All the students are informed that they will post their comments on GDB link. Comments for GDB sent via email or posted on regular MDB will not be accepted.
Graded MDB for Pak301 will be opened on February 04, 2013 and will remain open till February 05, 2013. The topic of this GDB will be,
"How do you see Indo-Pak relations in the current scenario?
Post your comments after inferring the above topic. Your comments should NOT exceed from 100 to 120 words.
Read the instructions carefully before sending your comments:
1. Graded MDB carries 5% weightage.
2. Your comments should be relevant to the topic i.e. clear and concise.
3. Post your comments on the GDB & not on the Regular MDB. Both will run in parallel during the time specified above.
4. Do not copy the comments of other Students, as no marks will be awarded for Plagiarism.
5. Do not copy from internet or any other website, and try to create in your own words.
6. Comments sent via e-mail or posted on regular MDB will not be graded.
7. Don’t send your comments twice.
Topic :- "How do you see Indo-Pak relations in the current scenario?
Indo PaK Relation in the Current scenario
The relations between Pakistan and India have rarely been smooth throughout their history. But the situation after November 26 incidents in Mumbai has created unprecedented tension and a quite visible war hysteria.
Should it be taken as an inevitable consequence of the incident, which left 172 dead and kept the Indian agencies engaged for around three days, or there could have been a different approach to deal with the situation? Or putting it differently, did the Mumbai incident offer an opportunity to spur on Pak-India relations? And if the answer is in affirmative, does this opportunity still exist or has it been lost?
These questions are particularly important in the backdrop of a number of Confidence Building Measures taken between the two countries during the past few years. These measures, one may recall, included scores of high level meetings, Parliamentarians' visits, rounds of dialogues, exchange of friendly gestures, people-to-people contacts, sports events, media conferences and a lot of activities by non-government organizations (NGOs) along with a number of track II initiatives.
While there may be two opinions about any significant movement in many areas, the subjects which were being discussed in these interactions were not confined to one or two problems but included as many issues as one could think of. To name a few besides Kashmir, which is certainly a core issue, these included nuclear confidence building measures, conventional confidence building measures, Sir Creek, water issue including Baglihar dam, Wullar barrage and other similar projects, issues related to trade and commerce, smuggling and construction near the borders, road transport and highways, communication links between maritime security agencies, import and transport of gas, cultural exchanges, drug trafficking, intelligence sharing, terrorism and even joint mechanism to deal with the terrorism.
Many believe that these confidence building measures could be strengthened by a responsible behavior at this extraordinary testing moment as it is a fact that the people facing the similar agonies and troubles naturally get closer to one another especially when they share this realization that they are facing a similar threat.
It is probably why the initial reactions of the Pakistani people on Mumbai events were of shock, grief and sympathy. These feelings, expressed by the general public and the officials of Pakistan, were quite natural as on the one hand thousands of innocent people of their own country have lost their lives in similar incidents in recent years and on the other hand, many more have been indirectly affected.
In view of the fact that incidents of violence have seeped down from the far flung areas of the country to the settled areas and even to the capital, it would not be an exaggeration to say that tens of thousands of people are witness to such heinous events whereas millions have seen the blood running in the streets on television.
The affected individuals of Mumbai incidents, especially those who lost their lives on railway station and hospitals, were the same ordinary people as they are and if the hostages in Taj and Oberoi Hotels were elites, Marriot Hotel incident in Islamabad a month ago make them empathise with the victims in Mumbai. Could there be a better opportunity than this for building confidence and bringing the two peoples closer? Nevertheless, these feelings remained alive only for a few hours as the reaction from Indian government and media demonstrated the tendency of losing this opportunity before it even opened up its wings.
This scenario leads to another question: did this opening go waste because of an impulsive reaction? Or was it a prearranged response?
As the aftermath of the incidents is unfolding its angles, it appears to most of the people that this reaction was not impulsive; it was rather a part of some well thought scheme and unfortunately the impression that the opportunity is slipping out of hand is getting stronger with every passing moment.
Many therefore argue that this has only proved the fragility of the whole process of CBMs and has once again exposed the lack of genuineness on the part of one or the other or both to move for a sustainable solution to the disputes and issues being confronted between the two countries, most importantly the issue of Kashmir.
