India cannot give Pakistan Army befitting reply

[The Great One]

Question is what advantage Pakistan will have to become an aggressor now or in future ??

Internationalizing Kashmir Issue, cover fire for infiltrators, distracting the domestic audience from domestic issues, keeping the India bogey alive for a bountiful defence budget.

 

[Rahil khan]

Internationalizing Kashmir Issue, cover fire for infiltrators, distracting the domestic audience from domestic issues, keeping the India bogey alive for a bountiful defence budget.

India has suspended bilateral talks, koe na koe reaction toh hona tha. Long gone is the Jihad policy...even you know pretty well. And please don't talk about bountiful budget, same excuse could be given about Indian military but i shall not because every security regime have got there own preferences. Pakistan military require handsome budget to fight against insurgency in FATA and Baluchistan. Army is giving lives over there. Even US commanders are admitting that Pakistan military has disrupted the Haqqani network's ability to carry it's activities. Indian military never used it's air power to deal with the insurgency problem, but Pakistan did, from that you can asses the gravity of situation here, and trust me it worked pretty well for us which obviously could have never done without proper economic support in the defense budget. Hope you will agree with my points.

 

[The Great One]

India has suspended bilateral talks, koe na koe reaction toh hona tha.
. And please don't talk about bountiful budget, same excuse could be given about Indian military but i shall not because every security regime have got there own preferences. Pakistan military require handsome budget to fight against insurgency in FATA and Baluchistan. Army is giving lives over there. Indian military never used it's air power to deal with the insurgency problem, but Pakistan did, from that you can asses the gravity of situation here, and trust me it worked pretty well for us which obviously could have never done without proper economic support in the defense budget. Hope you will agree with my points.

'Hope you will agree with my points.'

Lets see

Long gone is the Jihad policy...even you know pretty well.

I assume this belief is created by OP Zarb-e-Azb. Right?
Ever heard of 'good' terrorist and 'bad' terrorists?

And please don't talk about bountiful budget, same excuse could be given about Indian military but i shall not because every security regime have got there own preferences.

I'll concede this point, but due to completely unrelated reasons than the ones you mentioned. Pakistan Army is going to have a big budget anyway, whether you see India being decry d by the media or not.

Even US commanders are admitting that Pakistan military has disrupted the Haqqani network's ability to carry it's activities.

No they are not. Read the Pentagons recent report.

NOW, What exactly do you mean by this.

India has suspended bilateral talks, koe na koe reaction toh hona tha.

 

[xyxmt]

I have no doubt Pakistan starts the skirmishes along the LOC to keep Kashmir issue in the limelight. Congress govt was smarter than your Chaiwala; after all how smart you have to be to sell Chai; becuase Congress Knew Pakistani techtics and never fell prey to it. Mr. Chai wala fell for it, he escalated and world became aware that Kashmir issue is still there. Most of you idiots were laughing that Pakistan went to UN and UN did nothing and Pakistan went to EU and EU did nothing, you can say all this and pump your chest but the fact of the matter is we know UN doesn't do anything and EU wont do anything. But they were refreshed that there is sizzling issue of Kashmir and dont just forget it.

Other thing Mr. chaiwala did is suspended talks...very brave man, Pakistan doesnt care about talk what Pakistan cares and when India asks to resume the talk...the whole world is listening, they see that India admitting there is an issue name Kashmir. Now you watch after few of these LOC violations India will ask to resume talks, they have no choice.

and stop chest thumping, India cannot go to war with Pakistan.

 

[Donatello]

NO
Because according to our people

Pakistan is the aggressor here. We are the one responding.
But obviously you won't believe that so let's leave it at that.

Ya, according to your own people..............

 

[Rank]

In today's world non of any military is capable to give befitting response to their enemy the reason is, every country has enough capability to give hardcore response.... in short.. use proxy and feel happy!

 

[TheMatador]

India was taught lessons many times by Pakistan army.

