Pakistan is not an existential threat, but more of a hot political talking point in India, and vice versa in Pakistan for India. Had Pakistan not been an issue, India's politicians would have invented another populist topic to distract people with. Vice versa for Pakistan.

It's possible it would get worse without Pakistan, because then the artificial boogeyman could be something inside the country, capable of creating pandemonium that can reach the country's sovereignty. But that's just a random speculation.

> would have invented another populist topic to distract people with

Probably China. A far more dangerous sparring partner likely, considering China's generalized over-aggressiveness even at minor perceived offenses.

China and India have plenty of contention points. They fought a war in 1962 and have ongoing border disputes to this day.

...and are conducting genocides to their minorities.

* * *

I dont think India ever got that much airtime in Pakistan (even before 911). When comparing to the level of media coverage India's foxnews-equivalent does on PK (it's hilarious, and pretty popular meme in Pak)

Acting like Pakistan is notable in any shape or form in the global economy.

What does that have to do with what I said?

> Pakistan is not an existential threat,

So, a nuclear power, effectively ruled by military junta and full of religious ideologues is not an existential threat. In that case, I don't know what it.

I guess North Korea is not an existential threat to South Korea (instead of religious it's the communist ideologues) and China is not an existential threat for Taiwan (CCP ideologues).

I think you can manage a less reductive analysis the considers the possibility that militancy is rooted at least partly in legitimate grievances rather than mental illness.

India has full confidence in the incompetence of its cute little neighbour. Look at that country's condition right now, it is on its knees with a crippled economy and dysfunctional administration.

How can a country that has consistently shown itself to not be capable of even regular state governance be an existential threat? Just because it got nuclear tech in the cold war? Lol give me a break.

That's exactly what an existential threat looks like - desperate for an external enemy to blame. Consider Putin, Hitler, etc - when things are properly screwed, the easiest thing for a leader to do is blame then annihilate their neighbors.

Nuclear weapons mean that poor troop training means nothing. Trucking a bomb into New Delhi has never been difficult.

So, a nuclear power ruled by populists hating your guts because of religion is no existential threat? That is, to a degree, a reasonable stance to take for Pakistan. In this particular conflict both sides suck.

India also has nuclear weapons, unlike South Korea and Taiwan, so there is a strong deterrence effect.

Sure, if the handful of people who control such weapons act rationally. Of course, 'acting rationally' isn't exactly something humans are known for... Especially when faced with adverse social pressures or fanatical religious adherence.

Deterrence yes.

But, it all depends on whose finger is on the button and whether they are rational or simply driven by an ideology of hate.

If and when the finger changes, all bets are off.

India also has a clearly stated and un-ambiguous "No First Use" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use rule.

Our neighbour China also has this rule. All the recent border flare-ups with China haven't even involved fire-arms because no commander on either side wants escalation. The border lines have been literally maintained by sticks and fists.

Any escalation there would be an utter nightmare. So even if the media plays it up, at the local commander level, there is a lot of internal mitigation that goes on.

However, any border flare-up with our other neighbour - Pakistan always causes a lot of anxiety, because there are a LOT of hot-heads in the Pakistan Army who have a dream of taking Kashmir by force by any and all means necessary. You don't even have to take my word for it - just listen to what they explicitly state. And read the books their Generals have published.

I am aware of the intricacies - I am Indian :)

Regardless of everything, my comment was pointing out the obvious difference between the other examples and India-Pak dynamic.

Your comment is racist and inappropriate for HN.

Just last month, Pakistan's national assembly unanimously voted to expand its country's blasphemy laws, which have previously been used to charge more than 1500 Pakistanis. That doesn't include the more than 70 people who have been murdered by mobs and vigilantes over allegations of "insulting Islam."

Those laws impose the death penalty for "insulting the Prophet Muhammad" and 10 years to life in prison for insulting his "companions." According to Pew Research, 76% of Pakistani Muslims support the death penalty for simply leaving Islam, never-mind "insulting" the religion (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-m...). Apparently a 10th century drawing of the guy is "prophet worship" (which is also punishable by death), but putting people to death for insulting him isn't.

If you think those surveys are wrong, the unanimous legislative support for these measures would suggest Pakistan really is ruled by a military junta that doesn't represent its people. If you acknowledge the polls are even somewhat accurate, I'm curious how you think demanding the death penalty for leaving a religion doesn't make you a fanatic. According to Gallup Pakistan, a majority of Pakistanis said they wanted the "type of Islamic government in Pakistan that the Taliban have brought in Afghanistan" (https://gallup.com.pk/post/32284).

