Nawaz sharif may give Pak/ind relations a boost

Mehrushka

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Nawaz Sharif may give Pakistan-India relations a boost

Islamabad - Indian-Pakistani relations, for years fraught with tension, appear on the surface to have received a boost from the stunning electoral comeback by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.


TRENDING DISCUSSIONS

Since Sharif's decisive victory in the May 11 national elections, he and Manmohan Singh, prime minister of nuclear archrival India, have chatted amicably by phone and have invited each other to visit. Newspapers in both countries buzz with editorials and commentaries about the potential for a ramp-up in economic and political ties. But despite the pleasantries, entrenched realities remain that analysts say could temper the likelihood of a Pakistani-Indian friendship.

Sharif, 63, is still a leader with two distinct sides. At his core, he's a deal-making businessman, a wealthy steel magnate who understands the importance of opening Pakistan's crippled economy to trade with its neighbour, a South Asian powerhouse and one of the world's leading emerging markets.

But he's also a conservative Muslim with a reputation for being soft on militants. He was one of the world's only political leaders to recognise the Afghan Taliban government, doing so in May 1997, eight months after the group seized power.

Stronger ties with Pakistan are important to New Delhi, but so is a commitment from the new Sharif government that it will clamp down on ‘militant’ groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which India and the West say was responsible for the 2008 attacks in Mumbai that killed more than 160 people.

"Sharif will have to have a very clear policy on militancy and the terrorist organisations," said Raza Rumi, a senior analyst at the Islamabad-based Jinnah Institute. "They are the big threat to his foreign policy initiatives. If he can change that, then there's a direct impact on India-Pakistan relations."

Pakistan and India's history since gaining independence from Britain in 1947 has been marred by conflict and brinkmanship. The countries have fought three wars in six decades, and remain deadlocked over the fate of Kashmir, the Himalayan region claimed by both countries.

Relations between the nuclear-equipped nations have warmed somewhat over the last couple of years. But crises continue to sidetrack the strengthening of ties.

In January, a spate of cross-border skirmishes in Kashmir that killed both Pakistani and Indian troops renewed friction. Tension worsened this month when Sarabjit Singh, an Indian man serving a Pakistani prison sentence for spying, died after being beaten by other inmates. The next day, a Pakistani prisoner in an Indian prison was beaten by an Indian inmate and later died. The countries blamed each other for allowing the attacks to take place.

President Asif Ali Zardari, whose ruling Pakistan People's Party was the big loser in this month's parliamentary elections, oversaw several steps aimed at rapprochement with India. Among them was an announcement of Pakistan's intent to grant its eastern neighbor "most favored nation" status, though Pakistani businesses' concern that the designation would mean more competition has kept Islamabad from implementing the measure. The move would eliminate discriminatory pricing and mutually impose lower tariffs and high import quotas.


Sharif has a record of striving toward improved relations with India. During his last stint as prime minister, from 1997 to 1999, he talked with his Indian counterpart, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, about possible solutions to the Kashmir dispute and inaugurated a "friendship" bus line from the Indian border to Lahore.

The relationship-building came to a halt in 1999 due to Kargil issue, triggering a three-month military conflict. Sharif has maintained that he was unaware of Musharraf's plans.

Later that year, Musharraf seized power from Sharif, who lived in exile in Saudi Arabia until 2007, when he returned to Pakistan.
Sharif's relationship with Pakistan's military leadership will largely dictate how successful he is in drawing his country closer to India. The military still holds sway over relations with India, and if it felt threatened by his agenda, it could derail it, analysts say.

Pakistani army chief Gen Ashfaq Kayani allowed Zardari's administration to nurture closer trade ties with India, and Pakistani commentators viewed Kayani's sit-down with Sharif over the weekend as a sign that the military leader wanted a positive start to their relationship.

Kayani, however, is expected to retire this year and it isn't known whether his successor will take the same approach to India. Former US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter said in a briefing this month that unless Sharif and his team "come up with a comprehensive or coherent approach to India that involves not only the power players among the civilians, but among the military, there may be limits to what they can do."

Another factor working against rapid improvement in relations is India's upcoming election, which must be held before May 2014. The Congress Party-led coalition government has presided over a string of corruption scandals and a struggling economy that has weakened its ability to make bold moves.

Singh, 80, reportedly sees improved Pakistan- India relations as a potential legacy after years in office. In a letter shortly after Sharif's election, Singh invited Sharif to visit India at a mutually convenient time. "I look forward to working with you and your government to chart a new course and pursue a new destiny in the relations between our countries," he wrote.

