehending some of your derivations. You hypothize that ultimately India and Pakistan might be forced by their respective mentors to settle in for the third option vis-a-vis kashmir. you seem to have hastened into this conclusion without backing it up with a compelling arguement as to why this should be the case...(it could be that i missed some point). you haven`t enumerated all available options ; your arguements as to why the other prominent options might fall through are either weak or non-existing... this stands out in stark contrast to the elegant manner in which your logic flows with respect to most other points...

on a relative scale, would it not be easier to ``force`` india and pakistan to settle for a solution wherein the LoC would be converted to international border than to ``force`` them to cough up thier respective parts of kashmir to create an independent entity ?

In the first case above, it would not be hard - for the US - to ``pressurize`` india into accepting this arrangement... the only effort required would be in `bringing` Islamabad around into accepting this arrangement... this might have a favourable fallout on sino-indian border dispute too: india might quietly discard its claims on aksai chin for a reciprocal offer from china on Arunachal Pradesh... (True, this line of reasoning has its own share of ifs and buts, but at least on paper it looks viable, which is an essential prerequisite for contemporary political solutions...)

Compare and contrast this with the option wherein an independent kashmir has to be thrust down the throats of india and pakistan... well, i don`t have to elaborate, but the path that would lead to it will be anything but extremely painful for ALL the powers involved.

(It is in this context i am very surprised that the indian leadership is not making ANY noise about ``recovering`` the part of kashmir under the control of pakistan... though it could be attributed to indian restraint, it might boomerang on india herself... For IF a final solution to kashmir is to be reached wherein the loc would be converted to an international border - certainly an international intervention would proceed in that direction - pakistan could stall it on the pretext that india had conceded nothing in the bargain... )

Ref Umairr #: 96

You say {I think a good example of this would be an analysis of the armed forces` build-up of the two countries. India`s armed forces are offensively inclined, specifically targeting Pakistan. Pakistan`s armed forces are defensively oriented; specifically to defend against an attack from India.}

I still haven`t got an answer on what defensive operations the Pak army was conducting on October 24, 1947, in Baramulla.

You say {India regularly augments its Pakistan-specific offensive weapons. Pakistan always reacts to this with a build-up of defensive weapons to counter the Indian offensive. All of this is well-documented.}

Who built up its arms inventory between 1947 and 1962, India or Pakistan? Who joined anti-Communist blocs such as CENTO and SEATO and received US arms for use against Communists and used them for other purposes? Who started the 1965 war? (Remember Operation Gibraltar?)

You say {A look at the current (and previous) increases in the Indian military budget, along with the sizes of the two militaries with respect to external threats, as well as the offensive-defensive ratios of their armament, will prove this.}

Is it true that the Pak Army is twice the size of what it was in 1971 even though you have only half the territory to defend?

You say {A lot of the above has to do with the size of the two countries with respect to each other. Bigger countries are almost always more offensive towards smaller countries, than vice versa. And bigger communities are almost always more offensive towards smaller communities, than vice-versa.}

Come on, Umairr. Let us all admit that there has been one noble exception to this general rule and it is called China. They have been ever so gentle in their treatment of their Uighur (Muslim, in case you have forgotten that, in your fervent desire to see justice done for the Kashmiris) minority and want nothing but the best that Communism has to offer for Taiwan, no matter that Taiwan has been free of Beijing`s control since 1895 (when it was occupied by Japan). And how can anyone forget their civilizing mission in Tibet? However, they have been wantonly attacked by smaller neighbors such as India, Vietnam, and even their territories such as the Mischief Reef and the Spratley and Paracel islands are being disputed by the small but mighty Philippines.

Umairr, don`t justify the size of the Pak Army and its nuclear weapons on its giant neighbor (code word for India). You guys don`t need any justification for running your country the way you (or your army) see fit and certainly you owe no explanation to Indians. But have the intellectual honesty not to spread around manure here; it will be more useful and efficacious in your garden.

Re: Pullu

Thanks...I will hold you to that! :)

Re: Inyourface

What has a Pakistani to lose? There is no future here, people commit suicide to get out of their miserable lives each day! As to the 5th largest country, do you think that a person who has no clean drinking water, no hopes for educating his children, who has to bribe everyone to get his TV permit renewed cares about living in the 5th largest nation in the world!