It is in this context that the three speakers, with their vast experience, insightful exposure and immense expertise in Pak-India Relations, will discuss the dynamics of almost a decade long CBMs and Composite Dialogue, current Indian mindset and psyche towards peaceful coexistence, and the role and approach of external powers in the tensions arising as a result of Mumbai incidents. They will also analyze the Indian position, the Role of media in difficult times, Pakistan's response towards Indian stance and the importance of conflict resolution especially in the presence of nuclear arsenals.
Indo-Pak relations in the current scenario
Within the framework of what can be seen as the overall structure of the prevailing Pakistan-India relationship, there are three very important levels at which this relationship exists today i.e. bilateral, regional and global. Bilateral aspect of this relationship is the defining framework of the other two levels.
For instance, as we see right now in terms of bilateral conflict, the other two dimensions also get impacted upon. Of course, the bilateral relationship between Pakistan and India is basically reflected presently or was reflected in the ongoing dialogue and peace process. And what was the hallmark of this dialogue and peace process? Starting from January 2004 joint statement made by Vajpayee and Musharraf, one of the hallmarks of this process has been the total lack of substantive movement on any of the issues of conflict that exist between Pakistan and India.
In fact there has been a basic difference in the approach of the two countries right from the start. India basically wants conflict management and Pakistan has always been seeking conflict resolution and, therefore, the approach of the two countries to dialogue has been very different. Regarding Kashmir, of course, there has been no meeting point. The two countries have been skating around the issue and much has been focused on the measures like bus service and trade and so on. My own view on CBMs is that CBMs are becoming an end in themselves, without pushing the two countries to a final resolution of the conflict.
On Siachin also, where a blueprint of an agreement is existing since the late 1980s, there is no movement at all and India has now adopted an indirect approach to finalize the occupation of the glacier. This is through the so-called Siachin Tourism.
Sir Creek also remains unresolved. As to the water issues also, India is using delaying tactics and Pakistan is seeking international arbitration. An international arbitration, of course, has been provided by the Indus Water Treaty. But there has been no commitment to any substantive movement on issues of conflict.
Looking back to pre-Mumbai, one sees that there existed a relationship that was good atmospheric but nothing substantive, with little bit of progress on the peripheral issues.
Only one exception existed [bilateral annual exchange of lists of nuclear installations] that will be taken up later. So it is not a surprise that when Mumbai happened, everything fell apart because there was nothing substantive.
What marred this relationship was the unilateral concessionary dis-pensation on the Pakistani side which began and included the January 2004 bilateral statement issued by Musharraf and Vajpayee. In this statement, Pakistan basically admitted that it was running so-called terrorist camps and would not allow them to be run in the future.
This was unnecessary; it was the unilateral concessions on the part of Pakistan and therefore Indian demands that are now coming so strongly after Mumbai are because of the leverage provided by Pakistan government. They have given this impression to the Indians that they are prepared to make unilateral concessions on a number of very crucial issues. The present government has gone even further in the unilateralist concessionary mode where land trade route has been acceded. Pakistan's traditional position was always that unless there is some movement towards conflict resolution, we will not make further concessions on trade.
President Zardari declared that India was never a threat. One can not be sure whether he consulted anybody in the institutions that are supposed to give input into decision making. It seems that history is not his strong point because one would wonder what the three wars were fought for had India never been a threat but a loving country in the neighborhood. He also referred to LoC as more or less a border in some of his statements. So a tradition in the Pakistani ruling elite of rewriting history is being capitalized by the present government as well in the case of the Pak-India relationship.
The issue that has now come to the fore is "terrorism". Despite the SAARC and bilateral memoranda on this issue, India has tended to focus continuously on targeting religious groups within Pakistan as well as Pakistan's intelligence agencies especially the ISI. Pakistan, on the other hand, both in the previous government and in the present one, has maintained the strange silence despite the growing Indian involvement in Baluchistan and in FATA. Now, the Indian Anti Terrorist Cell itself has identified rogue elements within Indian army, who have been linked to the Samjhauta Express act of terrorism, where Pakistanis are killed as well as other terrorist attacks where Muslims were target within India itself. Now, despite this clear cut evidence that has come from the Indian side, Pakistan government has not seemed it fit to use either diplomatically or in any other way to bring the perpetrators of Samjhauta Express act of terror to justice.