I am genuinely curious what you do believe constitutes a religious fanatic if demanding the death of people who leave their religion and openly supporting Taliban-style government doesn't fit the bill.

There are absolutely (non-Muslim) religious fanatics in India and other places who do terrible things. Conversely, there are many Pakistanis who are not religious fanatics and oppose these fanatical measures. That doesn't change the truth of his point: that Pakistan is plagued by religious fanatics and a militaristic government. All countries have their religious fanatics, but there is a very real difference between, say, 50 crackpots from the Westboro Baptist Church carrying offensive signs and 76% of the country supporting the execution of people that leave their religion.

This is not a forum for debate on what constitutes rational and irrational policy.

However If you want to discuss the technicals of whether certain laws are correct or incorrect, please feel free to do so.

Instead, what is being discussed in your post is akin to chiding. Example: “The lawmakers have low quality education and therefore have insensible laws.” By using labels and stereotypes and creating logical arguments that are often fallacious, it leads to head spinning debate.

I will not further this discussion simply because too many logical fallacies exist.

"The lawmakers have low quality education and therefore have insensible laws" doesn't logically follow because "low quality education" is not sufficient to establish that they will make insensible laws. I.e. not all lawmakers with low education will necessarily pass low quality laws.

I am genuinely mystified how you can argue supporting the death penalty for apostasy or "blasphemy" does not imply the supporter is a religious fanatic. If that doesn't, what does, and who do you consider to be a religious fanatic?

There are, of course, opportunist lawmakers who support these laws simply to gain political points. That does not, however, explain why overwhelming majorities of the Pakistani population support the same fanatical policies when polled by the most reputable pollsters on earth. Furthermore, the fact that it is politically expedient to support the execution of apostates and "blasphemers" supports his argument that its voters are largely religious fanatics.

You are "not furthering the discussion" because you refuse to provide actual arguments and instead resorted to calling him a racist without any evidence.

I’ve noticed that Indian news media is far more interested in covering Pakistan than the other way around. Indeed, I’d wonder what Pakistan would look like without India constantly pestering them, e.g. reducing flow of critical river paths from Indian Panjab that supplies much of the agricultural needs)

Depends on the media. If you read general mass media like OpIndia, Zee, or NDTV that's true, but if you read media aimed at policymakers (ThePrint, ORF, or Himal for example) it's 70-30 China-PK. Same in PK as well - in vernacular media like Ary or Geo it's all Amreeki/Yahudi/Hindu Sazish but English media which policymakers read is more prosaic.

I'm not sure that's a great example. The Indus water treaty has been respected by India despite all the wars and tensions with Pakistan over the decades. Only in the last month is it that it has been brought into question.

The biggest beneficiary of India's partition was China.

Without India's partition, assuming that the Muslim population that wanted a separate Islamic nation was willing to live peacefully, China may not have had the guts to gobble Tibet, there would have been no friend of China on the other side of India to contain it and population of India + Pakistan + Bangladesh would have surpassed China long time ago.

So, yes, India and the world would have looked a lot different.

But, that's not the reality today, so no reason to ponder over it I guess.

Yup my relatively liberal Pakistani friends used to ponder that a lot... until Modi came and suddenly they were really glad for Pakistan. :)

And then they elected Imran Khan.

What's wrong with Imran Khan?

In the Indian public discourse Pakistan does not get much airtime as it used to even 15 years ago, there aren’t simply that many border tensions or terror attacks as there used to be and people care lot less, few enough remember the partition or have close relatives on the other side still alive, the emotional connections are all gone .

Pakistan enjoys more political stability in the last decade not withstanding recent drama with Imran khan compared to how it was for most of the last century under military control.

The junta was in power till late 2010s , they still hold a lot of influence over politics of course but don’t really fully control it as they did last century .

I don't think Pakistan cares much about India except in the case of Kashmir.

Reverse question, what Pakistan would look like without India constantly pestering them?

The entire existence of Pakistan depends on being a strong Islamic entity in South Asia and selling their Nuclear Weapons as being the defender of Islamic Ummah. It is a different issue that all these factors have been exploited by the all powerful Army , extremists and other vocal actors leaving very less modern, practical voices in the country.

To whom exactly did Pakistan export nuclear weapons tech again?

Edit: They sold centrifuges to North Korea. Which is not an islamic country as far as I know...

Allegedly North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I am reasonably certain it is the opposite. Saudi Arabia funded Pakistani science to make sure they developed nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia has no need to develop nuclear weapons or posses them as a result. They can just ask Pakistan for them at a moments notice if they actually need to.

Sure, think of it as buying call options instead of shares from the Saudis POV.

Pakistan is selling nuclear weapons? Can you provide any support for this claim?

