Why an Indian threat to Pakistan is a myth

[toxic_pus]

it still doesn't matter, complete difference between attacking a soverign country and attacking an area that is disputed, whether breaking ceasefire or not.

If UN agreement doesn't matter why do you bring it up every now and then. But your sense of obligation to signed agreement - no less than a UN agreement - is appalling. Kind of establishes what we Indian's are saying - that Pakistan is a psychotic, irrational and reckless nation, which has no sense of propriety at all. Hence, it's neighbours must be on their guard 24x7x365.

Thanks for confirming it.

As for supporting rebels, well same time bharat was also supporting baloch rebels, so guess what that means.

Really? In 66-67?

 

[DGMO]

You could use the same argument that you're using for why East Pakistan was created for Kashmir. Because local population was/is oppressed in both places. But how many bharatis do you see defending separation of Kashmir? The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of bharatis are GPA 4.0 hypocrites when it comes to these things.

And there we have it, the psyche of 'they did this to us, we must do it to them' continues. Why don't you understand that we helped create MB through our own vile actions. Given the strategic disadvantage we found ourselves in, India assisted them for their own strategic gain. But if you're going to moan about that, also moan about how our military raped Bangladeshi women en masse, and all the atrocities we were committing. It wasn't pretty, and we conducted ourselves disgustingly. The fact of the matter is, East Pakistan was going to go, we could not hang on to it. India did what it did, and I'm not defending that. But to sit here 40 years on, and justify armed insurgency in Kashmir on the back of that is not only weak, it's also crazy.

And why would the Indians back the seperation of Kashmir? Which Kashmir? You mean Leh? No, they want to stay with India. You mean Ladakh? No, they also have no desire to join Pakistan or seperate. Oh you mean Jammu don't you? Well, bad news there also I'm afraid, they also have no desire to change. So we come to the Valley. Ah, that place where there is a desire for 'change', but that doesn't necessarily mean joining Pakistan, it could mean independence. But we all know that it can't form its own country, it's not feasible or logical. A solution between all three parties to this dispute will only do that. Point is, Kashmir is not a cut and dry matter. 'All' of Kashmir does not have seperatist leanings, so we need to be mindful of that.

Whether or not it will give us Kashmir is not the point. Fact of the matter is that bharatis heavily supported separatists in our country, so we should do the same. I don't see any issue with that.

Supporting them diplomatically is one thing, supporting through violence is a different thing. We've done the latter, and although it may have seen to be a just and romantic thing to do to free Kashmiri's from their 'evil oppressor', it carries no weight now. Why we must stoke fires in our neighbours back garden is beyond me. Whatever they did to support the MB, we've more than returned the favour with Khalistan, Naga's and Kashmir. So I think we're pretty even. If you think 'pretty even' by definition is when Kashmir is with Pakistan, or an independent state, then you're just deluded to the extreme, or simply ignorant of reality. India as a growing power has more clout, friends and money than we think of. The P5 will never back us, the EU is in India's back pocket, the NAM see India as a figurehead. We're islolated my friend, time to move on.

I don't remember any history of support to LeJ. Nevertheless, we have never supported TTP or BLA, the two biggest terrorist organizations at this point. I am afraid to see that the bharati delusion is catching up with you. You'll frequently hear them say that Pakistan is fighting the same groups that it created. When you look only a little bit into this, it becomes obvious that this is utter nonsense.

I never said we created the BLA. Although I'm aware of militants that we helped covertly train, no longer want to listen to their 'masters' anymore. Their ideology and thougt process is now on a different track, and we no longer have them on the leash like we thought we did. Whoever we're fighting, we're fighting a threat larger than that on the eastern flank. That is the most important thing, and that enemy is internal, which is responsible for killing '000's. We need to concentrate our efforts on eliminating them - not India.

So then why do they have 80% of their military on Pakistani border, despite under current circumstances?

Because we have had 4 wars, because we launched Kargil, militants from OUR country attacked their seat of democracy (Parliament), then militants frm OUR country carried out a raid in their city of finance that killed 166 people. Because we're rapidly expanding our nuclear warheads, we're investing in JF-17's, IL-76 fuel tankers, Saab AWACS and Chinese AWACS platforms, as well as inducting more advanced F-16's and chasing down FC-20's. So it could be said that as we dramatically increase our military expenditure (in the face of our worst economic crisis), India has every right to do that. Bangladesh hasn't launched attacks, I don't think Nepal, Burma or Sri Lanka have. And with $60 billion in trade between China (only increasing), I don't see Indians feeling a 'true' threat in terms of a military attack from the Chinese (despite some issues).