The question mark that hangs over the intent of Pakistani government is now even more important. In the face of the Mumbai saga we are wondering why Pakistani state is not demanding the handing over of Colonel Purohit and others that have identified by Indians themselves as being involved in the acts of terror. Indians are making the similar demands in connection with Mumbai on evidence that has not yet been substantiated.
Mumbai showed how quickly mere atmospherics can be destroyed and how, once again, India is using the incident to target Pakistan diplomatically while keeping its military options open also. Unfortunately Pakistani government has no clear-cut policy which was also reflected in the bungling approach from the first bizarre declaration of sending the DG ISI to India. It was forgotten that Director General ISI would not have diplomatic cover and could easily have been arrested by the Indian authorities becoming the source of a major embarrassment.
From that act to all sort of other statements that have been coming and finally the clumsy handling of the issue and eventual sacking of Lt. Gen (r) Mahmood Ali Durrani, the National Secretary Advisor; there appears a lack of coherent policy which has allowed India to take advantage of this weakness within the Pakistani government.
One thing is clear that India learnt its lesson in 2001-02 standoff. India this time was not going to mobilize the bulk of its conventional forces in what was supposed to be a conventional war threat. India has realized that it is not feasible because neither side can afford an all out conventional war. So what has India done? There is a lurking suspicion that there is more to the Mumbai acts of terror than meets the eye. There are some unanswered questions. One is of course, this whole issue of the killing of Hemant Karkare, Chief of Anti Terrorism Squad in Mumbai incident. Everybody knows that he had exposed the rogue Hindu extremist elements within the Indians military.
The second question mark is, the excessive evidence that India is pointing towards Pakistan including some small daily use items such as Pakistani tooth pastes - so on and so forth. There is a lot of nonsense in that sort of excessive evidence. If those involved are so well trained that they can engage the Indian security establishment for hours and days and hold them hostage, they are certainly not going to be as clumsy as to leave this trail of rather ridiculous and amateurish evidence in the little rubber boat that they allegedly came on.
As to the identity of Ajmal Kasab, Pakistani government has handled it very badly to begin with. But where this Mr. Kasab arrives from? Was he actually taken from the prison of Nepal or did be actually come by boat and what exactly is his linkage to the Indian agencies if any? How come he is the only one whose picture is clearly taken on CCTV and the only one who is alive or capitalized or whatever you put to it? And now it is said that the lady who identified the other perpetrators has disappeared. So there are a lot of question marks.
India is trying to create a case against people from Pakistan and now insists that they are linked to agencies in Pakistan. The first thing India did was to handover this whole issue to the electronic media. The whole Mumbai saga has been conducted through the media, not through government to government channels. The Indian media took the lead, defined the parameters of the issue, and went on a attacking Pakistan.
The Pakistani media responded, with restraint. But certainly the tone became much more belligerent as the Indian accusations became wilder and more easily flung through the media channels and the impression was given as if India was about to conduct what referred to as surgical strikes. As we know India has Cold Start Doctrine, which is very interesting, having been evolved specifically to counter the sort of what India saw as stalemate because of the stability of the nuclear deterrence. How to get round it? You cannot fight a conventional war because it may cause nuclear war and you cannot have a limited war because you cannot keep the war limited. No one knows how the other side will respond. So they evolved cold start strategy which of course means that a country is capable of deployment within enemy territory, to counter the slow mobilization of the land forces. The assumption was that India would have reached its objectives very quickly and retreat before Pakistan could respond. In the mean time, all the international community would step in, but the anticipation was that when the international community would step in, in any case, it will basically be to stop Pakistani response.
The media built up this whole hype that India was immediately going to strike. My own view is that India was not going to strike, India was going to use all the diplomatic tools available first to discredit Pakistan and this is the stage it has now arrived at. This dossier was also revealed to media. If you have serious, sensitive information, you do not give it to the media. One of the Indian newspapers got hold of it, put it on its website then our media picked it up. So obviously, there is more of a political intent, diplomatic and propaganda game playing in the dossier than really any hard evidence as such. The prime minister of Pakistan has now also stated the same about the dossier, finally.
It seems that the Indian government is going to play the diplomatic game to the bitter end to see what it can squeeze out of Pakistan depending on the pressure Pakistan will come under. Indians have now appealed even to Saudis to put pressure on Pakistan. Americans, of course, do not need much. They are ready to put pressure on Pakistan in any case and they are doing so. British are playing bizarre game, saying Pakistan state is not involved but coming down heavy on Pakistan, demanding to saying do what Indians want.
