Comments on: Pakistan, India hold talks on Siachen Perspectives on Pakistan Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:31:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: dany101 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:36:09 +0000 how could people defend this sort of terrorism by indians , they have done this so many times, cross border terrorism in this region is started by india only. they did this in 1965, 1971 and siachen , balochistan etc

By: dany101 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:34:05 +0000 how could people defend this sort of terrorism by indians , they have done this so many times, cross border terrorism in this region is started by india only. they did this in 1965, 1971 and siachen , balochistan etc

By: rob29 Mon, 07 Nov 2011 02:29:58 +0000 Umairpk: “BTW it was India which went nuclear first and then when Pakistan detonated nuclear bombs now you guys are moaning again”

OH PLEASSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE … Don’t Flatter yourself, pakistani!

India Doesnt need to do nuclear tests to deter pakistan.

1962 India and China went to war.
1964 China conducts its first Nuclear test.
1974 India conducts its First Nuclear test.

India’s Intelligence, RAW, was formed initially to counter China, not Pakistan.. another one of your ‘paranoia’.

We did that to Deter China, not Pakistan.. pleaseeeee as i said earlier, Dont flatter yourself.

Pakistan has always been like this. You think anything India does, it does to scare pakistan… Just because you get scared easy, doesnt mean India meant to do it.

Please keep your 1965 era thinking and paranoia to yourself, I hope you arent passing on this nonsense to your future generations, because they will be wandering into a whole world of pain due to their flawed ideology and mistaught history.

By: KPSingh Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:04:54 +0000 Umairpk: “BTW it was India which went nuclear first and then when Pakistan detonated nuclear bombs now you guys are moaning again”

India detonated the bomb to prod Pakistan and confirm that it had the bombs. And Pakistan took the bait. Prior to that it was always rumors and no one knew for sure how far Pakistan’s nuclear bomb development had progressed. And according to the rumor mill, Pakistan had enriched Uranium, but did not possess the complete technology for putting together a bomb. So China, the all weather friend, gave the full blue print and some material to go with it. There was a fear that the bombs might not go off when India prodded Pakistan by exploding the bombs. And it was all anxiety in Pakistan since no one knew if Chinese technology put together in a hurry would work or not. It worked and Pakistan faced sanctions. India took the sanctions but could survive. India also had to test out some of the weapons simulations in the bargain and got it all done. This was to tell the Chinese that we can face them if the need arises. So China hurried in to help its proxy, Pakistan. And now again rumor mills are wondering why Pakistan is building more nukes beyond its need. May be another prodding might happen to confirm some of the speculations. Hope it is not in the form of a conflict.

By: kEiThZ Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:38:11 +0000 -Good luck with that, lets see if you can feed your poor in the slums before you build that fantasy spy network in Pakistan or build those unmanned combat vehicles. BTW it was India which went nuclear first and then when Pakistan detonated nuclear bombs now you guys are moaning again. – Umairpk

Given recent economic stats, I’d say he’s on the money.

India has actually been eradicating poverty and increasing defence expenditure at the same time. Their HDI is the highest its ever been (and increasing), fiscal and trade deficits are down, debts are coming under control (finally), all while India is increasing its power projection abilities and non-military capabilities (intelligence, information warfare, diplomacy, etc.). I’d say that’s a pretty good track record.

Pakistan on the other hand just gave 150 billion rupees for the military and nothing for education, health care, development, etc. I’d say sensiblepatriot is right on the money. This is playing out exactly like the USA-Soviet Union. How ironic since Pakistan helped bring down the Soviets.

And it’s only going to get worse for Pakistanis. Once the West leaves and the aid money dries up (or becomes far more targetted), the fattened military is not going to suddenly call it a day. They’ve gotten used to spending an extra $1-2 billion USD per year. They’ll want Pakistanis to make up for that shortfall. And knowing Pakistan, the politicians will cave in. They’ll cut even more from development and social services budgets. And Pakistan will keep descending towards the same fate at the Soviet Union.

Moreover, these cuts aren’t proportional. The government cuts first in the most restive regions. Despite what they say in the press, they cut in Balochistan, NWFP, Sindh before they cut in Punjab. Guess where the people are most pissed off? And the less they get from the national government, the less they’ll feel that they owe allegiance to Pakistan. Not spending on national development is a recipe for national disunity and eventually, possibly even the demise of the state.

