Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Strategic Defence Review & the Emerging Threats


807 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

A balanced article from an Indian

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-03/if-india-and-pakistan-come-to-nuclear-blows-blame-u-s-mishra.html

If India and Pakistan Come to Nuclear Blows, Blame U.S.: Mishra

Its certainly an interesting article but it illustrates several fallacies when one talks about geopolitics in the region.

For example the author assumes that the US administration has restrained itself when it comes to applying pressure on India, while the truth is it doesn't have the kind of leverage to enforce Indian actions especially over core issues like Kashmir. The only time the US was really needed by India was during the IAEA vote and more importantly the NSG vote (which needed a unanimous verdict). And a lot of the diplomatic capital accumulated during that period was undone during the initial period of the Obama administration. In addition arms exports have been a symbiotic relationship - with the Indian military getting access to US technology and the US getting access to the Indian arms market.

On the more pressing Kashmir issue, the author makes a mistake in assuming that peace and goodwill in the subcontinent will be a result of a settlement in Kashmir. The truth is there needs to be peace and goodwill in order to reach a settlement on Kashmir. Until a modicum of trust is established neither side will be willing to make concessions - without which a solution is impossible. Take demilitarization of the Kashmir valley. With both countries eyeballing each other, its simply a pipe-dream - the Indian government will simply disregard any US pressure towards such a step.

The closest the subcontinent was ever to peace was during the Musharraf years. He had the backing of army (or did he?) and the backing of the politicians. He had a workable idea, one that India was quite warm to. The Indian leadership was willing to deal with him because he could deliver on promises. And most importantly an environment conducive to peace was being established and hardliners were being sidelined. In contrast today, a solution looks very distant. The UPA government in India is much weaker than it was in 2007-08 and Pakistani military has an inordinate degree of influence in national affairs. Perhaps by 2015 one could hope that the same bonhomie could be recreated and a solutions to bilateral issues be underway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Its certainly an interesting article but it illustrates several fallacies when one talks about geopolitics in the region.

For example the author assumes that the US administration has restrained itself when it comes to applying pressure on India, while the truth is it doesn't have the kind of leverage to enforce Indian actions especially over core issues like Kashmir. The only time the US was really needed by India was during the IAEA vote and more importantly the NSG vote (which needed a unanimous verdict). And a lot of the diplomatic capital accumulated during that period was undone during the initial period of the Obama administration. In addition arms exports have been a symbiotic relationship - with the Indian military getting access to US technology and the US getting access to the Indian arms market.

On the more pressing Kashmir issue, the author makes a mistake in assuming that peace and goodwill in the subcontinent will be a result of a settlement in Kashmir. The truth is there needs to be peace and goodwill in order to reach a settlement on Kashmir. Until a modicum of trust is established neither side will be willing to make concessions - without which a solution is impossible. Take demilitarization of the Kashmir valley. With both countries eyeballing each other, its simply a pipe-dream - the Indian government will simply disregard any US pressure towards such a step.

The closest the subcontinent was ever to peace was during the Musharraf years. He had the backing of army (or did he?) and the backing of the politicians. He had a workable idea, one that India was quite warm to. The Indian leadership was willing to deal with him because he could deliver on promises. And most importantly an environment conducive to peace was being established and hardliners were being sidelined. In contrast today, a solution looks very distant. The UPA government in India is much weaker than it was in 2007-08 and Pakistani military has an inordinate degree of influence in national affairs. Perhaps by 2015 one could hope that the same bonhomie could be recreated and a solutions to bilateral issues be underway.

Vivek,

Not sure where you got the highlighted part from. Musharaff is on record as saying that he'd met vajpayee and they had agreed a press release on the kashmir issue, but when they met again, before the release was to be issued, vajpayee withdrew from the agreement.

ndad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Vivek,

Not sure where you got the highlighted part from. Musharaff is on record as saying that he'd met vajpayee and they had agreed a press release on the kashmir issue, but when they met again, before the release was to be issued, vajpayee withdrew from the agreement.

ndad

I assume you're referring to the Agra Summit of 2001. Yes that certainly wasn't a breakthrough especially followed as it was by the 2002 standoff on the border.

