# India–Pakistan relations

Relations between India and Pakistan have been complex and largely hostile due to a number of historical and political events.

## Quotes

* Pakistan has decided to bleed India with thousand cuts.
** Chief of the Indian Army General Bipin Rawat in September 2018 in: Pakistan Wants To Bleed India With Thousand Cuts', Says Army Chief General Bipin Rawat". Outlook. 24 September 2018.
** The phrase 'Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts' has been cited and quoted by numerous people. Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts is a military doctrine followed by Pakistan against India, attributed to Bhutto and Zia ul-Haq.
* If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
** Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) - Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.
* In his dealings with Pakistan too, he [Nehru] tried to "see their viewpoint also", and consequently made concessions of which millions of Hindus have suffered the consequences (handing over pieces of territory, stopping the reconquest of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir when it was succeeding, refraining from efforts to enforce the Pakistani part of the Nehru-Liaqat pact)... Some will not even grant him the essential Brahmin attribute: thought. All his writings are full of borrowed thought.
** About Nehru and India–Pakistan relations. Elst K. Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society (1991)
* India and Pakistan, where people starve in the streets, waste billions on military spending because of the Kashmir dispute. Now some of India’s extreme Hindu nationalists warn they want to reabsorb Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even Sri Lanka into Mother India. Previous Indian leaders have been cautious. But not PM Modi. He is showing signs of power intoxication.
** Eric Margolis in Hair-Trigger Nuclear Alert Over Kashmir, (11 August 2019)
* Hitler was waging wars on other countries of Europe and the circumstances compelled the Englishmen to free India. The march of Hitler could not be checked without India’s help. Therefore, Congress and Gandhiji’s principles of non-violence and non-cooperation proved to be effective and India got freedom on the condition that Muslims would be given Pakistan. Pakistan was created but many of the Muslims were not accepted in Pakistan so they returned to India. All the four provinces of Pakistan were inhabited by fair-complexioned people, therefore, those Indian Muslims who had fair complexion were accommodated. They also spoke Urdu like Pakistanis. However, only a few Hindus chose to continue living in Pakistan. My dark complexioned brother returned to India with his wife and children. My father had died and therefore my mother too returned to India along with her children. I belonged to Aligarh, I decided to stay there. Muslims of Aligarh also did no go anywhere, so I was safe there.
** Ismat Chughtai, in "Letter to Shri Gangadharji", in Bisween Sadi Magazine. Republished in Ismat Chughtai — her life and ideals by Noor Shah in the 1-15 Feb 2005 print edition of The Milli Gazette.
* The most important departure from determinism during the Cold War had to do, obviously, with hot wars. Prior to 1945, great powers fought great wars so frequently that they seemed to be permanent features of the international landscape: Lenin even relied on them to provide the mechanism by which capitalism would self-destruct. After 1945, however, wars were limited to those between superpowers and smaller powers, as in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, or to wars among smaller powers like the four Israel and its Arab neighbors fought between 1948 and 1973, or the three India-Pakistan wars of 1947-48, 1965, and 1971, or the long, bloody, and indecisive struggle that consumed Iran and Iraq throughout the 1980s.
** John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War: A New History (2005), p 261
* Today the absurd spectacle of the high-stepping soldiers from India and Pakistan who nightly strut their robotic lowering and folding of flags, with their high kicks, stamps and twirls, at a border crossing on the Old Trunk Road between their two countries, draws increasingly large cheering crowds from each side and is a YouTube favourite. It is surely a bit of harmless fun. Or is it? Both countries have nuclear weapons and a long history of conflict and mutual suspicion. And militarism, whether that means elevating the military to a position as the noblest and best of their societies or the leaching of military values, such as discipline and obedience into the civilian world, can lead to trouble for democratic societies.