 

[Green Arrow]

Let see, there is still 4 and half year left for modi to give this so called befitting reply

 

[Thorough Pro]

This article is a prime example of a monkey (read indian intellectual) with a pen and ability to write!
sentence highlighted in red is a proof that writer knows very well that he is lying, admits and but still goes ahead with the sacred task of bringing the "Truth" to the world, a world full of similarly minded, narrow sighted, biased and conceited Indians.

What a waste of ink.

Some alternate views on the LoC fiasco finally

Major General (Retd) Ashok K Mehta

Ceasefire violations occur cyclically, often premeditated but invariably linked to unresolvable Kashmir masla. Feuding local commanders testing the mettle of new battalions on LoC, tit-fortat responses and infiltration are the usual provocations for exchange of fire across the line.

Someone who has spent onethird of his youthful time astride the line, I understand what the Army calls the dynamics of LoC.

View attachment 146605
Nine out of 10 times, it is the autonomous Pak military that initiates the firing, though there is no way to ascertain this in the absence of the UNMOGIP (United Nations Military Observer Group for India-Pakistan), sensibly derecognised by India after the Shimla agreement.

This time around, additional reasons have been offered for the current round of firing — political instability, civil-army power struggle, elections in J&K and the creme de la creme testing Modi. "Pakistan should stop ceasefire violations now and understand the reality that times have changed in India," thundered home minister Rajnath Singh. This is reminiscent of BJP leaders asking Pak to lay off Kashmir after the nuclear tests in 1998. Soon Pak did its own nuclear tests, achieving parity.

"There is a new government in India with 282 seats and the world now recognises India" is the common refrain but this will not wash with Pak. With 489 seats late Rajiv Gandhi had to seek a meeting with General Zia ul Haq to defuse Operation Brasstacks in 1986 which was threatening to blow up into a war. The simple fact is that India has not developed a decisive, conventional military superiority to give Pakistan army a befitting reply. So what you get instead is 'Act Tough' rhetoric amounting to disproportionate response — no flag meetings, no DGMO talks and not even political talks unless Pak stops firing.

This is not remotely akin to the frequently touted muscular and robust foreign and security policy of the Modi government. On Air Force Day, on Wednesday, when asked by reporters on border firing, PM Modi responded with five words, "Jaldi sab theek ho jayega." Because this cycle of small arms and mortar fire has caused deaths of mainly civilians on both sides, as soldiers are inside bunkers, and is leading to the law of diminishing results, Mr Modi's words are prophetic.

Pak army has achieved its immediate objective of internationalising Kashmir, pushing in infiltrators and testing Modi. You do not need ISRO scientists to tell you that Modi could not have acted differently from what Army chief General Dalbir Suhag has advised — bullet for bullet, mortar shell for mortar shell but confining the military action to tactical level without escalation.

We in India must get accustomed to increased frequency and intensity of flare-ups on LoC. Some divine force — read US — has managed to restrain Pak army after Mumbai 2008 terror attacks from using its strategic assets like Lashkar-e-Taiba and other loonies from staging cross-border terrorist attacks on Indian mainland. The gap between major attacks is seven years. So watch out for 2015, once US withdraws from Afghanistan and loses interests in the region.

In the interregnum, the punching bag will remain LoC where the Pak army will expresses its rage and defiance over civilian control and arch-enemy India. Pakistan NSA Sartaj Aziz has been bending over backwards for resumption of dialogue.

Firing will peter out soon setting the stage for next month's Saarc summit in Kathmandu. Mr Modi, the acclaimed new messiah of Saarc spirit, will just have one option — to initiate the revival of needlessly stalled dialogue.