Just calling it like it is.

By: netizen Sun, 05 Jun 2011 14:31:04 +0000 Talking about slums in India? STOP begging. When you are not planning next terrorist attack, pakis are all over the world whipping up the begging bowl vigorously :-)

By: sensiblepatriot Sun, 05 Jun 2011 09:09:47 +0000 Umairpk:”sensible patriot talking non-sense”.
The idea that hot piece of small metal flying out of a barrel and hitting a soldier would have looked nonsense in early 12th century, isn’t it?

1.Its not discernable for me what nonsense I have talked about, but I was saying about Arms race beween India and Pakistan. Neither this is new nor is happening for the first time between us. Only the odds are heavily against pakistan this time. Isn’t this the reason why it is hopelessly depending on only the nuclear aspect of the war.

2.The revolution in military affairs had brought before us new operational tactics of waging a war, where operational aspects of war be delegated to unmanned drones and vehicles to reduce human casualities, And directing human energies to focus on planning the course of events in a war . Is it so diffiult for you to understand the evolution of future wars?

3.I believe there are still some sane people left in pakistan who are arming short range nuclear missiles rather than long range ones. It means pakistan is more willing to fight on borders even to use short range nuclear warheads to hit Indian army and to counter this the Army has been trying to invest money,men and build institutions to create technology for future conflicts.

4.Pakistan, rather than showing brinkmanship of arming long range warheads and there by lowering nuclear threshold and threatening to take out India for every little tussle between us, its possible use of SRBM and its counter strategy by army makes complete sense.

5.To counter Indian Army’s strategy of unmanned (i would say limited manned) warfare, pakistan too need to invest billions to invent or buy such technology. Here’s the catch! Which means at the end of the day, “its the economy stupid!”, which comes to play and India wants to play war of attrition of material resources, is it so difficult to understand?

4.It seems to me that Pakistani military generals are in cahoot with Indian Strategists as they exactly play along the way Indian strategists wanted. To thier glee, Pakistani establishment has fallen into the trap of arms race with India and with few resources left after funding the military, it becomes increasingly difficult to improve your growth rate vis-a-vis India. So, Although you were trying hard to match us in the short term it becomes close to impossible to match us in medium or long term. They need their economy to grow as fast as India to atleast pretend to themselves that they are serious match to India. One wonders why their focus is not on their economy which if corrected can invest the profits into defence to match India.
This is not a forum to discuss war and neither I am a war mongerer but I tried to clrify my position and answer your diatribes, and Army always thinks of scenarios to counter its enemy militarily and not wait for diplomatic breakthroughs.

5.Regarding poverty its a decades long process to alleviate it and the speed of change (poverty reduction) is what matters, who do you think is performing better and its not like feediing them everday and voila problem solved. We have to create institutions deliver goods build their capacities and if one is not entirely blind the civil activism these days in India on accountability would provide much needed knowledge on the subject. Again the activism in pakistan against Army for the first time is one case of optimism for us.

6.Yes India did conduct its nuclear device first, first in south Asia not in the world. Got the Idea, We did to counter china not you, we do not need nuclear assets to frighten you, for that we have enough conventional weaponry. Its bad case to argue that Pakistan would not acquire nukes because we dont have them. It might still have acquired them and the reason that all of us know is to escape punishment from India (or any country for that matter ,akin to north korea) for their belligerent activities against India. So the case of Pakistan aquiring nuclear assets in response to India was case of intellectual bankruptsy and most Indians here pointed out that we dont give a damn about your nukes unless you stop cross border terrorism and blackmailing us when we resort to punishment for your activities.

By: sensiblepatriot Sun, 05 Jun 2011 07:35:21 +0000 Ganesh:”I don’t believe so. The US got worldwide sympathy after 9/11. It was not seen as an attack on just the US. This is what enabled the “coalition of the willing” to join the US in its invasion of Afghanistan”.

