For peace with Pak, India has to be strong

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My understanding of the article was that for peace to come about India must hold overwhelming military superiority over Pakistan. If India has a comparable military power with Pakistan, that will lead to adventures from Pakistan with a belief that it will win the wars.

It doesnt imply that Pakistan should be boiling or that Pakistan should have disbanded its military.

A prosperous Pakistan will automatically mean that she will have the resources to maintain a conventional military that will not allow India an 'overwhelming military superiority' - therefore it is implicit in this analysis, and many others from Indian analysts and commentators (as I have pointed out elsewhere), that a prosperous Pakistan is not in India's interest.

 

[Awesome]

A prosperous Pakistan will automatically mean that she will have the resources to maintain a conventional military that will not allow India an 'overwhelming military superirority' - therefore it is implicit in this analysis, and many others from Indian analysts and commentators (as I have pointed out elsewhere), that a prosperous Pakistan is not in India's interest.

Yeah I mean saying India has to be strong is just a pussyfooter's way of saying Pakistan has to be weak.

This isn't the mindset of a peace pursuer, just a warmonger.

And can we stay on topic please?

 

[gpit]

...

My understanding of the article was that for peace to come about India must hold overwhelming military superiority over Pakistan. ...

Unfortunately, this is where THE fallacy of the article is.

Sikkim can be deemed as an example.

 

[Spring Onion]

It's a joke that Kashmir issue would be solved if India were strong. Instead, it may be annexed by India as history shows.

For peace with India, Pak must be strong.

so how much India wants to strong to contain Pakistan for peace ?????

utter nonsense why dont they say that India needs to be world largest weapon keeping country to contain China

 

[Neo]

Neo problem is, at Indian side Kashmir, people can raise voice so you listen. At Paksitani side of Kashmir people have no voice they are pushed into stone age and their land is used to horbor terror in the whole world, now they do not usnderstand meaning of rights.

Thats the typical Indian perception of Azaad Kashmir, nothing more than a wet dream.
You can only judge once you've been there. I've been to both sides of LOC and general sentiment of the Kashmiri muslims in AK is that they find themselves privileged not to be under Indian occupation, Kashmiris on the other side of LOC envy their Pakistani relatives for same reason.

You'll never see an Indian flag being raised in AK, but Pakistani flag in IHK is a comon phenomenae these days. Why? Because freedom means a lot to Kashmiris and Pakistan supports the option of independant Kashmir whereas India is not ready to let go.
This makes Pakistan Kashmirs natural ally.

India and Pakistan got their independence in 1947...Kashmir is still waiting for the day they can chose their own destiny.

Please elaborate how Kashmir is used to horbor terror in the whole world. Please prove it, don't claim it.

 

[lovemess17]

so how much India wants to strong to contain Pakistan for peace ?????

utter nonsense why dont they say that India needs to be world largest weapon keeping country to contain China

senorita for peace in the region all countries have to be strong so that they dont mess up with each other in fear of economic and military loss.if all 3 countries have second strike policy then it will bring more stability to the region.but none of this is happening some the military equation is changing rapidly an this has to be controlled.

 

[Contrarian]

A prosperous Pakistan will automatically mean that she will have the resources to maintain a conventional military that will not allow India an 'overwhelming military superiority' - therefore it is implicit in this analysis, and many others from Indian analysts and commentators (as I have pointed out elsewhere), that a prosperous Pakistan is not in India's interest.

Why? Cannot a prosperous Pakistan mean that it spends less money on the military and more on social sectors?

For over a decade now, India's defence budget as a percentage of GDP has been diminishing with it now at 1.9%-one of the lowest in the region.

Maybe, democracy truly flourishes in Pakistan, and the civilian governments dont spend the kind of money that the military dictators spent to match India. Maybe they spend more on other sectors. Wouldn't that constitute a stable and prosperous Pakistan?

Instead of military dictators relying on American aid to prop up the economy and the military needs, the successive civilian governments spend massive money on education, etc. Wont that constitute a stable and prosperous Pakistan?

Why do you equate a stable and prosperous Pakistan with having a conventional military that will not allow India an overwhelming superiority?