Do you really think we want to continue living with no hope for a better tomorrow? What have we to lose? If you know something, please enlighten me! This is not about religion; death is preferable, because living is hell and we would, if given the chance, try to escape from this hell as best as we can! There is no future, there is only a night which never seems to end!

* * * * * *

I was not defending China per se! China views Tibet in the same terms India sees Kashmir. Are you willing concede, as you would wish China to, that Tibet is disputed territory and its occupation is unjust? Just take all the points you have raised about China`s attitude towards Taiwan and ask the same questions, but subsitute the word ``China`` for India`` and tell me what your answer is! People in glass houses should not throw stones! :)

Ciao!

bd #99

``You asked a very good question, why has a country of 150 Million people got nothing to lose?. Perhaps one of the reasons is religion, where dying for the faith is an integral part of the psyche and people are well rewarded post death. As is it, life really doesnt offer them that much, does it?``

bd, correct me if I am wrong but something is not quite consistent here. 150 million people with nothing to lose and willing to die for their faith where Kashmir is concerned(or say 10,000 in Karachi), but none to do so solely for Pakistan`s internal good where they do have something to lose?

No one really wishes to even hold a single political rally on any issue concerning Pakistanis issues except Kashmir? No one is willing to challenge the government order banning political party rallies and their participation even in important upcoming elections, all the more important because of the major accompanying changes in administrative heirarchy but all are willing to `die` for religion.

And if general elections were held none of these `worth dying for` religious causes would win even 2% of the vote?

Something really really inconsistent here.

Sadhana

Ferozk #re 90

Sorry Yaar! My intention certainly WAS to carry out an autopsy on your lovely article.

Par Kya Karen...This ``time``. I have a problem with ``Time`` and ``Female``. Never seem to have enough of them. .......

You say future generations might leave partition behind. But seeing our generation I wonder If we can trust the coming ones` with so arduous a task. How many in our generation have seen or felt the pangs of death and separation! But look at the passion involved. It could get worse.

In this context I must re-emphasise what Sri Vajpayi said on Aug 15(yesterday)

We can`t go back to History and undo something.

53 Years have gone by. You wanted Pakistan, we did not want it.You got it.

You wanted kashmir, We didn`t want to part with it. I am not trying to justify anything.

But the fact of the Matter is, everything is Alive as though it all happened a few years ago. People speak with authority on Mr.Jinnah and Sardar Patel here, as if they walked miles with them. Irony!

I would love to be optimistic but am pragmatic enough, not to thrust our failures on another

generation. Wishing them best of Luck and hoping for the best.

Your article was a good read and good one to write posts on. Better than some of the other unsubstantiated emotional spillovers.

Pullu

p.s. get the number of U`s in my name :)

Ferozk #re 90

Sorry Yaar! My intention certainly WAS to carry out an autopsy on your lovely article.

Par Kya Karen...This ``time``. I have a problem with ``Time`` and ``Female``. Never seem to have enough of them. .......

You say future generations might leave partition behind. But seeing our generation I wonder If we can trust the coming ones` with so arduous a task. How many in our generation have seen or felt the pangs of death and separation! But look at the passion involved. It could get worse.

In this context I must re-emphasise what Sri Vajpayi said on Aug 15(yesterday)

We can`t go back to History and undo something.

53 Years have gone by. You wanted Pakistan, we did not want it.You got it.

You wanted kashmir, We didn`t want to part with it. I am not trying to justify anything.

But the fact of the Matter is, everything is Alive as though it all happened a few years ago. People speak with authority on Mr.Jinnah and Sardar Patel here, as if they walked miles with them. Irony!

I would love to be optimistic but am pragmatic enough, not to thrust our failures on another

generation. Wishing them best of Luck and hoping for the best.

Your article was a good read and good one to write posts on. Better than some of the other unsubstantiated emotional spillovers.

Pullu

p.s. get the number of U`s in my name :)

InYourFace #95

You asked a very good question, why has a country of 150 Million people got nothing to lose?. Perhaps one of the reasons is religion, where dying for the faith is an integral part of the psyche and people are well rewarded post death. As is it, life really doesnt offer them that much, does it?

Cheers

bd

Re: krashid

I have espasal blessed liquor which doesn`t smell. What do you say? You can dress up like a beatnik, ruffle your hair, and meet me at Washington Sq Park. I`ll even throw in a kebab from that little Persian place around there. You`ll be in heaven I tell you.

