Originally Posted by
Yaatri
All very good points, except one. I am sure you can guess what that is. It's your last point. The point isn't what India did, but what Pakistan did for its own people. Neither India nor Pakistan were happy with the outcome of the partition. For one it was a sense of loss, not just territorial, but the idea of one nation with common history, and heritage, with different religions, languages and cultural mosaic with nuances coming from religious and political experiences, while for the other, it was a sense of pride and accomplishment in not being what India was and was to become.
Note: I underlined the previous sentence, because it is very important. After all, being India is not so bad.
The biggest mistake, I am sure you will agree with me, that leaders of Pakistan made was to align itself with one post colonial power, which merely replaced the one before. As it is political institutions in what became Pakistan, in spite of Jinnah's Muslim League, were not as well developed as they were in India, with the alignment with that one power, Pakistani leadership repeatedly failed its people. Pakistan would have been much better of had it chosen the path of neutrality between the two super powers. Aligning itself with a superpower and an upcoming power, China, would not have been necessary, had confrontation with India not been the overriding concern of Pakistan.
For both nations, confrontation has meant lost opportunities for their own people.
There is much similarity between tactics followed by both powers and Pakistan. Using asymmetry of a conflict to its advantage, the same tactic that was used through T.E. Lawrence by the Arab Bureau of Foreign office during and after World War I to dismantle Ottoman empire, often with great success. Pakistan is now a victim of that success.
Just like Pakistan's NWFP, India has its own problems in Assam and what was NEFA and is now carved into half a dozen states.
It is my impression too that Pakistan had(s) less hunger and poverty than India does. At an individual level, an Indian's biggest concern basic economic security, food and shelter, but for a Pakistani, it's personal as well as economic security.
When Swat operation began, I had asked on this BB had anyone given any thought to the strife brought upon a million or more refugees. Any success in war on terror is hollow if people are homeless and hungry.
I don't disagree with any of your points above, and it has long been my assertion that there really is no need for any conflict between India and Pakistan, as both countries have the same problems, concerns, ambitions and goals. However, in the environment created immediately after partition, with Pushtun tribesmen marching into Kashmir, and Indian forces taking Junagadh, Manavadar and Hyderabad, I think both countries became unnecessarily fixated on territory and the need for an arms race, rather than the practicalities of serving their people and leveraging the complementary infrastructure of empire each had inherited.
My earlier point regarding India's failure to maintain fairness and balance relates to regional stability and by default the ability of successive Pakistani governments to concentrate on development rather than defence (or offence, as India would view it). If we are honest, the dispute over Kashmir is not really about religion, principle, nationhood or jingoism at all. It's about controlling water. There is one thing India could have done in the 1940's, 50's and even 60's that would have guaranteed a resolution to the Kashmir issue decades ago and peace today, and that would have been to guaranty the flow of water to Pakistan's river systems.
An Indian position of fairness in the apportioning of water and separating the issue of water flow from all other bilateral issues would, in my opinion have allowed Pakistani governments as far back as Ayub Khan's to disengage from their hard stance on Kashmir which ultimately led to outright war and strategic depth via militancy, radicalization, etc. It could well have prevented the 1971 war and the subsequent layer of bad blood between the two countries, and certainly would have curtailed the activities of the Khalistan movement at that time. Furthermore, Pakistan might have also foregone nuclear weapons development and without a doubt Pakistan would not have seen a need to fight the Russians in Afghanistan if it did not fear Indian hegemony and shutting off of the water supply.
A neutral stance on the invasion of Afghanistan would have almost certainly prevented a number of things from occurring that ultimately led to the US war on terror.
Even today, I think the opportunity exists for both countries to resolve almost all their disputes if India would guaranty water to Pakistan instead of diverting it away, intermittently shutting it off and releasing it at inopportune times to create unnecessary flooding. I know not many people think about this, but I guaranty you, this is all the Pakistan military thinks about.