Typo. I meant it'll take 25 years to double in size at 3% which will take at least 40 years to overtake China? Since China is 4 times as big.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
Typo. I meant it'll take 25 years to double in size at 3% which will take at least 40 years to overtake China? Since China is 4 times as big.
It's a depression!
Who knows. All theoretical and as Shekhar Gupta days "smoking opium". Will only happen in a 1000 years.
But the exchange could be possibly the valley with Hindu majority Jammu and Ladakh remaining in India. Also geared to some other exchange such as in Sindh where there are Hindu majority areas.
Israel did a deal with Egypt but retained Gaza and got a one front solution.
Regarding your question: "Would Pakistan accept a peace deal on Kashmir in exchange for break or downgrade of relations with China?"
No. This is a similar proposition to what Pakistan was offered by US/Clinton, when he tried to stop us from going nuclear. Clinton offered Pakistan all sorts of toys and money if we did not follow India into the nuclear club. We refused. Why? Because you cannot trust such offers and rely on their guarantees, in general, let alone on such strategic imperatives. Why should Pakistan abandon China which has been such a reliable strategic partner? If anyone tries to get us to do this, that actor's own motivations are immediately suspect. And the historical evidence (of the nuclear test drama) shows that Pakistan would reject any such proposition.
p.s. I'll try and come back to the rest of the points in your post later, but I'm really busy with work today.
From a taken some years ago by Chatham House. Although political and economic developments since then will have changed the mood in the region, I still think this survey is of great use.
There is a clear split in sentiments, I think the best solution would be for India and Pakistan to partition Kashmir along communal lines.
Attachments
-
Screenshot_20200923_161921.jpg -
Screenshot_20200923_162348.jpg -
Screenshot_20200923_162529.jpg -
Screenshot_20200923_162638.jpg
If India succeeds in changing the demographics ( again another Israeli option) partition would be ruled out, Then Pakistan would have to hang on to a rump Azad Kashmir and get even less of a deal if there is any. Meanwhile the military and economic imbalances between India and Pakistan are likely to grow. Pakistan may have only two choices. A "sink or swim together " alliance with China and confronting India or bending eventually to the inevitable and accepting India's offer ; if at all an offer is made. The "sink or swim together" option has the grave risk of embroiling Pakistan in a Sino-Indian conflict with severe damage to Pakistan. Egypt and Jordan faced exactly this same dilemma in the 70s trying to stay in the Soviet backed Arab alliance but being firmly in the cross hairs of Israel. They chose to make the best of a bad deal. So in theory the Indian secularists ( feeble voices at best) may be correct in assuming that Pakistan may accept whatever India offers; even though India will never offer Pakistan any deal. In this respect India is not Israel.
One important difference between the Soviet Egyptian model and Pakistan is that the Soviet Union was not adjacent Israel and had no territorial stake. The support to the Arabs was purely ideological to keep US influence out of the region. In the Sino Pakistan India triangle China is a big ( or rather the biggest) game player.
The reason I'm stating that India will outgrow China after the recession is over is because China is now struggling to break out of the middle income trap. 8-10% growth wasn't going to last forever; based on that metric by 2049 China would have a 170,000 USD per capita GDP in 2011 dollars.
The Chinese can do everything right and the Indians everything wrong, but it's just a question of low-hanging fruits. Besides, China is deprioritizing quantity of growth vs quality of growth.
The point being, India and China on the Sino-Indian border is a question of raw strategic potential (China) vs convenience of logistics (India). The raw strategic difference is going to narrow over time; 10 years of 3% (iirc I said 2-3%) growth advantage puts a relative growth of 33%, or 4.5 goes to 3.5 and 3.5 goes to 3.
The GDP per capita breakpoint for middle income country is about $12,500. China was slightly above $10,000 in 2019. With reasonable assumption of a stronger RMB in the future and a 5-6% real growth rate, China will be a high income country in 3 or at most 4 years, even if we also assume the breakpoint will also rise with time. China doesn’t need 8-10% growth to break out of the middle income trap.
Regarding the military disengagement negotiations between India and China. In the article, there is a line saying that:
If that is true, how can India call that negotiating? That's a demand for unconditional surrender from China! Did India just "won a war" with China? What are they smoking?
Or maybe its just more fake news propaganda from the Indian media? Since they wanna make India look tough on China. But secretly negotiating for a cowardly exit. Whatever it is, it is making the Chinese side increasingly impatient.
Last edited:
- Status