Look past the anger and hate, because that won't get you anywhere. I grew up knowing about Kashmir, seeing it as an extension of our national identity. But fighting for it militarily now? Nah, forget it. It's through diplomacy that we'll come to a solution and that solution will be the LoC as a (soft) border. It's time to work with India to improve our economy and help feed our poor. Pakistani's in the villages dont care about the Kashmir conflict in the way you or others might think, they do however care where their next meal is going to come from.

That's what we should look to provide - and we'll only do that with peace and conflict resolution in the sub-continent.

 

[Vinod2070]

^^ Isnt it strange that the advocators and aspirants of Akhund Bharat, now feel 'threatened' by a country 1/3 their size?

You are still playing the old tricks that kept Pakistan in thrall of the military for decades, it became a country owned by the military.

Now that the security establishment has been proved to be totally incompetent and destroyed the country, you still need to make the same baseless noises!

What steps has India taken to get back the "Akhand Bharat"? How long do you want to monopolize all the resources of Pakistan for an incompetent, clueless establishment that is not able to deliver them the one thing it promised?

But then, some institutions can never evolve when the world changes around them. The country will drag them kicking and screaming if it has to survive.

PS: And no, you are wrong about size as well. You are 1/7 in population, 1/10 in economy and less than 1/4 in land area (if that has any meaning at all, much of that area being desert or in slippery Balochistan).

 

[Xeric]

On topic while ignoring the perpetual rants:

" Why are Pakistanis against America?

Why are Pakistanis against America?

.......The threat (enemy) perception in Pakistan, the consequent value placed by Pakistanis on the country’s nuclear assets and its nuclear programme and the complete mistrust of the Karzai regime strengthened by its unnatural cozying up to the Indians clearly encouraged by USA and the resultant growing Indian influence on Pakistan’s western border.

These are the principal realities that the Americans do not relate to and thus the kind of language that has been used by the US Administration, the Senate and the Congress and indeed by the US media for the past few years and specially since the Abbottabad operation.

On the issue of threat perception, I am reminded of a visit some years ago to Bangladesh. A Bangladeshi friend, who was a member of the Bangladesh Parliament, took me out for a drive outside the capital Dhaka. As we drove along the highway, I noticed army troops with trucks parked in the paddy fields. What are they doing here, I asked my friend who had retired as a Major, originally commissioned in Pakistan army, but who later crossed over to India following the military action of March 26, 1971.

They are in a war exercise, he said. A war exercise requires an enemy perception and I believe Bangladesh has none, I told my friend. With a grin on his face, he said India of course.

Now, after all that India did to dismember Pakistan and help create Bangladesh, India is the enemy perceived by the Bangladeshis. Can Pakistan, which has fought three wars with India, perceive otherwise? Not until Kashmir, the dispute over the river waters and a host of other issues between the two countries remain unresolved.

The world understands this but not the Americans. For if they did, the tone and tenor of their statements would have been different and they would have saved some of their counseling for their Indian friends......"


P.S. The article is well-written and may be read in isolation.

 

[sajan]

So you think Pakistan is going to attempt Kargil at this point in time? FYI, Pakistan only has 100,000 troops along Indian border.
It's 80% total military, and 100% offensive corps. As for Pakistan attempting Kargil, read my above sentence.

India has started to prepare a new "massive exercise" just 5 kms away frm Pak border n has 100% of its assets n 80% army facing Pakistan............. n the threat is still a myth? BS.

For the above questions, one among you guys has given a better answer than anyone... What he says is 100% true.

Because we have had 4 wars, because we launched Kargil, militants from OUR country attacked their seat of democracy (Parliament), then militants frm OUR country carried out a raid in their city of finance that killed 166 people. Because we're rapidly expanding our nuclear warheads, we're investing in JF-17's, IL-76 fuel tankers, Saab AWACS and Chinese AWACS platforms, as well as inducting more advanced F-16's and chasing down FC-20's. So it could be said that as we dramatically increase our military expenditure (in the face of our worst economic crisis), India has every right to do that. Bangladesh hasn't launched attacks, I don't think Nepal, Burma or Sri Lanka have. And with $60 billion in trade between China (only increasing), I don't see Indians feeling a 'true' threat in terms of a military attack from the Chinese (despite some issues).