But Singh has often gotten ahead of his government, notably at a 2009 meeting in Egypt when he was criticized at home for extending a hand to Islamabad. India's largest opposition party this month made clear its resistance to rapid rapprochement. "Pakistan has the excitement of a new government, India has the fatigue of an outgoing government," said Shekhar Gupta, editor in chief of the Indian Express newspaper.


http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-n...rif-may-give-pakistan-india-relations-a-boost
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IhsanIlahi

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Pehly to Ganjju Kaargil pe muaafi mangy ga.... phir mumbai pe muaafi mangy gaa.... phir naak ragry gaa.... phir pata nahi kia kia ragry gaa.... us k baad Manmohan Singh pakistan k prime minister ko apny deedaar karny ka sharf dy ga,,,,,,
 
Last edited by a moderator:

miafridi

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Two solutions.

1) Solve kashmir issue involving all the stake holders, including army and kashmiri's.

2) Improve trade ties. As more trade will increase the interests of both nations and will reduce chances of war as both will have interest inside the other country and war will shatter their interest.
 

Khallas

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
No Relationship with Endya till they stop Killing innocent Kashmiri's and stop insurgencies in Pakistan

Rundiya say kisi bhi kisam ki trade bohat bari bewaqoofi hay... pehlay yeh trade karain gaye bad main black mail... in Rundiyon ko run-murdii per lagao tejaraat per nahin...

Nawaz sharif to haay hi baaghairaat too king isay chahye Party naam say Muslim League haata day or Hindu League laga day
 

cms123

Minister (2k+ posts)
Sure, of course NS has to give a boost :13:. He is starving to earn more money by exporting sugar/wheat to india and then importing back. "Vote phaink tamashaa deakh"
 

sngilani

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
People won't believe you to normalize relations with India just because you have committed, you need more than that. India is supporting terrorism inside Pakistan. India has built 64 dams in Kashmir only to sell electricity to Pakistan. Millions of rupees are being spent by RAW to keep people of Pakistan fighting with each other. Goals are crumbling Pakistan handing over its nukes peacefully in safe custody of the UN. With its current growth rate, India is going to be a super power in 2050. India has already dominated on all its neighbors. Policy of unfair domination is the ultimate goal.
 

Zionist Hindu

Senator (1k+ posts)
People won't believe you to normalize relations with India just because you have committed, you need more than that. India is supporting terrorism inside Pakistan. India has built 64 dams in Kashmir only to sell electricity to Pakistan. Millions of rupees are being spent by RAW to keep people of Pakistan fighting with each other. Goals are crumbling Pakistan handing over its nukes peacefully in safe custody of the UN. With its current growth rate, India is going to be a super power in 2050. India has already dominated on all its neighbors. Policy of unfair domination is the ultimate goal.

Stop believing in conspiracy theories. Nawaz sherif is smart and knows what is good for his country.
 

desicad

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Two solutions.

1) Solve kashmir issue involving all the stake holders, including army and kashmiri's.
2) Improve trade ties. As more trade will increase the interests of both nations and will reduce chances of war as both will have interest inside the other country and war will shatter their interest.
didn't get this.......is army stake different than pakistani people?.......
 

miafridi

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by miafridi
Two solutions.

1) Solve kashmir issue involving all the stake holders, including army and kashmiri's.
2) Improve trade ties. As more trade will increase the interests of both nations and will reduce chances of war as both will have interest inside the other country and war will shatter their interest.


didn't get this.......is army stake different than pakistani people?.......

Political parties only knows the political/social pros and cons of a deal but army knows the strategic importance of an area or a decision on war/peace. For example if Kashmir is to be decided to be broken into two part and to share one part each among Pakistan and India, then the question will arise as to which part should be merged to Pak and which to india. so for example one part consist of mountains that has gold and the other part consist of mountains with rocks only. But it is decided that the part which contains gold should become part of Pakistan and the one with rocks should be part of india. Now Pakistani politician will gladly accept it knowing that it is gold rich, but who knows that the rock rich mountainous may have an edge over the gold rich region strategically? Who knows that The rock rich region will prove to be the best part of the region to wage war and give maximum damage(greater than the benefits of the gold) to the other Part(Pakistan)? Just like the Kargil region. It is said that the kargil region is the backbone to the indian occupation on siachin and the kashmir. If Pakistan had got the control of that region it would have blocked indian access to siachen and even Kashmir and may have forced them to surrender in kashmir as the forces in kashmir would have no supplies to continue the occupation due to blockade of supplies through the kargil region.

The above example is fictional one, but in real world things like it happen. What seems a beneficial deal apparently may be not as beneficial as you think. And strategic importance is a necessary part of every deal. And what areas are strategic and what not, it can only be decided by the army.