RSaxena #86

Hai Allah, Ram, Buddha Asaiy Boliay Na.

When are you inviting for heroine Party. (inviting police party for raid also)

I think I would prefer Heroine over Liquor.

Liquor smells too much.

#94: ``I agree Indians think Pakistanis are more violent.``

This is a subjective topic at an individual level. Everyone`s experience will be different. Personally, I have found Pakistanis to be more aggressive (perhaps borderline violent) as compared to Indians. Individual Indians seem quite mild mannered, and don`t seem too aggressive; infact not aggressive at all.

However, at a community and public and national level, my personal experience is that Indians are more attacking, aggressive (and bordeline violent) as compared to Pakistanis.

I think a good example of this would be an analysis of the armed forces` build-up of the two countries. India`s armed forces are offensively inclined, specifically targeting Pakistan. Pakistan`s armed forces are defensively oriented; specifically to defend against an attack from India. India regularly augments its Pakistan-specific offensive weapons. Pakistan always reacts to this with a build-up of defensive weapons to counter the Indian offensive. All of this is well-documented. A look at the current (and previous) increases in the Indian military budget, along with the sizes of the two militaries with respect to external threats, as well as the offensive-defensive ratios of their armament, will prove this.

Another example of Indians being more aggressive at the community level are the attacks on Pakistan from the Indian organizations in the USA. Indian organizations in the USA generally target Pakistan first, and not vice versa. Examples of this are the efforts to stop Clinton from visiting Pakistan, and attempts to get Pakistan declared a terrorist state etc. Pakistani organizations generally come into existence to counter these Indian offensives, and are generally themselves defensive in nature, i.e ensuring that Clinton did visit Pakistan, but not attempting to stop him from visiting India, etc.

A lot of the above has to do with the size of the two countries with respect to each other. Bigger countries are almost always more offensive towards smaller countries, than vice versa. And bigger communities are almost always more offensive towards smaller communities, than vice-versa. On an individual level in a violent scenario, the individuals of smaller communities tend to be more aggresive than individuals of bigger communities; because smaller communities face a larger threat from bigger communities than vice versa.

FerozeK #90:

``Pakistan will enter that war with a Masada complex, because we have nothing to lose, but India has everything to lose.``

How? Why? Why a country of 150 million people (fifth biggest country in the world) has nothing to lose?

F.R.Khan,

1)China is erring in Tibet...but not hegomony.

2)China was not internally stable in 1962 so cannot be hegomonic. (When do u think India was internally stable, and when did it go hegomonic? Whatever you mean by internally stable.)

3)China just wants Taiwan.

Interesting arguments, to defend China. You seem so balanced, I am surprised at your determination to defend China (or may be accuse India of hegomony). (I am not saying China is hegemonic, only saying that India has even less desires than China. India treats Pakistan better than China does Taiwan. China get respect for their miltary power and there power is taken for granted, so it might not be visible to its friends.)

An example of Indian Hegemony you give is nuclear doctorine. Do you think France is hegemonic too?

Sometime (foolishly in the eyes of others) a country (as I think is the case in France too), tries to use miltary power for social equality/importance, when it feels (rightly or wrongly) that it is not being respected because it is not strong. This is not hegemony. I cannot expect you to understand or agree with this, but I had to try. Though I am not a politician and milatary personnel, I think I know India enough to be sure about it.

I agree Indians think Pakistanis are more violent. Even one my Muslim friend thinks that muslims are more violent. I don`t think like that. But I do think, that Pakistanis tell themselves that they are more agressive and violent. So what do you think others will think about Pakistan? I think the above totally stupid, as human beings are same everywhere, there are agressive and soft people everywhere. (Indeed I have defended Pakistan on occasions when they were portrayed as violent). I think that before other can think good about Pakistan, they should correct the image they have of themselves.

It is nice thing to look balanced but if one is more at fault, it should be said so. Truth should be upheld at the cost of looking biased.

Vijay

scout #91
Notice a scroll bar on the right? I`ve found it very useful.

re ferozk #90:

I find your grasp of Asian affairs admirable. I am curious to know your thoughts regarding China and Taiwan in the coming years and how would it impact the global economy. An intern of mine did some research on the subject recently but I have still to form any solid conclusions of my own. Its one of the most fascinating modern historical puzzles I`ve come across in a while. I am particularly interested in scenarios whereby the US grows more militant in its attitude towards China or how is its relationship with the two effected by a Republican victory in November. Thanks.

later

-sac

sadna, rsaxena, etc etc.....