 

[Xeric]

All of IA is not deployed along the Indo-Pak border. They are in their barracks far away from the borders.

Do you even know the difference between 'getting deployed', 'being poised against something' and 'dis-positioned with an aim to tackle a particular threat'?

By your lame definition, our 11 and 12 Corps and your entire Eastern Command, doesnt pose each other (Pakistan and india) ANY threat! Funny yet, by this kinda understanding, the Chinese should be your best friend!

Now go learn some 'military' and then come back.

 

[toxic_pus]

All of IA is not deployed along the Indo-Pak border. They are in their barracks far away from the borders.

Do you even know the difference between 'getting deployed', 'being poised against something' and 'dis-positioned with an aim to tackle a particular threat'?

By your lame definition, our 11 and 12 Corps and your entire Eastern Command, doesnt pose each other (Pakistan and india) ANY threat! Funny yet, by this kinda understanding, the Chinese should be your best friend!

Now go learn some 'military' and then come back.

Doing a good job at missing the point. Anyone else and I would have assumed that it is an honest mistake. You, well, are just incapable.

Now go learn some 'logic' and then come back.

 

[Xeric]

You chose to avoid answering some tough questions Xeric while picking on a non-issue and telling some one to go learn some 'military'.

Doing a good job at missing the point. Anyone else and I would have assumed that it is an honest mistake. You, well, are just incapable.

Now go learn some 'logic' and then come back.

^^ Seems as if a nerve was struck.

Anywaz, what 'tough' questions are 'points' are we missing here. Please reiterate.

Let's see, what exactly you guys know of ORBATs, disposititioning of forces and their capabilities (especially the armour punch of them). Do you even know the difference between a RAPID and a standard infantry division?!

You chose to avoid answering some tough questions Xeric while picking on a non-issue and telling some one to go learn some 'military'.

Well, if that's the case, then i must say, i am doing the exact thing the guy you came up defending has ALWAYS been doing, and i have just started sir!

 

[toxic_pus]

Deja Vu..?..:

Your desperation to raise a strawman is reaching new heights of absurdity. 'ORBATs, disposititioning of forces and their capabilities' or 'the difference between a RAPID and a standard infantry division' are just as relevant to the topic at hand as is the colour of Santa Clause's underwear.

P.S. Still waiting for an answer; what tough questions and points am i missing here? See, i am no brainy, i am just a 2 jama 2=4 mota dimagh fauji, please help me out here. Let's see how much glial cells you people actually make use of.

That is an uncannily accurate self-assessment. Congratulations.

OK, I will spoon feed you. But be warned that the following passage might just be a little too lengthy for your attention span.

The argument forwarded by a member was that since '80%' of IA is Pakistan oriented, India therefore is a threat. It was explained that India has its reasons. There is a genuine and severe trust deficit against Pakistan, accumulated for over 60 years, through some well documented Pakistan initiated conflicts, and unless it is addressed to the satisfaction of GoI, '80%' of IA will not move from where they are. And, right on cue, began the goal post shifting. It was asked, perhaps in a poor attempt at cynicism, when PA is busy somewhere else, with 'significant' reduction of troops in it's east, what's the point of having '80%' of IA reserved for Pakistan? It was in this context that the earlier comment was made to illustrate the point, in not so many words, that '80%' of IA are where they have always been during peace time - which incidentally never thwarted Pakistan from indulging in pointless adventurism - with no demonstrable evidence or indication that they are in any way preparing to sneak an attack. That specific question therefore is moot, in the context of Pakistan's perception of India being the primary threat, because India is diligently maintaining the status quo.

Bottomline: IA will continue to be reserved for Pakistan till the trust deficit has been made good of, or at least an honest attempt in that direction has been made, by Pakistan.

 

[Xeric]

Your desperation to raise a strawman is reaching new heights of absurdity. 'ORBATs, disposititioning of forces and their capabilities' or 'the difference between a RAPID and a standard infantry division' are just as relevant to the topic at hand as is the colour of Santa Clause's underwear.