Unfortunately, I have a different take on this Ganesh.
1.It is indeed true that US got worldwide support in weeks after 9/11 and I was an enthusiastic supporter then. But much water has flown down the river since and with time we have started to realize the american priorities in war on terror. Ask any Indian whether he is concerned about killings of Americans in Iraq he would be likely to say NO. His many concerns are about terrorism emanating from pakistan. My Opinion of American war on terror is in the context of present day realities.
Perhaps I should have written “Honestly, we ourselves don’t give a damn “NOW” if few thousand Americans are killed by terrorists and probably say they deserved what they sowed all along.”
2.Countries like Russia which knows US better than any other country remained aloof to these operations even when their own interests coincided with War on Terror.Russia would have realized that devoid of any oil, afghanistan would not be such priority for America but for its strategic location. And just as Russia had forseen America started the build up of Missile defence bases and moved NATO even closer to russia.
3.Perhaps in a sense, it was our immaturity then that we believed America was coming to root out all the terrorists including those who troubled India. We must acknowledge our failed and fatal policy based on American actions.
4.Comparing the policies of India and China here, China in 2001 had realized quite early that this so called “war on terror” is an American operation to hit the terrorists who are targeting American interests.
Well it took 10 years for us to realize that when some American policy makers went as far as to profess a solution that solving Kashmir in favour of pakistan would end terrorism!
5.whatever our policy be on 9/11, now its time for us to show America our support but with riders. These should include support to America only if their interests coincide with ours.
6.If the Americans go their own way, without sharing intellegence of David headley or giving him access to us, then no point in sharing intelligence with them. we can only make sure that Americans too lose something if they could not see every terrorist as a threat to humanity. And even if Americans share intelligence but not let India pressure pakistan due to their concerns over war in Afghnistan, it means we got a bad deal out of them and a case of bad apples for us.

By: Umairpk Sun, 05 Jun 2011 06:22:25 +0000 sensible patriot talking non-sense:
“The next step for us naturally is to use unmanned combat vehicles (ground and air forces), decoys and high electromagnetic pulse weapon systems to disable their communications. Until we can bankrupt them we should continue to arm ourselves (keeping in mind on how much we can afford. It is a calculated arms race) which pakistan will at some point of time cannot afford at all to match, even with the help of aid provided west or arms donating china.

6.The idea is to tie her carefully in an arms race and not let grow its economy (knowing fully well that recent economic performances had not led to change in attitude in pakistan 2003-2008).”

-Good luck with that, lets see if you can feed your poor in the slums before you build that fantasy spy network in Pakistan or build those unmanned combat vehicles. BTW it was India which went nuclear first and then when Pakistan detonated nuclear bombs now you guys are moaning again.

By: KPSingh01 Sun, 05 Jun 2011 04:49:41 +0000 Ganesh: “As evidence of Western double-standards, has anyone noticed that attacks on Western citizens are carried out by “terrorists”, but attacks on Indians are by “militants”?”

If six Americans did not die in the Mumbai attacks, or if attempts were not planned on the Danish cartoonist, we would never have known about David Coleman Headley or Tawahur Rana. Countries like Canada have been quite hostile to India and have supported or given refuge to militants that harmed India. Pakistan, to them is a very strategic asset. If they burn the neighborhood it hardly matters to them. That is how it went for a long time. There is still a lot of old residue in the Pentagon and British military academies that like and prefer Pakistan no matter how degenerative that country has become. I get designated as an old fart by a Canadian here. But little do these people realize that strategic global outlook is very difficult to change and transcends over generations, regime changes and principles.

India has to build its own defensive methods. We do not have shrewd leaders. The last one was Vallabhai Patel. But for him, India would have fallen apart long ago. I’d like someone like Chidambaram to be a PM. He is someone who can take India to a position of strength in many aspects. But the Congress clan will not allow for that. We only seem to be interested in parading figure heads and award seeking celebrities. These people appear desirable in the eyes of the Westerners. There is a total dearth of a leader who can look around, ahead and lead the country forward. India has to seek its own course and deal with other countries from a position of strength. Based on what has happened to Pakistan, the US or any Western power is not to be trusted or relied upon. We can do business with them and work with them. We must never depend on them.

If Pakistan does not want to give up “militants”, then we will need to work on giving them a taste of their own medicine.