Top Indian Myths about Pakistan!

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How about starting a thread on Pakistani myths about West, Israel & India?

Myth no. 1 - Christianity, Judaism & Hinduism together are trying to wipe out Islam from the earth.

Why not start with this point? Many posters here believe this to be true.

I think that particular myth is a 'Muslim myth' not a solely Pakistani one.

The Pakistani one would be about the CIA/RAW destabilizing Pakistan - but since the jury is still out on that one, we can't really comment.

We'll only find out when the fighting is over.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Very convenient for you then. Don't bother about the background, don't worry about what series of events transpired when India supported your so called proxies or insurgents. At least be aware that Indian actions, if at all any, are/were reactive, more so in her own national interests. Your deeds on the contrary still continue to stem from a mentality based on hatred towards India, something which Zia Ul Haq left you with. No national interests involved whatsoever from your side.

Actually I disagree that Indian actions were reactive, I believe Pakistani actions were reactive - which is why I did not make any judgments on that count, and why I am not interested in going down that road on this thread.

The myths I pointed out are pretty clearly worded to avoid a 'blame game'

 

[rokhanyousafzai]

So you admit what AAK Niazi told about in "'The betrayal of east pakistan" is correct to the letter and spirit. If so read it one more time it would give you better insight.

have u read it can u disprove what he said it was obvious that Bhutto and alot of pakistani leadership couldnt make it happen with the bengali nationals if u have read it then i suggest u read it again cause it doesnt seem to have sunk in, the man died trying to clear his name so he knew he did no wrong anyone who has read it knows this its a fantastic book from a general whos success and leadership is something all pakistanis should be proud of. We were failed by our politicians and senoir leadership if u read the book the state of our top command was disgusting.

 

[wtf]

The real picture is more complicated - you are starting to argue over a tangential issue - of the opportunity cost of military expenditure. That argument can be raised with respect to any nation's military expenditure, including India, where hundreds of millions live in poverty.

My point was that the Pakistani public and polity does not view it in the context Indians view it in, of being obsessed with Kashmir to the extent that discourse over socio-economic development takes a back seat in our media and politics.

For the vast majority of Pakistanis, the demands from the government are of jobs, investment in social infrastructure etc. and not of whether they promise to 'free Kashmir'.

Kashmir comes under foreign policy and on kashmir, as I pointed out, most major political parties have had a largely similar position, so it is incorrect to argue that Pakistanis 'choose' between development and Kashmir.

What you are saying is that since Pakistani politicians do not talk about Kashmir, it is not important. That's not true.

No politician talks about Pakistan being/not being a Muslim country either - but I would say that is central to Pakistan too. The difference between Kashmir and Islamiyat is that Islamiyat costs nothing. Kashmir actually costs you money.

When will you realize that foreign policy affects the economy ? And when will you figure out that it is trivial for a politicial party to cover up its ineptness by trotting out Kashmir issue every so often ?

In India an equivalent issue is the caste based reservation or women's reservation. No party can be seen as being weak on reservations, and it is an easy issue to whip up popular emotions. I see Kashmir as something similar, except that Pakistani parties have not been able to show any progress, on the front, so they are all silent.

 

[A1Kaid]

Another prominent Indian & Int. Myth about Pakistan.


Myth #7
Pakistan is a terror state. Pakistan is funding and supporting terrorism in the region and World.

Pakistan is a prominent partner on the War on Terror, major nations of the world have also acknowledged this like US & EU, China and Russia. Pakistan has spent 8 years fighting this War on Terror or as it is now called Pakistan's War, after the Pakistani Nation martyred 800 of it's sons the World still has the nerve to call Pakistan a terror state. Recent operations in Bajaur, Buner district, and tribal areas have proven that the Pakistani Army is tough on terror and is serious about defeating hostile militants who pose danger to the international fora. There is no official or state support of terrorism by Pakistan. Political battles and Geo-Political battles in the region have been carried out against strategic targets, however innocent civilians have never been the target.

There is no evidence of Pakistan supporting or funding terrorist around the World. Some suggest, Pakistan is providing a "safe haven" to militants. Any man who picks up a weapon in the tribal region can be mistaken for a 'militant', and again Pakistan has strategically been waging war against hostile entities and infrastructure.