My reference was to the detente established after 2004. Briefly under PM Vajpayee but carried on by Gen. Musharraf and the UPA government under Dr. Manmohan Singh. By 2007, ties were quite warm (by Indo-Pak standards) and at least solutions to Siachen and Sir Creek were well underway, with a broader outline to a Kashmir agreement having been established with the actual mechanics of it under negotiation.

^^ An enlightening interview between Najam Sethi and a very candid Pervez Musharraf (though one may argue he gives himself an inordinate degree of credit).

Edited by Vivek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Luckily, not everyone agrees with him: :)

. . . . . . .

Former CIA Officer says Barack Obama and David Cameron ‘don’t have a clue:’

. . .

PakDef.info, Pak-Afghanistan: 2011, Post No 25

. . . . . . .

At the same time and most importantly; for us Muslims, ends don’t justify the means either.

No one is above the Law because Laws are from God Almighty and even Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) can’t change or disobey them.

If our rights are violated; we aren’t allowed to practice our religion or we are thrown out of our lands then the Holy Quran makes it an obligation for us to fight back but ‘without exceeding limits.’

Extremists on one end declared ‘kital’ ‘haram’ while Al Qaida types went to other extreme and don’t mind killing civilians! Both are deviations from the mainstream religion of Islam; the Islam based on the teachings of the Holy Quran, personnel example of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and his beloved relatives and companions. In other words, neither can we afford to become callous nor do we have right to play god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If Pakistan is to have a bright future then peace with India is a must and I don't care what any of the war hawks here have to say about it. This standoff with India is not sustainable and we could accomplish a lot if we worked together.

The only option for Endians is to work as a subject to the State of Pakistan being run by True Muslims. India has no future under a Hindu ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If Pakistan is to have a bright future then peace with India is a must and I don't care what any of the war hawks here have to say about it. This standoff with India is not sustainable and we could accomplish a lot if we worked together.

Peace must be on the basis of sovereign equality, and forget indians on a one-to-one basis have even had good experiences with Israelis, that is not really the problem, good and bad people exist in all nations and peoples. But it is the fact that the indian deep state wants to to do harm to us, just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The only option for Endians is to work as a subject to the State of Pakistan being run by True Muslims. India has no future under a Hindu ruler.

I don't think this attitude is going to get us very far. We need to be a little bit more realistic.

Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The only option for Endians is to work as a subject to the State of Pakistan being run by True Muslims. India has no future under a Hindu ruler.

How would you define 'True Muslims'? Is the current state of Pakistan an example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The only option for Endians is to work as a subject to the State of Pakistan being run by True Muslims. India has no future under a Hindu ruler.

suggest u go to the north pole and try to create such a state. in the meantime stop bothering us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Abbasia was just being facetious - cut out the bs guys. And regarding india, it is our eternal enemy - there is no chance of peace with their current mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Peace with Bharat?

What constitute peace with Bharat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Then there is no chance for progress because India is vital to our progress. If we made peace with India they are calculations that suggest a 2% raise in our gdp growth each year. I can provide the report that has come up with this figure. Thing about all the benefits of finally burying the hatchet with India. No one is saying let's stop defending ourselves or negotiate from a position of weakness but lets make peace. We are not going to get all of Kashmir that is just a pipe dream...

With respect, I profoundly disagree - I have seen indians at the sharp end, and there is no chance of peace with their mindset, and regarding trade we should exploit our friendship with PRC and Turkey who are both growing faster than india.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Abbasia was just being facetious - cut out the bs guys. And regarding india, it is our eternal enemy - there is no chance of peace with their current mindset.

Mindsets like that on both sides will mean 'eternal enmity". There's no real issue at the grass roots level between the two countries, pretty much the same culture, language, taste in films, music etc etc. The real core issue, Kashmir, is keeping the sides waring, and since the Kashmir issue is no longer really a major concern to most Pakistanis, the military and status quo is running short on justifying the continued hostilities. There's no real uprising in IOK left anymore, and most if not all the Mujahadeen groups that once were fighting the indian army in IOK are now too busy destroying Pakistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Abbasia was just being facetious - cut out the bs guys. And regarding india, it is our eternal enemy - there is no chance of peace with their current mindset.