Army is always an important stake holder in territorial issues or in solving war issues. No government takes decision on its own while talking about such issues as we can also see in the war of terror in afghanistan that US first takes briefing from the army chief's and then device their strategy of future regarding the war.
 

desicad

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Political parties only knows the political/social pros and cons of a deal but army knows the strategic importance of an area or a decision on war/peace. For example if Kashmir is to be decided to be broken into two part and to share one part each among Pakistan and India, then the question will arise as to which part should be merged to Pak and which to india. so for example one part consist of mountains that has gold and the other part consist of mountains with rocks only. But it is decided that the part which contains gold should become part of Pakistan and the one with rocks should be part of india. Now Pakistani politician will gladly accept it knowing that it is gold rich, but who knows that the rock rich mountainous may have an edge over the gold rich region strategically? Who knows that The rock rich region will prove to be the best part of the region to wage war and give maximum damage(greater than the benefits of the gold) to the other Part(Pakistan)? Just like the Kargil region. It is said that the kargil region is the backbone to the indian occupation on siachin and the kashmir. If Pakistan had got the control of that region it would have blocked indian access to siachen and even Kashmir and may have forced them to surrender in kashmir as the forces in kashmir would have no supplies to continue the occupation due to blockade of supplies through the kargil region.

The above example is fictional one, but in real world things like it happen. What seems a beneficial deal apparently may be not as beneficial as you think. And strategic importance is a necessary part of every deal. And what areas are strategic and what not, it can only be decided by the army.

Army is always an important stake holder in territorial issues or in solving war issues. No government takes decision on its own while talking about such issues as we can also see in the war of terror in afghanistan that US first takes briefing from the army chief's and then device their strategy of future regarding the war.
the very first line is totally wrong thinking and that continues through out the response........
political leaders i.e, govt. cabinet may or may not consult army for their inputs depending on the situation, but will decide what is to be done and army will just execute if and when asked to.......
 

miafridi

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
the very first line is totally wrong thinking and that continues through out the response........
political leaders i.e, govt. cabinet may or may not consult army for their inputs depending on the situation, but will decide what is to be done and army will just execute if and when asked to.......

Two questions and there answers:
1) How can you make effective and successful decision on an issue without knowing the facts?
Ans: You cannot.
2) Who should you talk to for knowing facts?
Ans: The people or the institution involved.

I didn't say that the army should influence the decision of the political party .of course ultimately it is the political party that make decisions and army has to comply with that decision. What i said was that army is a stake holder in territorial issues because in case of bad decisions which can result in wars or continuation of war, it is the army who suffers. Army cannot and should not force a political party over making a certain decision but in order to be successful the political party must consult the army on such issues to know the ground realities or else they are more likely going to make a faulty decision.
 

desicad

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Two questions and there answers:
1) How can you make effective and successful decision on an issue without knowing the facts?
Ans: You cannot.
2) Who should you talk to for knowing facts?
Ans: The people or the institution involved.

I didn't say that the army should influence the decision of the political party .of course ultimately it is the political party that make decisions and army has to comply with that decision. What i said was that army is a stake holder in territorial issues because in case of bad decisions which can result in wars or continuation of war, it is the army who suffers. Army cannot and should not force a political party over making a certain decision but in order to be successful the political party must consult the army on such issues to know the ground realities or else they are more likely going to make a faulty decision.
well the issue is not the consultation or taking inputs from the army......final decision is with the elected leadership......that we more or less agree........if you revisit your first post the point I was trying to make is that the army is not a separate stake holder......your post gives the impression that civil leadership and army are not on the same page or you don't trust your politicians.........to make it simpler, if I were you (and from my point of view) will say all stakeholders should be involved including India and Kashmiris..........
 

miafridi

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
well the issue is not the consultation or taking inputs from the army......final decision is with the elected leadership......that we more or less agree........if you revisit your first post the point I was trying to make is that the army is not a separate stake holder......your post gives the impression that civil leadership and army are not on the same page or you don't trust your politicians.........to make it simpler, if I were you (and from my point of view) will say all stakeholders should be involved including India and Kashmiris..........

let me give you an example. probably you will understand my point of view then. suppose your parents want you get married but they don't even ask your permission and perform your marriage. They can do it but they shouldn't. They should involve you in the decision making to make sure you get a happy life.

Similarly you are right in saying that the main three stake holders are India,Pakistan And kashmiri's. But when making decisions every country be it india or Pakistan, will be consulting its own internal stake holders. Although they can take the decision on their own and no one would stop them from making the decision, but a good way to make a decision is to involve your institutions input. If you don't use their input you won't be blamed for it, and it also doesn't mean that you are not loyal to your country but you may make a faulty decision.
 
Last edited:

desicad

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
let me give you an example. probably you will understand my point of view then. suppose your parents want you get married but they don't even ask your permission and perform your marriage. They can do it but they shouldn't. They should involve you in the decision making to make sure you get a happy life.

Similarly you are right in saying that the main three stake holders are India,Pakistan And kashmiri's. But when making decisions every country be it india or Pakistan, will be consulting its own internal stake holders. Although they can take the decision on their own and no one would stop them from making the decision, but a good way to make a decision is to involve your institutions input. If you don't use their input you won't be blamed for it, but you may make a faulty decision.
you are not getting what am trying to say.....or we may have to agree to disagree...........when you mention say India as a stake holder, it goes without saying that the govt. has taken inputs from the army and it is on board.......the nation as a whole is a stake holder, army cannot and should be mentioned as a separate stake holder......
 

Back
Top