My own guess is that at the end of the day, if India is not able to get that what it wants through this diplomatic game it may still use cold startoption. I don't think military option is written off; it still exists, and that is why the media continues to be in the forefront. In the India-Pakistan relationship the media has played very important role. We have had SAFMA playing the peacemaker role; we have now delegations of track two people and the media trying to go to India to express sympathy. The media is being used very cleverly by the Indians.
In Pakistan the media has been used effectively to some extent, but at the same time the Pakistani media is not, now going to play any government game as the Indian media is prepared to do. That is the big difference in the media response and counter response. Indian media by and large has toed the Indian government line, what India wanted to do that is to build up the sight to warn the world that Pakistan is not doing anything and, hence, India has no option but to use military card. And Pakistani media has asked more questions. Pakistani media has even given the Indians' point of view. Many Indian hawks have been interviewed on Pakistan television channels. The equivalent has not been there on the Indian televisions.
There is another difference between Pakistani and Indian approach when it comes to media. In India, it is impossible to catch any of the Pakistani channels. Pakistan has not so far closed down any of the Indian channel. India has just ousted the Pakistani theatre groups from India although these are the groups who have been propagating peace with India, so it is rather ironic. Pakistan has not put any breaks on Indian films or Indian music. So, again, unfortunately Pakistan is going into more unilateral accommodations and concessions. It is going to be very costly to Pakistan.
The way to deal with Mumbai is not in a panic and guilt ridden fashion. Pakistan has nothing to be guilty about. If there is a person who is involved in Mumbai who happens to be Pakistani then he should be dealt with according to the law. But, terrorists have no particular nationality. After all, the hijackers of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian government was not drawn and the act was not labeled as state terrorism.
Secondly, the Indian government still has not given anything substantive. If and when it does, the onus is on the Pakistani state to demand that it be given access to the information so that it is able to verify the information and the so called evidence for itself. There is no way that the Pakistani government can accept what India said as the gospel truth. Pakistani agencies and investigators need to be involved in the investigation to see whether India is offering as evidence is really evidence or it is concocted information.
At the regional and global level, the whole issue of terrorism and the relationship with India is very important. India is very closely involved in Afghanistan including in a military fashion; and, therefore, the India factor has become important for Pakistan now for the first time on its western border also.
Another factor that is impinging on Pakistan security is the India-US relationship which has a very strong military and defense component. There is no need to go into details, but there is, of course, missile defense cooperation and the nuclear deal which will allow India to produce a lot of weapons. Americans say that they have de-linked their relationship with India from that of Pakistan But for Pakistan, there is no de-linkage because what the US does with India in terms of weapon system and strategic cooperation has a direct bearing on Pakistan security. We, the Pakistanis, also know that Americans want to bring Indian troops into Afghanistan. So the India-US relationship directly impinges now and creates an added factor for Pakistani security consideration.
In 2006 the Indian Air Chief at that time was on a visit to Washington. He declared that they also have now decided to adopt a pre-emptive doctrine and they have a right to hot pursuit in other countries' territories. If one sees all these dynamics of the Indo-US relationship with the large presence of extra regional forces in the Indian Ocean as well as in Afghanistan and Central Asia, one can understand why we are concerned about the India-US relationship and India's intervention into Afghanistan.
India is seeking a global power status and a permanent seat in the Security Council. But, unfortunately, India until puts its own house and its neighborhood in order, it is not going to be accepted as global power and permanent member of the UNSC. Certainly that also is something that Pakistan has to be wary about and, therefore, become more active in its policies in this connection.
In terms of future scenarios, it is becoming clear that there is going to be low intensity conflict in the region. The region is going to be destabilized as long as Afghanistan is not resolved. As long as the US/NATO military presence remains in Afghanistan, there is going to be instability in this region. It should be remembered that this is the region where US has ambitions to redraw boarders, where energy politics is being played out, where a resurgent Russia is going to seek recovery of its lost influence, and where the US wants to build up India as a core state and as a regional partner because this is the area where the US also wants containment of China.