I do not agree with such a blanket statement. From 1947-65, we had no such "eternal" resolve of enmity against them. Keep that in mind. Wars have hardened stances but they included wars of our own making too. Prior to 1965, travel to and from the two countries was normal, people went back and forth.

At the end of the day, they are also insaan kay bacchay like ourselves. The problem is a territorial one and not an enternal one (as if some switch has been turned on and cannot be turned off for eternity) so lets keep it that way. That we are Muslim and different from them is fine, however they too have a significant # of Muslims living amongst them and despite the challenges that the latter may face, they carry on as is the case with any other 3rd world country with multiple religious denominations.

I grew up in Pakistan with Christians, Hindus, Parsis along with the Muslims and never thought of the Hindus and Indians as being our "eternal" enemies. They are enemies for sure but again its the territorial issues that are the main obstacle, once those are resolved (and they can be), all this "eternal" stuff goes out the window. I say this knowing that perpetual enmity is not possible, nor is it a human trait.

Peace with India is no different than Peace between the Turks and the Greeks. They have very different perceptions with regards to religion, culture and territorial claims, yet they get on with each other despite these problems even though the final issue of Cyprus has not been resolved.

Edited by SSAAD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Mindsets like that on both sides will mean 'eternal enmity". There's no real issue at the grass roots level between the two countries, pretty much the same culture, language, taste in films, music etc etc. The real core issue, Kashmir, is keeping the sides waring, and since the Kashmir issue is no longer really a major concern to most Pakistanis, the military and status quo is running short on justifying the continued hostilities. There's no real uprising in IOK left anymore, and most if not all the Mujahadeen groups that once were fighting the indian army in IOK are now too busy destroying Pakistan.

I disagree we are a completely different civilization, and culturally we are different - and regarding Kashmir it is still a priority to the vast majority of Pakistanis - the most important Kashmiri group H-M is an indigenous group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I do not agree with such a blanket statement. From 1947-65, we had no such "eternal" resolve of enmity against them. Keep that in mind. Wars have hardened stances but they included wars of our own making too. Prior to 1965, travel to and from the two countries was normal, people went back and forth.

At the end of the day, they are also insaan kay bacchay like ourselves. The problem is a territorial one and not an enternal one (as if some switch has been turned on and cannot be turned off for eternity) so lets keep it that way. That we are Muslim and different from them is fine, however they too have a significant # of Muslims living amongst them and despite the challenges that the latter may face, they carry on as is the case with any other 3rd world country with multiple religious denominations.

I grew up in Pakistan with Christians, Hindus, Parsis along with the Muslims and never thought of the Hindus and Indians as being our "eternal" enemies. They are enemies for sure but again its the territorial issues that are the main obstacle, once those are resolved (and they can be), all this "eternal" stuff goes out the window. I say this knowing that perpetual enmity is not possible, nor is it a human trait.

Peace with India is no different than Peace between the Turks and the Greeks. They have very different perceptions with regards to religion, culture and territorial claims, yet they get on with each other despite these problems even though the final issue of Cyprus has not been resolved.

I grow up with secular, religious, Muslims of all sects, non Muslims, and we all got on because we are Pakistani, I'm sorry india and Pakistan are different from Turkey and Greece, those two countries aren't an existential threat to one another.

I get along with indians as individuals just fine, but on a fundamental state level - they are our eternal enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well the most important thing to note is that we have so much in common with them even though we would not like to admit. They are more Muslims in India than Pakistan's whole population so I don't see the point in drawing religious lines in this argument. I think the people here who resist peace with India are insecure about Pakistan being absorbed by India because of our common culture. Perhaps, that's why we also try to make the country so called Islamic because we want to resist and get as far away from Indian culture. We do this to the point where we see Pakistanis as descendents from Muslim invaders from the west and north. The truth is that we are more likely related to the locals that got converted.