Till now, it has been shown that whenever Pakistan had comparable military, it launched a war or something or the other to get back Kashmir.

 

[IceCold]

Why? Cannot a prosperous Pakistan mean that it spends less money on the military and more on social sectors?

For over a decade now, India's defence budget as a percentage of GDP has been diminishing with it now at 1.9%-one of the lowest in the region.

Maybe, democracy truly flourishes in Pakistan, and the civilian governments dont spend the kind of money that the military dictators spent to match India. Maybe they spend more on other sectors. Wouldn't that constitute a stable and prosperous Pakistan?

Instead of military dictators relying on American aid to prop up the economy and the military needs, the successive civilian governments spend massive money on education, etc. Wont that constitute a stable and prosperous Pakistan?

Why do you equate a stable and prosperous Pakistan with having a conventional military that will not allow India an overwhelming superiority?

Till now, it has been shown that whenever Pakistan had comparable military, it launched a war or something or the other to get back Kashmir.

A rather mis judged analysis i must say. Firstly Pakistan having a strong military does not mean it has offensive desires in the region. Also not having a military at all means you are on a complete mercy of others. We as Pakistanis have suffered once due to our reliance on the US, we certainly do not wish to suffer again, or should i say be humiliated again. India has a clear cut objective to become a power to recon with. Once it achieves that status, it is all natural for a power to interfere in smaller nations matters. India is already doing that in Nepal, BD, Srilanka. Also you are completely wrong in your analysis about the civilian government doing this and doing that, i back some time debated this with you that civilian government has given nothing other then Chaos to Pakistan. All development that we saw was during the military rule and not civilian. Also you are greatly mistaken that only the military government spends on the army and not the civil one. It was Bhutto who started Pakistan's nuclear program, It was NS who tested them and the first time Ghauri was launched, T-80 were imported from Ukraine and under Musharraf rule country saw some massive military modernization why because we could afford it. Now you guys can call it as aids being given or whatever, the bottom line is the word afford no matter how we do it, What we could we did and we will continue to do so. As for other things that you mentioned developing educations, roads etc, let me tell you something all those things are off no good if we are not able to guard them or perhaps either live with our heads down or get ready to be bombed. A classic example of what is happening between Israel and Palestine. Pakistan will never be like that, we do not match India arms with arms, all we are doing to maintain some parity, minimum deterrence you may call it and that deterrence will always be there even if kashmir gets solved one day.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why? Cannot a prosperous Pakistan mean that it spends less money on the military and more on social sectors?

For over a decade now, India's defence budget as a percentage of GDP has been diminishing with it now at 1.9%-one of the lowest in the region.

Maybe, democracy truly flourishes in Pakistan, and the civilian governments dont spend the kind of money that the military dictators spent to match India. Maybe they spend more on other sectors. Wouldn't that constitute a stable and prosperous Pakistan?

Instead of military dictators relying on American aid to prop up the economy and the military needs, the successive civilian governments spend massive money on education, etc. Wont that constitute a stable and prosperous Pakistan?

Why do you equate a stable and prosperous Pakistan with having a conventional military that will not allow India an overwhelming superiority?

Till now, it has been shown that whenever Pakistan had comparable military, it launched a war or something or the other to get back Kashmir.

A prosperous Pakistan still has to take into account regional threats and challenges - we have two States with irredentist ideology on our Eastern and Western borders. The Georgian conflict is a perfect example of regional threats from larger, expansionist and belligerent states being a serious issue. Georgia too was 'prosperous and democratic', yet the lack of a credible military deterrent proved that its territorial integrity existed only as much as its powerful neighbors deemed it should.

Pakistan cannot and should not find itself in the position of Georgia - hence with prosperity, we should also ensure that our military continues to be updated.

A prosperous Pakistan means that there is a lot more money to go around, and even lower military spending (as a percentage of GDP) will allow Pakistan to deny India conventional military superiority.

And so we come around in a circle; these kinds of analysis argue for a large conventional military superiority (India) over Pakistan - and that just won't be possible with a prosperous Pakistan, unless the Kashmir dispute is settled, and even then it may take decades before trust is rebuilt and a scaling down of the military occurs (If other threats do not arise).