This 'strawman' approach from my side was because of your 'indepth' analysis and 'thorough understanding' of military affairs. Here's an instance where you informed us as regards to the 'insight' that you possess in such matters:

All of IA is not deployed along the Indo-Pak border. They are in their barracks far away from the borders. What else do you expect GoI to do? Dismantle it's war machine

Hence the simple question; "if you knew anything about:
1-'dispositioning of troops',

2-'employment of the same'
and the
3-'actual deployment of forces'...??"

Because, to me it seemed as if someone who thinks that an army sitting inside barracks and it's positioning 'away' from the border (the one where it is likely to employed and/or deployed) poses no threat to the other side, is stupid.

Armies dont stay at borders 24/7, unless the terrain is disputed (the LoC, LAC etc), if that's what you meant by saying that the IA poses no threat as it sits inside barracks without getting deployed!

It is the positioning of troops, their bias (towards a particular side/direction) and the equipment/capability (Armour Divisions/Brigades, Engineer Stores (required for Bridging, Assault across water obstacles etc) they hold, DURING PEACE TIME that tells someone about the real intent and help them quantify the (volume of) threat. This understanding, my dear, was what you lacked and still do!

Troops positions (during peace time) are based on two notions:

1) They are positioned away from their likely deployment areas in terms of TIME i.e. how much time they would take to reach the perceived deployment area (DA);
or either

2) They are positioned in terms of SPACE i.e. ho much terrain is to be traversed when they finally has to move towards their DAs

To make it simple for your tiny brain to understand, here's a tip;

It is always advisable to position troops (away from the DA, if required) in terms of TIME in Mountainous Terrain as compared to in terms of SPACE, because a company/battalion may only be 4 kms (SPACE) away but it may take them days (TIME) to reach the DAs. Hence the calculation in terms of TIME and not SPACE.

Now, go back, rummage through the IA's peace time localities and then come back, because now (as more learned you are - say thanx to your teacher Ustad Xeric) you may be able to add something useful to this thread!

Ok.

The question regarding the difference between a RAPID and a Std Inf Div was also related. Because if you had known the difference (which i still presume you dont and thus the rants), you would have clearly known what (specific) message it would send across the border when if a RAPID is deployed/employed/poised (at a peace location) INSTEAD of a Std Inf Division.

To understand this, one need to understand the difference between the two (RAPID and Std Inf Division), so to quote it from an open source:

Indian RAPIDS

"The antecedents of the Reorganized Plains Infantry Division (RAPID) lie in decisions taken about 15 years ago. The bulk of the forces facing Pakistan in the plains were infantry. Army Plan 2000, formulated in 1985, called for the wholesale mechanization of all plains forces with the exception of seven divisions, which would consist of a mix of armor and infantry. These could be utilized in sectors unsuitable for pure mechanized/armor formations, for example, in the Jammu-Samba-Pathankot sector (Indian XVI Corps), and in the increasingly built-up areas of the North Punjab (Indian XI Corps). These divisions were called RAPID.......

.......The original RAPIDs concept, tested in Exercise Brasstacks (winter, 1986/87), made the following changes in a standard plains infantry division:

• Mechanizing one of the division's three brigades, by putting the division's tank regiment into the brigade, and adding a second tank regiment plus a BMP battalion.
  
• Adding a Reconnaissance and Support Battalion of two R and S companies and a Surveillance company.
  
• Exchanging the division artillery brigade's battery of 12 120mm mortars for an 122mm rocket battery.
  
• Adding an anti-aircraft gun battery.
  
• Attaching 3-4 heavy attack helicopters and an anti-tank company to the division.
  
• Adding a Surveillance and Target Acquisition Battery to Divarty, as well as boosting the capabilities of the HQ Battery.

These relatively small changes greatly enhanced the plains division's firepower, mobility, and surveillance capability,....."

Now assuming that you have understood the difference between a RAPID and a Std Inf Div (though i doubt it), i will go a bit further. Now what difference could possibly the deployment or peace locationing of a RAPID would make instead of a Std Inf Div? So, one of a very basic assessment (a very very basic one which dont require a rocket scientist but a mota dimagh like myself) can be;

that if a RAPID is poised against an enemy as opposed to a Std Inf Div, it may mean that the IA may plan on taking/retain the capability to undertake a limited offensive (Limited to the particular theater of war, not your COAS' brain-fart regarding THE Limited Offensive - Gosh! it seems as if i am teaching Kindergartens!!!) , say thanks to the 2 x armored regiments and 2 x mechanized battalions, an 122mm rocket battery, and additional an anti-aircraft gun battery, an additional 3-4 heavy attack helicopters and an anti-tank company - which are missing in a SID, and which a SID is not capable of doing!!!