I don't know why but for some reason we use religion for the most nonsensical disgusting things.

Someone please create a new thread and move our comments into it...I think we could potentially have a very informative discussion on the topic. It is time that we fought against the taboos in our society and establishment for a brighter and prosperous Pakistan.

Zain, I am not very religious but having actually spent time in india, I can tell you there is no real convergence of culture, except may be for indian Punjab, even there they have changed not for the better since independence.

I am all for peace, but in the long run - we should stay as far away as possible from the entity to the east as I like to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Peace must be on the basis of sovereign equality, and forget indians on a one-to-one basis have even had good experiences with Israelis, that is not really the problem, good and bad people exist in all nations and peoples. But it is the fact that the indian deep state wants to to do harm to us, just my 2 cents.

Not sure if I should be commenting on this thread (not least because its off-topic), but what the heck.

One thing most people miss about India is the fact that its actually run by bureaucrats. The politicians of different leanings, liberals, RSS-types and the military brass gets plenty of face time with the media, but its really the bureaucrat or 'babu' as he's commonly known, who finally calls the shots. Its now common to see senior politicians in the government having professional backgrounds in public administration. Rabble-rousers of Bal Thackeray mold have lost a huge amount of ground over the last decades.

The bureaucrats belong to a naturally cautious species, far less prone to bouts of nationalism than their brethren in other walks of life. And if there's one idea thats energized the government of late, it would be economic growth. Hitting that 9% mark while keeping inflation in check, defines a good year. That is the bedrock of future Indo-Pak relations. Over the long term, the decision makers recognize that its essential not only to foster warm relations between the two countries but to facilitate growth in Pakistan, for the sake of India's long term prospects. Its something the Europeans realised over 50 years ago. The roots of hatred went just as deep in their context, yet they could rise above it in their individual and collective best interests.

That's the reason why you may hear mutterings of war but will never see the start of any actual hostilities on ground. The bureaucrats will not let the economic fortunes of the country be held hostage to spikes in public opinion. Its the economist not the peacenik in Manmohan Singh that makes him persist with peace process. A liberal, progressive and most importantly economically vibrant Pakistan is in India's best interests.

Its also the reason why Pakistan needs to throw its weight behind the Afghan government today. Despite all its flaws a liberal democratic Afghanistan will always be a better neighbor for a Pakistan hoping to cement its place within the N11 countries, than an isolated fundamentalist Taliban regime. Apprehensions about the Afghan government being pro-India are myopic, Bangladesh is an apt example of how easily that can change. But for any of this to take place the influence of the military within Pakistan needs to be curtailed. The civilians may seem corrupt and inefficient - the quality of governance will improve as long as a free media exists and presence of corruption by itself doesn't prevent economic growth (none of the BRICS rank particularly high on Transparency International's Corruption Index).

If we're fortunate we may see an EU-like body in South Asia by 2035. None of the regional issues are too big to be resolved as long as the courage to do so exists and generalizations about 'mentality' isn't a fair analysis of the situation.

Edited by Vivek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I grow up with secular, religious, Muslims of all sects, non Muslims, and we all got on because we are Pakistani, I'm sorry india and Pakistan are different from Turkey and Greece, those two countries aren't an existential threat to one another.

I get along with indians as individuals just fine, but on a fundamental state level - they are our eternal enemies.

I think we have more things to worry about than india at the moment. It isn't indians who are blowing themselves in Pakistan, and who have killed almost 30,000 civilians and almost 5000 soldiers. . .the indians don't need to be our "eternal enemies". . . We are our own worst enemy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think we have more things to worry about than india at the moment. It isn't indians who are blowing themselves in Pakistan, and who have killed almost 30,000 civilians and almost 5000 soldiers. . .the indians don't need to be our "eternal enemies". . . We are our own worst enemy

The militants are as big an enemy as india, I'm sorry but if you think that with all the capability which is Pakistan specific india is not a threat - then you are living in cloud cuckoo land, if you had seen what I have seen, regarding the indian military's plans for our country then you would not be a "indian lover". They are our eternal enemy and that is a fact.