* was selling. This isn't happening anymore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan#Proliferatio...

That is far from selling actual warheads, isn't it? And the history of nuclear prolifiration is long and complicated.

yep! pretty much, but selling the supply chain and specs themselves is almost as bad. It took PK almost 30 years with PRC information transfer to build the Islamic bomb, but 10 for NK thanks to Khan Labs.

And how many new nuclear powers are there since North Korea? I can not think of any.

Libya and Syria both contracted with Khan Labs before the whistle was blown in 2003.

Iran is almost one.

Neither Libya nor Syria have them, do they? And Iran was close, but the treaty (the one the last US admin tore appart) stopped them for the time being.

Libya does not due to sanctions and diplomacy in 2003 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya

Syria does not due to Israeli airstrikes in 2007 and sanctions until the Civil War began - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box

Iran has started building again - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/world/middleeast/iran-mis...

None of what you are saying even contravenes my larger point though

>> selling their Nuclear Weapons as being the defender of Islamic Ummah

They are selling the idea that their nuclear weapons are the defender…

Which is not wrong actually. Pakistan could have been the next US war if PK didn't have Nuclear.

Compare how often Pakistan is mention in r/India and how often India is mentioned in r/Pakistan.

Neither subreddits are realistic snapshots of South Asian social media. Most South Asians use FB+Whatsapp with a smattering of Twitter.

Reddit is really poor sample of how average person or decision makers think in these two countries.

This is true of every country, by the way. Reddit has lost it.

Ideally a US-Canada or a France-Germany kind of coexistence, but realistically probably more like Nepal, Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka (close but tense relations due to local level political populism).

Pakistan was created for political reasons to keep India busy and to make sure USSR don't get such huge country as its ally.

It is now 75 years and Pakistan is still used by USA, Russia, China, UK and even smaller countries like Sri Lanka to keep India occupied.

Pakistan never should had existed.

It was created with a great human tragedy, it will go down with a great human tragedy.

Pakistan with 250 million population is out of money, power, oil, fertilizer and even food and water because they are spending 1/3rd of their money maintaining their army.

I wonder how long it will take for the people of Pakistan to realize that POK is a money sink and their money could be used much more effectively to develop their own country.

The terrorist organizations that are fostered by their military establishment are simply turning on Pakistan and attacking them.

That time was 2010. That ship has sailed.

Pakistan has to pay 2-3 billion USD in next few weeks or else they will default.

They have to pay 8-10B USD this year or they will default.

They have to pay 70-80B USD in next 5 years or they will default.

Pakistan right now has 2 billion dollars in their forex that too because Saudi gave them 3 billion USD some time back.

Pakistan can collapse in just few months like Sri Lanka.

India was an empire from Pakistan to Burma which was partitioned because the British wanted to weaken it and divide it. That caused a huge amount of problems, like Kashmir, Bangladesh.. If you read about the history of British perfidy in Bengal, its actually pretty horrifying. Yes India was once very rich and capable, before it was reduced to penury.

You really think, that Hindus and Moslems would have lived peacefully this whole time without British India being split apart? Honestly, I think a civil war between those groups would have been equally as likely as peaceful co-existance.

Anyway, that is pure speculation, isn't it?

Well, India has 200million Muslims.

No civil war yet.

There have been altercations between Hindus and Muslims. There’s no reason to believe it would be significantly worse if you doubled the number of Muslims in India, especially when you consider that a lot of the Hindu-Muslim divisions were sown as a result of partition itself, which was an incredibly divisive and bloody affair.

Further, a larger Muslim population would also have reduced political power of the Hindu fascists as well and lack of funding through Pakistan and increased Democratic power would have led to less political disaffection in the extremist Muslim side.

Maybe, but they did coexist for a long time without any real issues. And the fact does remain that Britain plundered the place something extraordinary. Bengal was once probably the richest place on earth. Today its Bangladesh.

India is finally growing out of thinking too much about Pakistan and other threats most of the time and focusing on growing and at least trying to catch up a bit with China in the future in some respects. Although being a democracy that is difficult to achieve.

> Geography really is destiny.

While I generally agree with the importance of geography I think this is glossing over a major part of the history of India and Pakistan.

The partition of India [0] by the British upon their exit from the region should be understood as a major tragedy in human history and very much lead to increased instability in the region.

Writing this off as "mere geography" is to miss the major and well documented impact of British colonialism on today's political climate in the region.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

Recently there was a survey of Indian and what countries they considered threats. China was top, followed by the US. Pakistan was much lower in the list

> Would they be more democratic

Isn’t being less democratic usually a choice by those in power to hold on or expand their powers? Locally?