So see, how knowing about ORBAT, positioning, dispostioning and capabilities can help someone make use of his brain in a better way and actually talk in terms of tangibles and not brain-farts (re-the 'irrelevant question of mine regarding "the colour of Santa Clause's underwear.")

So now you got it, eh?

No?

This is just one example and a very basic analysis (though you can confirm it from the likes of Tik Tama Toya - oops he's banned ), but the you get the overall picture, right? This was just to put across my point that WITHOUT having knowledge about the capabilities and limitation of forces and the equipment they hold (for instance the question of difference between RAPID and a SID), it is naive of you to come here and debate this topic out!

So, let's repeat what we have learned today, here;

- It is NOT the deployed forces that poses a threat, ONLY.

- The dispositioning of troops during peace time, their bias towards a particular sector and the equipment/capability (hint: the difference of tanks, anti-taank weapons, anti aircraft weapons, artillery fire power etc between a RAPID and SID) that it holds, is the foot-rule that is made use for threat assessment. (Please counter-check this from other militaries before come back and rant you way out.)

To understand this better, see the following (ignore the news and just concentrate, if you can, on the bold parts, they amply explain how 'dispositions' work):


www./iaf-to-deploy-two-squadrons-of-su-30mki-fighter-near-pakistan-border
"The Indian Air Force will deploy two squadrons of Su-30MKI fighters near the Pakistani border said South Western Air Command chief Air Marshal A K Gogoi. AM Gogoi gave a time frame of 2 years for the completion of the deployment. The two air bases are Jodhpur in Rajasthan and Halwara air base in Punjab. Jodhpur is scheduled to be the first Su-30MKI base near the Pakistan border. IAF has also begun regular Su-30 MKI practice flights from Leh air base in Jammu and Kashmir said AM Gogoi. Leh is a high altitude air base.

IAF has deployed SU-30 MKI’s in Lohegaon and Bareilly, which can also cover Pakistan. On the Chinese front, the SU-30 MKI’s have been deployed in Tezpur and Chabua in Assam. Su-30 MKI’s also operate from Andaman and Nicobar Islands."

This is a repeat announcement, but with a time frame. In 2008, similar announcement was made and no time frame was given. Last year, IAF had inaugurated the Phalodi air field in Rajasthan and mentioned that SU-30 MKI’s will be stationed in the base. This time, there was no reference to it.


i hope this would give you some insight to as to how "peace time" localities, "inside the barracks" and "not deployed troops" actually pose a threat to someone!!

That is an uncannily accurate self-assessment. Congratulations.

i'll take it as a compliment. Also, please feel free to quote me on this.

OK, I will spoon feed you. But be warned that the following passage might just be a little too lengthy for your attention span.

^^Spoon feed...yeah right! (see above)

The argument forwarded by a member was that since '80%' of IA is Pakistan oriented, India therefore is a threat. It was explained that India has its reasons. There is a genuine and severe trust deficit against Pakistan, accumulated for over 60 years, through some well documented Pakistan initiated conflicts, and unless it is addressed to the satisfaction of GoI, '80%' of IA will not move from where they are. And, right on cue, began the goal post shifting. It was asked, perhaps in a poor attempt at cynicism, when PA is busy somewhere else, with 'significant' reduction of troops in it's east, what's the point of having '80%' of IA reserved for Pakistan? It was in this context that the earlier comment was made to illustrate the point, in not so many words, that '80%' of IA are where they have always been during peace time - which incidentally never thwarted Pakistan from indulging in pointless adventurism - with no demonstrable evidence or indication that they are in any way preparing to sneak an attack. That specific question therefore is moot, in the context of Pakistan's perception of India being the primary threat, because India is diligently maintaining the status quo.

Bottomline: IA will continue to be reserved for Pakistan till the trust deficit has been made good of, or at least an honest attempt in that direction has been made, by Pakistan.

Try reading these and it may shove some sense into your brains:

http://www.pakdef.info/pids/pids2/research/indiaswarplan.html

Pakistan Centric: 'The Indian Army' - Analysis

 

[gOtHmOG]

You can't be serious. 3 wars and innumerable skirmishes and the author still thinks a future confrontation is a myth, not to mention the the record breaking increase in the military budget. All the hardware added and being added is enough for any country to question India's intent

 

[toxic_pus]

This 'strawman' approach from my side was because.....