So unless Pakistan moves towards strengthening its civil society and national polity it will provide a temping vacuum to power games by external players. As far as Pakistan-India relationship is concerned, until there is movement towards visible conflict resolution, any incident, will push everything back to square one. Today it is Mumbai; tomorrow it would be something else.
Only one CBM has not been impacted upon in the crises that both countries have sustained, which is the exchange of the nuclear installations' lists at the end of every year.It also shows that India is aware that the dynamics have changed and that there is a now nuclear order in South Asia. But whereas Pakistan wants to play a more conscious game, India is creating more space in this nuclear scenario for brinkmanship and adventurism. But India also knows that at the end of the day that brinkmanship, if it is not contained, can be an extremely costly way of achieving all the aims and, in fact, in the nuclear situation no one is going to achieve anything.
At the back of India's mind there is this realization and that is why the list was exchanged this December also. But India is testing the waters to see how far it can gat away with it. That, at the end of the day, defines India's present policy after the Mumbai incident. Unfortunately countries like the US are also involved in this very dangerous game that India is playing.
Trade between India and Pakistan
The current level of trade between India and Pakistan is a mere $ 613 million. However, the potential estimate quantifies that two-way trade between Pakistan and India can be about 10 times higher than the current level. With such a huge gap between the actual and the probable, it makes economic sense for both the countries to boost bilateral trades between the two nations.
A major study conducted in three important cities of India showed that the most crucial; step towards enhancing cross-border trade is to adopt the Most Favored Nation (MFN) Principle as it promotes the liberalization of trade among countries. The reason to adopt is that the present Indo-Pak trade scenario is very lackluster because of inhibited trading policies, lack of transparency in dealing and high transaction costs as a result of the previously mentioned factors.
Another major factor hindering the Indo-Pak trade is the inadequate transportation links that include rail and road connectivity. A ray of hope is the attainment of $ 10 billion India and Pakistan's annual trade that is expected due to the initiation of imports and exports through the Integrated Customs Check Posts (ICCP) at Wagha border next year.
During a meeting hosted by Pakistan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI), Indian High Commissioner Sharat Shabharwal said that construction work was going on the checkpost which is expected to be completed before the end of 2011. He stated that the ICCP would have all modern facilities which will aid traders of both countries to ship their consignments promptly and the trade potential of $10 billion between two neighbors could be effortlessly materialized if done through official channels.
"Trading and greater economic integration can make an effective contribution to eliminating poverty from the region and evaluate the living of at least 350 million people living in absolute poverty in the South Asian region", said the Indian High Comissioner. He further added that India had put forward to open up the land route of trade between India and Pakistan via the Khokhrapar-Munabao route.
He also remarked about creating SAARC Shipping Line owned by SAARC countries and said this proposal would be passed on to the concerned authorities. A proposal about the issuance of five-year multiple visas to 500 businessman of SAARC Chamber could also be in the piping.
S.M. Muneer, President of India-Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has earlier said that both nations should carry on trade without hurdles and not mix trade with politics. He further noted, "We should find a way to boost bilateral trade and ring all the unofficial trade through transshipment into legal channels".
India can look up to its recent trade developments in developments in BIMSTEC, ASEAN and in Indo-Sri Lanka and Indo-Nepal trade agreements, and draws lessons to enhance Indo-Pakistan trade.
One hopes that the immediate future of India-Pakistan relations is not beset by blame-game problems drawing strong sustenance from the incidences that happen in both countries such as the terrorist assault on Mumbai.
A group of our parliamentarians are presently on a goodwill mission in India.
It is very much in Pakistan’s interest to have a peaceful eastern border.
The eastern border, however, will be peaceful when our eastern neighbour agrees to resolve the disputes that have over the last many decades bedevilled relations between the two countries. How I wish Islamabad and New Delhi could sincerely sit down and make a determined effort to find solutions to these issues.
Independence came to the subcontinent with the partition of the border provinces of Bengal, Punjab and Sindh. There were massive waves of migration from both sides and a lot of bloodshed.
Right at the very start, there was a veritable war between the new states in and about Kashmir. Today, there is an India occupied Kashmir and a Pakistan held Kashmir. Also, there are the northern areas now known as Gilgit-Baltistan.
Kashmir is an international dispute. Its solution lies in the implementation of the UN resolutions. It was India that took the matter to the United Nations. It agreed to let the Kashmiris themselves decide their destiny by opting for either of the two countries. New Delhi has blatantly reneged on the solemn commitment to hold a plebiscite under the UN auspices.