Truth: Pakistan is NOT a Terror State but a legitimate State working towards peace & development.

 

[wtf]

The real picture is more complicated - you are starting to argue over a tangential issue - of the opportunity cost of military expenditure. That argument can be raised with respect to any nation's military expenditure, including India, where hundreds of millions live in poverty.

My point was that the Pakistani public and polity does not view it in the context Indians view it in, of being obsessed with Kashmir to the extent that discourse over socio-economic development takes a back seat in our media and politics.

For the vast majority of Pakistanis, the demands from the government are of jobs, investment in social infrastructure etc. and not of whether they promise to 'free Kashmir'.

Kashmir comes under foreign policy and on kashmir, as I pointed out, most major political parties have had a largely similar position, so it is incorrect to argue that Pakistanis 'choose' between development and Kashmir.

You have so far claimed that Kashmir is not a big issue in Pakistan without giving any backing.
Here is my perspective, told by a (hopefully) neutral organization
International Crisis Group - The View from Islamabad
http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/pakistankashmir.pdf

Pakistan’s policy towards Kashmir is shaped by perceptions of an Indian threat and a history of war but also by the wider question of its relations with India. It is also influenced by domestic imperatives. The conflict is placed on the backburner when relations improve. Some governments have used the Kashmir conflict to reinforce Pakistani nationalism and others to strengthen pan-Islamism. Pakistani governments have also used the dispute to acquire domestic legitimacy or to ensure regime survival.

The same group says this about Indian views
International Crisis Group - The View from New Delhi

In general, public opinion is not set against an agreement and is supportive of peace initiatives since Kashmir, for most Indians, is not the most pressing of the country’s major problems.

 

[wtf]

Myth 1. Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.
A myth, agreed.
No idea if the myth is prevalent in India. Almost all talk is about 1971 and Indo-China war (one victory, one defeat).


Myth 2. Pakistan fights through proxies

True as AM himself said. ISI involvement is believed ongoing, atleast if NYtimes is to be believed.


Myth 3.India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.

No evidence given atleast by AM.
On the other hand most Indians know that India did interfere in Bangladesh (but think Pakistan fired first). Most Indians also think that India made a mess by sending IPKF to Sri Lanka and being on the hate list of both sides.
If there is any evidence of ongoing aggression by India, please provide a link by a non-Pakistani newspaper or a peer reviewed study.

Myth 4. Pakistan spends 70% (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.

Clearly false. Evidence clearly shows 17%-27%.(Posted link to budget sites of govts.) I think it is a strawman attack by AM.


Myth 5. Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir

Seems from available evidence that no party can afford to be seen as weak- hence I'd say yes, it is dominated by Kashmir. (I posted 2 studies with regional perspectives - written by a US organization)

 

[wtf]

Another prominent Indian & Int. Myth about Pakistan.

Recent operations in Bajaur, Buner district, and tribal areas have proven that the Pakistani Army is tough on terror and is serious about defeating hostile militants who pose danger to the international fora

Pakistan finally took up the battle that they should have fought 10 years ago. Now it looks more like a civil war than a war on terror. Pakistani's did not move until Taliban clearly announced that they were against the central government. Otherwise they were willing to compromise (so far 3 treaties signed between Army/Taliban), give up judiciary (Shariah amendment), give up executive power (policemen being killed for last year and army not acting). So since the war is about central power vs. Taliban rule and not about terror and non-terror, I think it should be called a civil war. Pakistan lost the other battle a long time ago by simply not fighting.

Pakistan again won't act of terror camps in Kashmir until it is too late (to the disadvantage of both India and Pakistan).

