"Badri Natarajan" <[email protected]> writes: > Speaking for myself, it feels like I'm getting a dim sense of the points > you're trying to make, without fully understanding. I can sort-of > understand the point about Pakistani identity being linked to Indian > failure, but I'm really not grasping why economic success and stability in > Pakistan won't fix the problem (which is sort of what Perry was trying to > say I think)
It is indeed one of the things I was saying. I was also saying that I didn't see why the success of India meant the failure of Pakistan, though I can see how the failure of Pakistan could lead to the failure of India. This latter could happen if Pakistani despair were to lead to increased Pakistani based terrorism, which in turn could lead India to engage in self destructive actions. I do not think any likely level of terrorism could damage India directly, but India could easily engage in the sort of self-defeating strategies the US has adopted, or worse. It is also, plain and simple, unpleasant to border a disintegrating country -- desperate people do desperate things. Looking at a higher level, economic theory tells us that the whole game is not zero sum. India's economy would be better off if Pakistan developed, just as the US and Europe are better off because India and China are developing. Increased development leads to increased wealth for everyone. Wealth is good, both because of its direct benefits and because people who have a lot to lose tend to cooperate more and fight less. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger [email protected]