It has, in fact, added the disputed state to its territories and has made it as its integral part of (Atootang), laying down special provisions for it in the Constitution. Hot wars have been fought by the two countries to settle the burning issue. The people of the occupied state have suffered grievously. Tens of thousands of them have been brutally killed. Many more disabled. Women raped and property destroyed. India has also resorted to sealing the border, which has practically put a stop to jihadis crossing over to help the oppressed Kashmiris gain their independence. After the mismanaged and badly handled Kargil incursion, India has hardened its stand. With the USA tilting over to Bharat, the Kashmiris have suffered a huge setback as the international community more or less has acquiesced to the Indian claim to the territory. With Pakistan losing strength economically and India adding enormously to its military resources as well as making formidable diplomatic strides, the prospects for an early settlement of the Kashmir dispute have receded considerably. All that Pakistan can do at present is to politically and diplomatically support the cause of freedom of the Kashmiris, keep the issue alive internationally and work for their human rights. Alas, Pakistan’s government has all along been found deficient in discharging even this limited responsibility.
India’s major interest in its dealings with Pakistan is to have a dominant relationship, reducing its status to that of a satellite. Its strategy for Pakistan has two prongs. One relating to economy and the other to culture.
The foundation of Pakistan was built by the Quaid on the ground that Muslims in India possessed a distinct culture of their own and to preserve and promote it, they have to have a territory where they could live in freedom and in accordance with their beliefs and traditions. In a democratic free India, they would remain at the mercy of a “brute majority” of non-Muslims.
As a well considered stratagem, India over the years has, through various ways and means, been seeking to obliterate the cultural distinction and differences. Films, songs and TV programmes have already contributed enormously towards the achievement of this objective. Heroes and heroines of our youth already are the Indian movie stars. Bachan, Lata, Shahrukh, Karina and Katrina are, indeed, our teenagers’ heartthrobs.
The headway thus made is being sought by the Indian policymakers to be carried forward by seeking to soften the border and letting people move freely across it to mingle and merge. One has only to recall how every vocal Indian visitor always makes the point that we are one people, that we have one culture and when we come here we feel we have come to our own home.
(Yes, indeed, ask the savaged and battered Kashmiris and the thousands of Gujaratees dislodged and mercilessly killed. Also, recall the burnt Pakistani victims of the Samjhota Express.) I often wonder, how come these Pakistan’s lovers would not allow our beloved Quaid’s house in Mumbai to be used for housing the Pakistani consulate. And how is that well off and famous Indian Muslims cannot secure a house on rent in the blessed city. It was quite a shock listening to Shabana Azmi complaining that she was refused point blank every time she sought to ask for a house to live in Mumbai. How would a peacenik like Kuldip Nayyar explain such behaviour on the part of enlightened Indians living in a modern metropolitan city?
So all this cooing and sweet wooing needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
The second prong is to forge levers of influence and power by building up a burgeoning economic relationship. Pakistan’s economy has hit the rock bottom, with all kinds of crises gripping its jugular veins - energy shortage, industry losing steam, inflation soaring, debt escalating, unemployment rising, corruption rampant, education in tatters, law and order deteriorating by the day, terrorism taking its toll and to cap it all, a venal and tainted government openly defying the highest court of the country.
What better times for an ascendant India to enter the scene and flex its economic muscle, to help a poor, miserable neighbour struggling to recover. Can one forget that it was trade which made the East India Company gain influence and clout and capture power?
So dear readers, Aman Ki Asha is good. I am sure all sane Pakistanis would like to work for it. Of course, not blindly! Can we afford to be oblivious of history and facts and forget how and why Pakistan came into existence?
Why it was that a staunch Indian nationalist, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who fought for years valiantly for a united India and held the highest political office of becoming the President of the Indian Congress Party, ultimately came to the crucial conclusion that for sheer survival as honourable people intent on their own culture and practices, the Muslims had to have a separate, independent country of their own. And having realised it as Iqbal, indeed, had earlier arrived at the same understanding, he put his stout heart and indomitable will to the task of creating a land of their own in the subcontinent.
