#Long_Thread: Picking up a lot of understandable grievance from Pakistani International Relations scholars and journalists about Indian External Affairs Minister's remarks given the incumbent Pak FM #BilawalBhuttoZardari's most recent visit to #Goa for an #SCO meeting. 1/n
Understandable: Given that Pakistan has long pursued an intention for parity with India in the subcontinent, and has further sought to check New Delhi's rise. Distancing from a long-held and now-failing idea of comparison with India will take years to course-correct. 2/n
There is an inexplicable dearth of scholars + decision-makers from Pakistan who seek to close the world's largest jihad industry, one that has engulfed Afghanistan + has actually 'bled India through a thousand cuts' but those cuts simply did not prove to be effective enough. 3/n
On the contrary, a policy of harboring the jihad project has partially contributed to flight of potential trade and investment opportunities — amounting in unrealized investment of billions of USD. Harboring jihad might have 'bled Pakistan through a thousand cuts' instead. 4/n
This is when Pakistan continues to proactively safeguard Masood Azhar, Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin et al. with their organizations. Even the present DG ISPR has a father sanctioned by the UN for terrorism. No one did a background check or such facts simply did not matter? 5/n
Pakistani terror industry does not stop at Afghanistan + India alone. It has a distinguished history with impact ranging to much of Asia, Europe, Africa and North America. This is an astonishing brand of foreign policy that has very few parallels in the international system. 6/n
Pakistan could have spent the same amount of financial resources and energy for having an impactful development assistance programme. The outcomes, however sub-optimal, would have benefited the state more than allocating resources on exporting terrorism. 7/n
Even a hybrid regime in Pakistan should ideally have welcomed a G20 summit and foreign direct investment in Kashmir, where the visiting delegates can look at the situation for themselves instead of believing in either state's narrative. 8/n
That India's Kashmir has received a budget of over 14 billion USD from New Delhi for FY 2023-24 — or now receives more inbound tourists annually, including international arrivals, than Pakistan itself — is somehow lost in the Pakistani narratives. 9/n
This brings us to the notion consistently fielded by Professor @CChristineFair that 'Pakistan will fight India to the last Kashmiri'. We have already seen how Pakistan's machinations worked out in Afghanistan. 10/n
But India had the advantage of a permanent presence in a theatre challenged by Pakistan otherwise its Kashmir would have been reduced to the abysmal levels of depreciation in development as in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). 11/n
Furthermore, slightly taken aback by some foreign scholars being surprised at statements made by the Indian EAM — even going to the extent of comparing @DrSJaishankar's statements on China with Pakistan. 12/n
@DrSJaishankar Both Beijing and New Delhi have enjoyed long-spells of relatively normal inter-state interactions with border management, trade and science and technology interactions from the Deng Xiaoping era till Hu Jintao to even the initial years of Xi Jinping. 13/n
Given a history of perpetual hostility towards India from Pakistan since its inception as a state in 1947, the remarks from the Indian EAM can be situated in that light. + China has also received the clearest addressal from the same Indian EAM with no ambiguity whatsoever. 14/n
So, that brings me to the close of this long thread. Constants in foreign policy will be constants. I can understand the grievance originating from Pakistan. But is it really surprising that India will respond, at least via voice, to incidents of terrorism in its territory? n/n
Loading suggestions...