Does that mean I hate the average indian - I meet in Europe or Canada or in india, hell no, but I don't hate snakes too, just what they can do with their venom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

interesting debate, but this thread is for the navy - come on chaps!

ndad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Concur with Rafi sb here - Those who think India is some "Holy Cow" and one who had sat idle all those 63 years and in point of fact, the past couple of centuries with the Hindutava ideology and dreams of Akhand Bharat need to revisit there thoughts again and research a bit more on their future plans.

Whole Divisions and Battle groups of Army, Airforce and Navy allotted against Pakistan waiting for the right opportunity to take a piece of our land is not a superstition folks.

Substantial amounts of raw data regarding Indian hand in Terrorism past 10 years is just an illusion - a fact to be brushed aside. Ok! What if we begin to think ourselves a friend of India? Would that be reciprocated by India, any sufficient appropriate evidence to suggest India will have peaceful, non-aggressive and dignified intentions and acts?

This is shire due to the resilience of Pakistan Military and each and every Pakistani of our nation to defend such fate blows time and again, in particular after 9/11 by the Indian. Unfortunately, FAILED in its Asian hegemonic designs and suppressing Pakistan as yet.

The posts should be airlifted to relevant threads likely "Strategic Defence Review" thread.

(Rafi are you a Punjabi jatt? just curious to know and if you are comfortable with the disclose)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I also concur with Rafi sahib! People who keep talking about peace keep forgetting that Pakistan during Musharraf, tried everything in the book to make peace. Support for infiltration into IoK stopped completely, a major demand of India, who would only talk after that. Guess what Infiltration stopped, India didnt want to talk. They didnt even bother shifting some of their troops out of heavily populated urban areas, which was the one and only key demand from Pakistan.

India wont budge even an inch on any issue, Siachen, Sir Creek, you name it, Pakistan was flexible on every issue but India wasnt. Who has forgotten Baglihar Dam issue? India asked Pakistan to back down from internationalising the issue, Pakistan obliged and India went on and built it anyway according to their initial plans. No compromise what so ever. I have first hand seen its effect on river Chenab as it enters Pakistan from IoK. They've turned the mighty river into a stream during most of the year. Now they are trying a similar stunt on river Jhelum and their nefarious designs are also working over time on the Indus.

PS: sorry for off-topic reply...

Edited by A Khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The militants are as big an enemy as india, I'm sorry but if you think that with all the capability which is Pakistan specific india is not a threat - then you are living in cloud cuckoo land, if you had seen what I have seen, regarding the indian military's plans for our country then you would not be a "indian lover". They are our eternal enemy and that is a fact.

Does that mean I hate the average indian - I meet in Europe or Canada or in india, hell no, but I don't hate snakes too, just what they can do with their venom.

It's not a case of being an "indian lover" or an "indian hater" which clearly you can't seem to look beyond, but it's a case of threat perception. Of course the indian military is a threat, but right now they don't really need to do much. It's quite sad really, you claim to have some clairvoiant knowledge of indian designs, yet are absolutely clueless when it comes to a bunch of nutcases making the army look like clowns. Simply spewing hatred won't change things, but I guess if this is an "eternal" conflict, perhaps they won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's not a case of being an "indian lover" or an "indian hater" which clearly you can't seem to look beyond, but it's a case of threat perception. Of course the indian military is a threat, but right now they don't really need to do much. It's quite sad really, you claim to have some clairvoiant knowledge of indian designs, yet are absolutely clueless when it comes to a bunch of nutcases making the army look like clowns. Simply spewing hatred won't change things, but I guess if this is an "eternal" conflict, perhaps they won't.

I do not hate indians as individuals - but the indian state is a wholly different kettle of fish - it's security forces Raison d'être is the destruction and subjugation of the Pakistani people and state, I have seen their plans for this, they frequently war game for cutting our country in half. They have never been and never will be our friends.

We can deter them by being strong - and that will be the only guarantee for peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0