Detractors will contend that it is not PM Nawaz Sharif but Gen Raheel Sharif with whom we should talk. That's baloney.
India cannot give Pakistan Army befitting reply - Economic Times

 

[Shariq786]

We've seen your aggression plenty of times. In 1948, 1971, 1965, 1999. And on each of those occasion Pakistan was also the 'RETREATER'

really man 1999 and 1965 and 1948
let me clearify 1948 first in that war you lost half of the Kashmir thats a win for INDIA great
1965 your forces said that they will reach Lahore and capture it before the dawn lost 600 tanks the biggest amount of tanks lost to INDIA 4 of your jets surrendered and were landed in PAK the ration of air battle was 3:1 PAK kills 3 and INDIA kills 1
1999 your goverment annouces emergency on making of coffins because there was alot of casualties on the INDIAN side
IF you call these as the wars won by INDIA i can imaging what will be the outcome of loosing war against PAK

 

[Trev]

really man 1999 and 1965 and 1948
let me clearify 1948 first in that war you lost half of the Kashmir thats a win for INDIA great
1965 your forces said that they will reach Lahore and capture it before the dawn lost 600 tanks the biggest amount of tanks lost to INDIA 4 of your jets surrendered and were landed in PAK the ration of air battle was 3:1 PAK kills 3 and INDIA kills 1
1999 your goverment annouces emergency on making of coffins because there was alot of casualties on the INDIAN side
IF you call these as the wars won by INDIA i can imaging what will be the outcome of loosing war against PAK

Madrasah education at its finest, around the world it's taught that India has won all wars except from Pakistan where people still live in denial. In fact all neutral sources about the 1965 war support India.

Neutral assessments
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

• According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[73]–

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

• TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[74] The article further elaborates,

Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

• Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[75] –

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

• In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[76] Gertjan Dijkink writes –

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

• An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[77] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

• In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[7] –

India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2(150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

• Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,[78]

Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

• BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,[79]

The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.

• "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[8] –

India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

• An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[80] –

A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

• English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war[81] –

The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

• Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"[82] –

Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.

• Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold off the much larger Indian Army.[83]

By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.

 

[Shariq786]

by your assestments all i see is that INDIA could have won INDIA might have won Thats it but if you see it neutrally an army 1/4 the size of its counter part was able to get into the territory of INDIA

AND you also forgot about 1947 and 1999

@Trev

 

[HeadHunter]

On some other forum I have told many Indians before 2014 elections that even if modi comes to power nothing is going to change and see these Indians are still getting coffins and mortar shells
Illiteracy is the main problem in India no one figured out he was just selling Pakistan in front of illiterate anti Pakistan Indian masses just for getting into power .Now see now he is in power but the humiliation from Pakistan is still there, the poverty and open toilet problem is still there and almost 700 million Indians are defecating on streets.
Only education can improve Indian lives .

 

[Natama]

In today's world non of any military is capable to give befitting response to their enemy the reason is, every country has enough capability to give hardcore response.... in short.. use proxy and feel happy!

This attitude has created terrorism within Pakistan. When will you learn? If you don't understand this, it will be too late to see a pakistan. If say, nuclear weapon falls in the hand of terrorist, your country can bid farewell to being a single country. The west will split Pak in to 5 parts.

by your assestments all i see is that INDIA could have won INDIA might have won Thats it but if you see it neutrally an army 1/4 the size of its counter part was able to get into the territory of INDIA

AND you also forgot about 1947 and 1999

@Trev

Sometimes size does not matter. Take UK during the 19th century and start of 20th century. If you control your extremists and open your economy, you could grow faster and become stronger than India. In fact Pakistan was shining after Independence for a short time when India was backing the communist policies.

 

[Shariq786]

This attitude has created terrorism within Pakistan. When will you learn? If you don't understand this, it will be too late to see a pakistan. If say, nuclear weapon falls in the hand of terrorist, your country can bid farewell to being a single country. The west will split Pak in to 5 parts.



Sometimes size does not matter. Take UK during the 19th century and start of 20th century. If you control your extremists and open your economy, you could grow faster and become stronger than India. In fact Pakistan was shining after Independence for a short time when India was backing the communist policies.

well then you should know that a country which is engaged in war directly or indirectly for around 30 to 35 years means from russian invasion in afghanistan to nato invasion in afghanistan for a country like that PAK is doing a pretty good job holding INDIA back as well !!
Now don't say India is also involved with NATO it doesn't hurt INDIA as much as the war in afghanistan hurts PAK because of its geographical location ....