Why are you guys so obsessed about Pakistan? It`s getting redundant and boring. Write about something else.

Live and let live.

You have your problems we have ours. Kapeeshhhh.

Happy Rakhshabandhan to you too sadna.

Wish I had a brother to tie a rakhi on (and get money and protection) :)

with luv,

scout

Re: vijayamrit # 82

As to my opinion about the Sino-Indian war of 1962, I think it was not hegemonic, either for China or India, as much as it was a result of an irredentist claims over undefined border delineations. At that particular point in time, China was coming out of a bitter break up with the Soviet Union and was flirting with the idea of Mao’s Cultural Leap and was not, thus, internally stable enough to aspire for a hegemonic role. Also, Chinese economy did not take off till Deng’s reforms in the 1980s. Either did India, in 1962, have the means to be a hegemonic power, though Nehru wanted India as a fulcrum between the First World (US and W. Europe) and the Second World (Soviet Union and E. Europe). The Sino-Indian War of 1962 was more likely as a result of circumstantial misunderstandings than anything else.

In international law, as status quo, determines the territorial claim by the virtue of which country is in possession of a said piece of territory. Having said this, Tibet is for all effective purposes considered to a part of China and though the Chinese may be lambasted for their role in Tibet, the reality is that morality has nothing to do with convincing the Chinese to amend their erring ways in Tibet. International law cannot decide the fate of Tibet unless the political leaderships of Tibet and China settle this issue through bi-lateral, if necessary through tri or multi-lateral, discussions. The case of East Timor is a valid one in this sense, because independence for East Timor came, not as result of United Nations’ resolutions, but because the Indonesians, a party to the conflict, agreed to hold a referendum on the issue of East Timor’s future.

I think, and thank you for raising this point, that the Indian-Chinese perceptions of an Asian ascendancy have more to do in economic terms than in purely political calculations. In one of my earlier posts, I had asked people not too view this relationship within the context of South Asia, but within a larger Asian framework. Yes, military might and force projections are important in preserving ones’ economic interests, but they should be seen in the context of economic rationales. In the present integrated global economy, wars will be the continuation of a nation’s economic policies by other means. Unfortunately, most people chose to ignore the economic implications and opted to concentrate only on the perceived military indicators measuring Sino-Indian intentions.

I have to make this point clear that political hegemony is often a result of economic compulsions than it due to a desire for political aggrandizement. Political hegemony, or super power status, flows from a nation’s relative economic strength and cannot be attained from purely military mean; the case of the Soviet Union, in the period of 1945-1991, would a good example, because the Soviet Union collapsed politically due to its economic insolvency to continually compete with the American economy. Thus, the Sino-Indian Asian intercourse must be seen in economic terms with the use of military force projection as a necessary ancillary in the attainment of their economic objectives.

As to the fourth part of your question, the answer lies in the perceptional distortions, which sadly plague both Pakistani and Indian notions of reality. In a similar sense, not all Pakistanis are jehadis or terrorists, as the Indian media seems to claim. In many ways, the greatest obstacle in improving Indo-Pak relations is the lack of reality in our attempts to seek a middle ground, because we have became so accustomed to extremist rhetorical justifications of diametrically opposed views, that we have started to believe our own peculiar creations of the other’s historic and political personas and we cannot break out of this self-perpetuating myopia. The fallacy of perceptional misunderstandings exists on both sides of the international demarcation and is not inclusive of just one side only!

Concerning your fifth part, the simple answer is none of the above. Pakistani politics and Pakistani raison d’ etat have always been India-centric. The last 53 years of Pakistani history have been an attempt to define Pakistan as a viable counter-point to India in everything and to blindly follow India specific policies at the cost of everything else. If India disappears, how is Pakistan going to define itself? I think a better answer would that Pakistan is concerned about India’s unity for the sake of its own political unity!

Jay # 77

I would caution you from employing the Israeli experience in Lebanon in the context of South Asia, because firstly, Lebanon has no nuclear weapons and there is no danger of a small tactical engagement escalating into a nuclear as it will happen in case of Kashmir if India opts for a military solution to the Kashmiri problem. The tragedy of the Kashmir problem is that it is a political problem and both sides are trying to solve it via application of military force.