Relations between India and Pakistan have been strained by a number of historical and political issues, and are defined by the violent partition of British India in 1947, the Kashmir dispute and the numerous military conflicts fought between the two nations. Consequently, even though the two South Asian nations share historic, cultural, geographic, and economic links, their relationship has been plagued by hostility and suspicion.
After the dissolution of the British Raj in 1947, two new sovereign nations were formed—theUnion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. The subsequent partition of the former British India displaced up to 12.5 million people, with estimates of loss of life varying from several hundred thousand to a million. India emerged as a secular nation with a Hindu majoritypopulation and a large Muslim minority while Pakistan was established as an Islamic republicwith an overwhelming Muslim majority population.
Soon after their independence, India and Pakistan established diplomatic relations but the violent partition and numerous territorial disputes would overshadow their relationship. Since their independence, the two countries have fought three major wars, one undeclared war and have been involved in numerous armed skirmishes and military standoffs. TheKashmir dispute is the main center-point of all of these conflicts with the exception of theIndo-Pakistan War of 1971, which resulted in the secession of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).
There have been numerous attempts to improve the relationship—notably, the Shimla summit, the Agra summit and the Lahore summit. Since the early 1980s, relations between the two nations soured particularly after the Siachen conflict, the intensification of Kashmir insurgency in 1989, Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in 1998 and the 1999 Kargil war. Certainconfidence-building measures — such as the 2003 ceasefire agreement and the Delhi–Lahore Bus service — were successful in deescalating tensions. However, these efforts have been impeded by periodic terrorist attacks. The 2001 Indian Parliament attack almost brought the two nations on the brink of a nuclear war. The 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, which killed 68 civilians (most of whom were Pakistani), was also a crucial point in relations. Additionally, the 2008 Mumbai attacks carried out by Pakistani militants resulted in asevere blow to the ongoing India-Pakistan peace talks.
About half a million Muslims and Hindus were killed in communal riots following the partition of British India. Millions of Muslims living in India and Hindus and Sikhs living in Pakistan emigrated in one of the most colossal transfers of population in the modern era. Both countries accused each other of not providing adequate security to the minorities emigrating through their territory. This served to increase tensions between the newly-born countries.
According to the British plan for the partition of British India, all the 680 princely stateswere allowed to decide which of the two countries to join. With the exception of a few, most of the Muslim-majority princely-states acceded to Pakistan while most of the Hindu-majority princely states joined India. However, the decisions of some of the princely-states would shape the Pakistan-India relationship considerably in the years to come.
The large size of the Indian diaspora and Pakistani diaspora in many different countries throughout the world has created strong diasporic relations. British Indians and British Pakistanis, the largest and second-largest ethnic minorities living in the United Kingdom respectively, are said to have friendly relations with one another. It is quite common for a "Little India" and a "Little Pakistan" to co-exist in South Asian ethnic enclaves in overseas countries. There are various cities such as Birmingham, Blackburn andManchester where British Indians and British Pakistanis live alongside each other in peace and harmony. Both Indians and Pakistanis living in the UK fit under the category of British Asian. The UK is also home to the Pakistan & India friendship forum. In the United States, Indians and Pakistanis are classified under the South Asian American category and share many cultural traits. The British MEP Saj Karim is of Pakistani origin. He is a member of the European Parliament Friends of India Group, Karim was also responsible for opening up Europe to free trade with India. He narrowly escaped the Mumbai attacks at Hotel Taj in November 2008. Despite the atrocity, Mr Karim does not wish the remaining killer Ajmal Kasab to be sentenced to death. He said: "I believe he had a fair and transparent trial and I support the guilty verdict. "But I am not a supporter of capital punishment. I believe he should be given a life sentence, but that life should mean life."
thanxx Manza Ali hum kar le ge
only 120 words
ok kr lean
Manza Ali Thanks for sharing
100 - 120 words likhny hy just .....
to kon kon sy points likhny hou gay
Today, puzzled and perplexed people in Pakistan wonder why the cold war with India has suddenly turned hot as demonstrated by the continued violations across the Line of control (LoC). , this is far from certain. Given the tense character of the relationship between India and Pakistan, and the extreme instability of geo-political situation of South Asia. “This has been the historical trend: that whenever India and Pakistan move toward peace, one small incident reverses all progress made by the dialogue process.” Accusing “the sensationalism of the Indian media” for aggravation of the “blame game by the two countries.