** Margaret MacMillan, War: How Conflict Shaped Us (2020)
* The Hindus, especially in Bengal, welcomed the New Learning of Europe and the institutions the British brought. The Muslims, wounded by their loss of power, and out of old religious scruples, stood aside. It was the beginning of the intellectual distance between the two communities. This distance has grown with independence; and it is this—more even than religion now — that at the end of the twentieth century has made India and Pakistan quite distinct countries. India, with an intelligentsia that grows by leaps and bounds, expands in all directions. Pakistan, proclaiming only the faith and then proclaiming the faith again, ever shrinks. It was Muslim insecurity that led to the call for the creation of Pakistan. It went at the same time with an idea of old glory, of the invaders sweeping down from the northwest and looting the temples of Hindustan and imposing the faith on the infidel. The fantasy still lives; and for the Muslim converts of the subcontinent it is the start of their neurosis, because in this fantasy the convert forgets who or what he is and becomes the violator.
** V.S. Naipaul, Beyond Belief. 1998.
* The story of Pakistan is a terror story actually. It started with a poet who thought that Muslims were so highly evolved that they should have a special place in India for themselves. This wish to sift countries of unnecessary and irrelevant populations is terrible and this is exactly what happened in Pakistan.
** V.S. Naipaul , VS Naipaul launches attack on Islam
* I come from an Indian Muslim family, but I experience India as a very pleasant country, whereas in Pakistan I feel ill at ease. You would think it should be the reverse. But in spite of its many defects, India is a rich and open society, while Pakistan is culturally an impoverished and closed society.
** Salman Rushdie, Interview with Thomas Harder, 1995, quoted from Elst, Koenraad (2001). Decolonizing the Hindu mind: Ideological development of Hindu revivalism. New Delhi: Rupa. p. 99
* I wish President Musharraf well, we want to work with him to bring greater balance in our own relations. But I have to be realistic enough to recognize the role that terrorist elements have played in the last few years in the history of Pakistan. Taliban was the creation of Pakistan extremists, the Wahabi Islam which has flourished, thousands and thousands of schools, the madrassas, were set up to preach this jihad based on hatred of other religions . . . and Pakistan is not a democracy in the sense that we know and you know. . . . We wish Pakistan success in emerging as a moderate Muslim state. We will work with President Musharraf . . . but we have to recognize what has happened.
** Manmohan Singh, as quoted in "Interview: Indian Prime Minister Singh", The Washington Post (20 July 2005)
* This distance has grown with independence; and it is this—more even than religion now—that at the end of the twentieth century has made India and Pakistan quite distinct countries. India, with an intelligentsia that grows by leaps and bounds, expands in all directions. Pakistan, proclaiming only the faith and then proclaiming the faith again, ever shrinks. It was Muslim insecurity that led to the call for the creation of Pakistan. It went at the same time with an idea of old glory, of the invaders sweeping down from the northwest and looting the temples of Hindustan and imposing the faith on the infidel. The fantasy still lives; and for the Muslim converts of the subcontinent it is the start of their neurosis, because in this fantasy the convert forgets who or what he is and becomes the violator. It is as though—switching continents—the indigenous people of Mexico and Peru were to side with Cortés and Pizarro and the Spaniards as the bringers of the true faith.
** Naipaul, V.S. - Beyond Belief (Vintage, 1999)
* The formation of Pakistan was necessary so that it may be used as a base for conquering the rest of India to Islam.
** F. K. Durrani, as attributed in : Writings of Sri Purushottam Singh Yog Volume 9 (The partition conspiracy and is the indian constitution ultra vires?), p. 349
* (The achievement of Pakistan) was the first successful step in this 20th century to realise their 1200-year old dream of complete subjugation of this country.
** Arnold Toynbee, as attributed in : Writings of Sri Purushottam Singh Yog Volume-9: THE PARTITION CONSPIRACY AND , p. 349
* Just as Medina had provided a base for the eventual victory of Islam in Arabia, Pakistan would pave the way for the triumphal return of Islam as the ruling power over the entire subcontinent. The whole of Hindustan would thus be turned into Pakistan just as the Prophet himself had turned all of Arabia into Pakistan.
** Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, in 1946, Hamara Pakistan, Khutba-i-Sadarat Punjab Jamiatul Ulama Conference, Lahore, 25–27 January, 1946, (Hyderabad, 1946), 28. As quoted in Creating a New Medina, V. Dhulipala, pages 5, 361. And quoted in J Sai Deepak - India that is Bharat_ Coloniality, Civilisation, Constitution-_ Bloomsbury India (2021)