Secondly, the political dynamics of Kashmir-South Asia are vastly different from Israel-Lebanon-Middle East and it is highly unlikely that the Indian military actions in Kashmir against the jehadi groups will not lead to full-scale war in South Asia. If there is a war with India, which I hope will never happen for the sake of a billion plus people, Pakistan will enter that war with a Masada complex, because we have nothing to lose, but India has everything to lose.

Jay, you are intelligent person, which is why I am always surprised by your latent xenophobia when it comes to Pakistan. Could you care to enlighten me as to where this xenophobia of yours towards Pakistan stems from?

One more point; it is quite safe to be an arm chair tactician and urge sacrifices for the nation, but it is another thing to actually die for ones own country! Will you be encouraging the dying only or would you be willing join the Indian forces and put your money where your mouth is if the situation warrants it?

I think that Sac was right in the sense that it is mindless xenophobic idle chatter such as yours and others from Pakistan, which inflames the hatred on both sides of the fence. After May 13 and 28, 1998 we need to be partial more towards common sense in our mutual relations than towards emotionalism!

Re: Krashid # 74



The Americans will never sacrifice Israeli interests to keep the Arab world happy and to think otherwise would be nothing short of a utopian fallacy. Arab influence did not force the Israelis to withdraw from Southern Lebanon, but the Israeli political will, which no longer could justify its military presence in Lebanon in political terms.

Also, the majority of the American oil is imported from the Canada and from Alberta, where there is plenty of oil and American dependency on Middle Eastern oil is less than it was 20 years ago!

Rsaxena # 73

Would you agree that India would be better off economically without a threat of war over Kashmir and that foreign investments in India would much more safer?

I think that Shankar should have instead asked the question of whether foreign investors coming to India to whether they feel that their investments are really safe. There is no denying the fact that India is a economic beacon to worldwide investors, but wouldn’t you agree that India could attract more investment if there was peace in South Asia?

Re: Ras

Thanks for your comments!

Re: Pankaj # 60

Good points…we will just have to wait and see!

Re: Umairr # 57

I did not comment on the role of the Russians or the Europeans, because I wanted to keep this article limited to the quadrant of China, Pakistan, India and the United States.

Re: JamshedN # 49

Thank you for your brilliant insight into my mind!

The article was not an excuse for black mailed based foreign policy options, but merely an attempt to discern some trends in the current politics of Asia and of South Asia. In case you missed the observation, the point of the article, referring to Pakistan, was that Pakistan has very limited foreign policy options, because all its foreign policy options stem from domestic considerations and those consideration are based on the principle of confrontation; status quo in international relations favors compromise and not confrontation!

If you had read the article, you would have noticed that my conclusion was that the Chinese and the Americans would foster the economic conditions you seem to advocate which would discourage the policies of “threat” in South Asia!

Re: Satyavadi # 43

IR is not like an electromagnetic theory; it’s more fluid, because you have to deal with the human elements and that is always tricky. I guess, papers in your field will also look as confused, convoluted and a waste of time, reading wise, to me also! The idea was to narrow the scope and limit the analysis to a few points and not do a “mission policy statement/thesis” as you seem to suggest!

Prior to this year, when was the last time when the Americans accepted the Indian reality of being primus inter pares and said so? During the Cold War, at Partition or any other date since then? India , in the past 53 years, was never officially certified as a power by the Americans as it was recently. Also, thanks for validating my thesis that India is being used by the Americans as political, economic and military leverage against China!

Still, thank you for reading this and taking the time to post your comments!

Re: Solitude # 36

I just relapsed into my IR mode and afterwards when I was doing the editing, did the IR nature of the first paragraph become evident! I am not a “bean counter”. My background and work experience is IR related and I guess, that most IR terms would be too banal for the average person.

Re: Vicky # 33

China’s modernization program is based on four things; economy, industrialization, agriculture and defense. China realizes that Americans have a nasty habit of attaching political considerations to their wheat sales and if given the opportunity, it would like to lessen its dependence on western sources for its basic food grains. Whether you agree or not, land is priceless in China, because it use has to be decided between urban/economic growth and for agricultural use. Feeding its growing population will be a huge problem for China in the future and its effects could have a profound influence on its internal security concerns.