<rant>

....it may shove some sense into your brains:

I was expecting this bloviation. As usual, you have sidestepped the context, and gone into a pretty long winded rant that doesn't come close to addressing the issue of why IA is Pak oriented. That IA is Pak oriented is an accepted fact and is the very basis of this whole argument. How IA/IAF/IN/Gandalf are oriented is therefore irrelevant to that issue. I am quoting myself from the previous post.

...the earlier comment was made to illustrate the point, in not so many words, that '80%' of IA are where they have always been during peace time - which incidentally never thwarted Pakistan from indulging in pointless adventurism - with no demonstrable evidence or indication that they are in any way preparing to sneak an attack. That specific question therefore is moot, in the context of Pakistan's perception of India being the primary threat, because India is diligently maintaining the status quo.

The question referred to above is: So you think Pakistan is going to attempt Kargil at this point in time? FYI, Pakistan only has 100,000 troops along Indian border.

Maybe once in a while you should try to read a post completely and go beyond the first sentence. That way you might save some bandwidth. Other than that, your chest thumping is pretty entertaining; reminds me of a sight I saw in my local zoo.

 

[Xeric]

And that's the best (rant) you can come up with?

Seriously, you have been as useful to this thread (and others) as a one-armed trapeze artist with an itchy arse!!

Guud job!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

...the earlier comment was made to illustrate the point, in not so many words, that '80%' of IA are where they have always been during peace time - which incidentally never thwarted Pakistan from indulging in pointless adventurism - with no demonstrable evidence or indication that they are in any way preparing to sneak an attack. That specific question therefore is moot, in the context of Pakistan's perception of India being the primary threat, because India is diligently maintaining the status quo.

Whatever excuses/justification India wants to provide for the deployment of a significant part of its military against Pakistan is irrelevant from the Pakistani perspective.

You appear intelligent enough to realize that whether one side claims a 'trust deficit' or 'historic wrongs' or whatever has no bearing on how a massive military buildup/deployment between two hostile nations, by one of them, will be perceived by the other.

As Gen. Kiyani has made clear to Western interlocutors - Pakistan can only address 'capability', not 'intent'. 'Intent' means nothing - there is no 'No War Treaty/Pact', and the territory on which both sides are deployed continues to be officially claimed by both.

If India were to unilaterally, officially, give up all claims to PaK, then and only then could 'Indian intent', as Indians like to describe it, be taken seriously.

Till then, the massive Indian military deployment against Pakistan, especially given the history of conflict with India, is a threat - no rational individual would consider it anything else.

 

[toxic_pus]

As Gen. Kiyani has made clear to Western interlocutors - Pakistan can only address 'capability', not 'intent'. 'Intent' means nothing - there is no 'No War Treaty/Pact', and the territory on which both sides are deployed continues to be officially claimed by both.

One could argue that it is the intent that is everything. It is intent that drives one to acquire capability, formulate policy and act accordingly. India hasn't acted in any way that would be indicative of a policy of unprovoked preemptive strike against Pakistan. India's capability only matches the defensive policy of providing a deterrence against Pakistan's recklessness. Gen. Kiyani is of course trying to set up an apologia for the psychotic behaviour of the army he commands, in general, and an excuse for not going after American interests, in particular. Not exactly a rocket science there.

If India were to unilaterally, officially, give up all claims to PaK, then and only then could 'Indian intent', as Indians like to describe it, be taken seriously.

Ignoring your ridiculous sense of entitlement as inevitable hubris of cheerleaders of Pakistani military complex; India did agree to give up claim on P0K way back in late 50s when Nehru hinted at turning LoC (then CFL) into international boundary on amenable terms. You, of course, had other plans. Since then India hasn't done anything that would indicate that India intends to take over P0K, which in any case, is well within India's right. It is probably time for people such as yourself to realise, that Kashmir is no longer a 'cause'. It has become a 'symptom'.

At the end of the day, India is not bleeding. It is Pakistan which is paying the price of such misplaced priorities. You are right about one thing though - it is entirely Pakistan's call. And as long as you have your priorities all messed up, hawks from both sides are the happiest ones.

@Captain Obvious, grow up now, will you.