Yeah, but I agree that Pakistan is no longer a state sponsor of terror. It is a reluctant fighter which may yet win. There is no benefit to anybody by marking Pakistan out as a terrorist state.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You have so far claimed that Kashmir is not a big issue in Pakistan without giving any backing.
Here is my perspective, told by a (hopefully) neutral organization
International Crisis Group - The View from Islamabad
http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/pakistankashmir.pdf

Pakistan’s policy towards Kashmir is shaped by perceptions of an Indian threat and a history of war but also by the wider question of its relations with India. It is also influenced by domestic imperatives. The conflict is placed on the backburner when relations improve. Some governments have used the Kashmir conflict to reinforce Pakistani nationalism and others to strengthen pan-Islamism. Pakistani governments have also used the dispute to acquire domestic legitimacy or to ensure regime survival.

The same group says this about Indian views
International Crisis Group - The View from New Delhi

In general, public opinion is not set against an agreement and is supportive of peace initiatives since Kashmir, for most Indians, is not the most pressing of the country’s major problems.

Your argument is flawed and tangential.

The argument is that the Pakistani public is brainwashed to only focus on Kashmir, and this allows the politicians to get away with not focusing on socio-economic development. You have presented no argument to support that assertion - the only thing you have illustrated is that Kashmir is an important part of Pakistan's foreign policy.

The fact is that every major political party has largely the same position on Kashmir - so how could Kashmir dominate the national domestic discourse when everyone agrees on it? The issues that the people therefore focus on, in terms of what they expect of their leaders, remain bread and butter issues, and you have not countered that assertion.

 

[spsk]

Myth One:

1947 & 1965 War : Pakistan was aggressor against Kashmir to occupy . If there is no decisive 'victory' on 1947 there would not be 1965 ,So I do not know why this is not decisive victory for any country. In both these two wars Pakistan was the aggressor not India , Aggressor should achieve their objectives.

1971 war: India is the aggressor and achieved the objective.


Myth 3:
Completely wrong, nobody in India think so, May be Pakistan's myth about India.

Myth 4:
Nobody in India is thinking Pakistan is spending 70% of their budget in military, 70% is huge amount !!! I cant even imagine , But there is one myth that Pakistan Military gets paid by USA ( I mean the fund for PA comes from US)

Myth 5.
Its very interesting that Pakistan politics is not dominated by Kashmir issue, I have even read an article once military rule announced due to this Kashmir issue.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Myth 2. Pakistan fights through proxies

True as AM himself said. ISI involvement is believed ongoing, atleast if NYtimes is to be believed.

Yes, but it is important to point out that India fights through proxies as well, so it is a disingenuous complaint to raise by Indians.

Myth 3.India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.

No evidence given atleast by AM.
On the other hand most Indians know that India did interfere in Bangladesh (but think Pakistan fired first). Most Indians also think that India made a mess by sending IPKF to Sri Lanka and being on the hate list of both sides.
If there is any evidence of ongoing aggression by India, please provide a link by a non-Pakistani newspaper or a peer reviewed study.

Actually there is plenty of evidence given - you, or anyone else, have not refuted any of the examples given, so that myth stands debunked.

Myth 4. Pakistan spends 70% (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.

Clearly false. Evidence clearly shows 17%-27%.(Posted link to budget sites of govts.) I think it is a strawman attack by AM.

Oh please - don't lie - this issue was raised atleast 3 times by Indians in the last month or so - including on the 'Tanks guarding a jhuggi' thread, which you participated in, and I have seen it repeated ad nauseum across the web by Indian posters.

Myth 5. Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir

Seems from available evidence that no party can afford to be seen as weak- hence I'd say yes, it is dominated by Kashmir. (I posted 2 studies with regional perspectives - written by a US organization)

On the contrary, you have not been able to illustrate how Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir to the extent that it obfuscates the peoples focus on development.

You are arguing over the dominance of Kashmir in Pakistan's foreign policy, which is a tangential discussion.

All the myths stand debunked at this point.

 

[wtf]

Your argument is flawed and tangential.

The argument is that the Pakistani public is brainwashed to only focus on Kashmir, and this allows the politicians to get away with not focusing on socio-economic development. You have presented no argument to support that assertion - the only thing you have illustrated is that Kashmir is an important part of Pakistan's foreign policy.

The fact is that every major political party has largely the same position on Kashmir - so how could Kashmir dominate the national domestic discourse when everyone agrees on it? The issues that the people therefore focus on, in terms of what they expect of their leaders, remain bread and butter issues, and you have not countered that assertion.