China is looking after its own self-interests and thus, your analogy of a beggar with stock options, though sardonic, is just another poor attempt at trivialization! Better luck next time!

Re: mcgupta # 31

Chinese pressure is intended for Taiwan exclusively. In each case, I tried to see the “issue” from the perceptions of a given nature and since China considers Tibet to an internal matter and it considers the other conflicts you mentioned as, “necessary side shows”, it’s real aim, for which its defenses are being upgraded are to brow beat Taipei into accepting the one China policy.

To get Taiwan back has been the foci logica of the Chinese foreign policy for a long time and other conflicts, which you rightly mentioned, will not force China to lessen its efforts or distract it from its political intention of incorporating Taiwan into the Chinese mainland.

Re: Alia # 30

Thank you for your comments.

I never said that the Sino-Pakistani was real; what I was suggesting that it is going to a quid pro quo relationship. For Pakistan to become a Chinese protégé, it will have to undergo a massive over hauling of its domestic policies and become more stable and less prone to “adventurism”. Rest assured, there will be a cost to all of this!

As an aside, I think that most Chowkwallahs just scanned the article and read what they wanted to and drew their conclusions accordingly. I do not blame them, given its tedious length, but I think that on a closer, less nationalistically passionate, reading they will find a different interpretation.

Re: Narain # 24

Narain, I am glad that you asked those questions.

The reason that makes China an economic hegemon in comparison to India being a military one is in the perceptions of their politicians. The politicians in New Delhi see India’s military power augmenting its economic strength and in their use of their military force projections to influence the events in their favor. Now there is nothing wrong with this approach in IR, but India more than China see its nuclear weapons as a stepping stone to great power status and hence, the reference to the French force d’ frappe doctrine in Indian policies after May 13, 1998. I would suggest that you re-read how the French sought to employ their force d’ frappe and for what reasons and I am sure the difference will become clear.

China is relying more on its economic potential to leverage political influence and not on its military whereas, India is more apt to use its military to reinforce its great power status in IR.

As to the center-periphery issue, by that my intention was to refer to the bureaucratic control of New Delhi, which still opts for direct control and no matter how many states you create in India, but if the bureaucracy refuses to relinquish power, from the center to the periphery, then the argument still holds validity about a sense of alienation in the states. I should have clarified my assertions in this sense and for any misunderstandings thus caused, I take full responsibility.

Again, there was a reason why I included a paragraph on the French nuclear doctrine of force d’ frappe. I think most people just glossed over the details as to why certain things were happening. For everything I have said, I have given a historic rationale for it and if you would just re-read the article, I am sure you will find the answers you were looking to your questions! Also, I do apologize for the fact that most people would have found the historic backgrounds to certain analysis as boring and might not have been aware of them, that is why I would highly recommend a second reading of the article if time permits such a luxury!

Re: Pallu # 23

Where is the critique? You have just taken a thread or two from the article and have based your “taking apart of the article” theme on that! I was accepting more from you, but you disappointed me!

As to your contention about forgetting Partition, it is feasible in the sense that as the partition generation dies and the new generations replaces them, they will not have the living memory of Partition and thus, will see it more as a historical fact than a personal experience. Once that happens, there is hope that we, as nations, can move beyond the policies of hate and rancor and so my friend, there is always hope, but unfortunately it will not happen in our life times.

The present tête-à-tête of hate, though an offshoot of the partition, has more to do with a particular vision of confrontation and intractability to compromise and it is fueled for domestic political reasons in both the nations.

As to the economic reasons, you have to ask yourself the question can India jeopardize its economic growth for the sake of its historic animosity for Pakistan? Can India afford to risk its economy in a crisis with Pakistan? India, in an economic sense, has more to lose in a perpetual state of conflict with Pakistan.

Pakistan has no options, but to agree to such a Carthaginian peace, because its sovereignty, and by implication its foreign policy, has been already mortgaged to its donor nations. Recently, the IMF announced a policy under which the IMF will not financially support nations that support terrorism. Since Pakistan is an aid economy, it cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds it. The only question is whether the Indian leadership realizes the fact or not that it has more to lose than to gain by allowing a state of confrontation to continue with Pakistan.

Re: Shankar # 19

He, who places faith in the Arabs, builds on sand only to weep his misfortune!

In case I missed someone, please let me know! Again, thank you to all who contributed to this discussion!

Ciao!