The study actually does say that Parties use media to promote their views in Pakistan. It also says that parties have used the issue to promote Pak nationalism. I also proved that it hurts Pakistan economically.
And do you think the fact that all Pak parties have same opinion came about it a vacuum or something ? You know, parties are formed by people and the fact that everyone has same opinion (even when it is bad for the nation) seems to show that it is something that is central to Pakistani identity. Why else would the whole country unite to lose money ?

Where is your evidence for the claim of bread& butter issues? You are the one who is claiming to be myth-busting, not me.

 

[wtf]

Yes, but it is important to point out that India fights through proxies as well, so it is a disingenuous complaint to raise by Indians.

Actually there is plenty of evidence given - you, or anyone else, have not refuted any of the examples given, so that myth stands debunked.

Oh please - don't lie - this issue was raised atleast 3 times by Indians in the last month or so - including on the 'Tanks guarding a jhuggi' thread, which you participated in, and I have seen it repeated ad nauseum across the web by Indian posters.


On the contrary, you have not been able to illustrate how Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir to the extent that it obfuscates the peoples focus on development.

You are arguing over the dominance of Kashmir in Pakistan's foreign policy, which is a tangential discussion.

All the myths stand debunked at this point.

Your entire story is that "I said they are all myths" and you now have to prove that they are true. Any evidence that anyone else gives is "tangential" and then you go about delete posts by posters calling them "off topic" as you did to Fatehs posts.

You provided no links, no studies - nothing except your views. Great argument that!!! Your claims are NOT evidence unless you are god. Neither is threads on PDF evidence - they do not represent anything except claims by random posters who claim to be Indian or Pakistani. The least you can consider evidence is a survey result or a study (both of which I have provided).

There is no point to this thread anymore.

 

[Lockheed F-16]

Your entire story is that "I said they are all myths" and you now have to prove that they are true. Any evidence that anyone else gives is "tangential" and then you go about delete posts by posters calling them "off topic" as you did to Fatehs posts.

You provided no links, no studies - nothing except your views. Great argument that!!! Your claims are NOT evidence unless you are god. Neither is threads on PDF evidence - they do not represent anything except claims by random posters who claim to be Indian or Pakistani. The least you can consider evidence is a survey result or a study (both of which I have provided).

There is no point to this thread anymore.

Stop making personal attacks and face the truth! It is ur government which also doesn't have any prove but blame everything on PAK. You Indians can dish it out but cannot take it on the chin!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The study actually does say that Parties use media to promote their views in Pakistan.

Yes - but it is the extent to which parties focus on development, jobs and progress in their campaigns vs foreign policy. I'll take the study;s word that at some point the media was used to propagate Kashmir, but at this point ALL the political media campaigns I have seen have focused on domestic agendas and policies.

You have to present a lot more evidence to illustrate that the parties overwhelmingly focus on Kashmir in their outreach and campaigns.

I also proved that it hurts Pakistan economically.

What you have shown is that military expenditure has an opportunity cost - that is true in all nations, including India with hundreds of millions living in poverty. That does not establish a domestic obsession with Kashmir to the obfuscation of development.

And do you think the fact that all Pak parties have same opinion came about it a vacuum or something ? You know, parties are formed by people and the fact that everyone has same opinion (even when it is bad for the nation) seems to show that it is something that is central to Pakistani identity. Why else would the whole country unite to lose money ?

You are going in circles on a tangential issue - the US was also focused and largely united during the Cold War on the Communist threat - yet that did not stop the parties from campaigning on domestic issues of economy and prosperity.

Where is your evidence for the claim of bread& butter issues? You are the one who is claiming to be myth-busting, not me.

The Indian myth is that Pakistanis are obsessed with Kashmir to the point of ignoring domestic issues - I argued it isn't based on the campaigns by political parties and their manifestos - 'roti, kapra makaan' (bread, clothing and shelter) the slogan of the PPP for example.

I cannot prove a negative, that Pakistani politics is NOT focused on kashmir - I can only point out that Pakistani politics focuses on domestic issues, which is why politicians have such a bad reputation.