Why an Indian threat to Pakistan is a myth

[Xeric]

Like they say, intent can change over night, capability, on the other hand take years to build or reduce.

The capability that india retains (read cutting Pakistan into halves, limited offensive etc) took years to crystallize and mature - these cannot simply be ignored. We (and you know) that india has capacity to take on Pakistan at will, as demonstrated by the inventory of india forces (who need 3 Armour Divisions against mountainous terrain?), the peace time dispositions of the same, the recent exercises and the ones held in the past. Also, india has another unique capability of creating a situation whereby she can conceive a reason out of nowhere to justify its aggression (occupation of Kashmir, Junagarh, Parliament Attacks etc are a few instances). So asking us to lower our guards is not a sensible thought.

As for your 'phobia' concerning an initiative from the Pakistani side, i think if that had been true, the indian military should have been solely a defencive force rather then an offensive one. Now i can only hope that i dont have to lecture noobs regarding the differences between a defencive force and an offensive one.

Also, to take assistance from the 'horse's mouth', let's see what india's military doctrine states:

1.13 Role of the Indian Army. The Indian Army is the land component of the Indian Armed Forces which exist to uphold the ideals of the Constitution of India. As a major component of national power, along with the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force, the roles of the Indian Army are as follows :-
• Primary Role. Preserve national interests and safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of India against any external threats by deterrence or by waging war. ~ indian army doctrine. First Edition : October 2004, Published By: Headquarters Army Training Command (Lt Gen K Nagaraj, GOC-in-C ARTRAC) Internet Archive Wayback Machine


Now which 'defensive' military has a stated policy of 'wagging war'?

To quote US military's doctrine:

...This includes: Preserve the peace and security and provide for the defense of the United States, its territories and possessions, and any areas it occupies; Support national policies; Implement national objective; Overcome any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States.


See something in common?
Now this makes sense, doesnt it? It suite the US as it commands the 'mother of all militaries', but we also have india stating a 'similar' doctrine, which their citizens are not quite aware of.

No wonder it is guud to read before coming to an argument, or else, one lands up ranting, huffing and puffing.

Now, for your 'home work'.. go rummage through Pakistan's military doctrine.

---

i would also like to say something about the 'intent' part of the discussion. When the COAS said that he believes over ones capability rather then intent, his indication was towards the Cold Start Doctrine. Knowing that the indians 'intend' to bring up their 'capability' in order to have the capacity to execute maneuvers essential for a Cold Start, but at the same time appreciating that at that point of time the indians didnt posses the resources/equipment/officer lot etc (read capability) to undertake such adventure, the CSD was rubbished off!

Now, as we can see that india is (slowly) moving towards the direction of modernization to include inducting equipment and gadgetry (i'll not list it down) essentially required for a blitzkrieg kinda operation (read building upon its 'capability' to actually unfold such a maneuver), i think, we have all the right to 'fear' india.


P.S. i know this might fall heavy on some sensibilities, if so, please free to ignore both the post and the rants that would follow up in response.

 

[SMC]

To have the number of troops that Bharat has on Pakistani border in the current is no doubt paranoic on the side of the bharatis. This is where the suspicion and the threat arises from.

 

[toxic_pus]

Like they say, intent can change over night, capability, on the other hand take years to build or reduce.

Unless we are talking about high school bullies brawling over a chick, nations with strong democratic institutions don't and can't change intent overnight, on a whim, in a vacuum, without a context. Capability must be matched adequately by a well thought out policy to use that capability in the most efficient manner possible, in carrying out an 'intent'. Policy, itself, takes time to mature.

Canada or Mexico is not terribly concerned with US capabilities, much the same way as Pak is not loosing sleep over China's. Because intent and a policy to that effect are missing in US and China. Pakistan, however, has proved time and again, basic rules of statecraft do not apply to it.

The capability that india retains (read cutting Pakistan into halves, limited offensive etc)...

No need to exaggerate just to make your points look credible. As with Kashmir and Junagad, reading a little bit of history would help.

As for your 'phobia' concerning an initiative from the Pakistani side, i think if that had been true, the indian military should have been solely a defencive force rather then an offensive one.

Not necessarily. Indian policy is not just to defend, but take the war back to Pakistan, if need arises. How much of it is feasible in reality is a separate debate.

1.13 Role of the Indian Army. The Indian Army is the land component of the Indian Armed Forces which exist to uphold the ideals of the Constitution of India. As a major component of national power, along with the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force, the roles of the Indian Army are as follows :-
• Primary Role. Preserve national interests and safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of India against any external threats by deterrence or by waging war.

How do you suppose a national army defend the nation's interest and safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity against external threat, if not by waging war. More importantly, what would IA do when 'deterrence' fails. Drop their pants, point their azz towards the enemy and fart in unison, and hope that the stench drives them away? The key here is not how, but what IA intends to do. What you missed is IA doesn't want to 'wage war' to further any territorial ambition, something that you accuse IA of.

i would also like to say something about the 'intent' part of the discussion. When the COAS said that he believes over ones capability rather then intent, his indication was towards the Cold Start Doctrine. Knowing that the indians 'intend' to bring up their 'capability' in order to have the capacity to execute maneuvers essential for a Cold Start, but at the same time appreciating that at that point of time the indians didnt posses the resources/equipment/officer lot etc (read capability) to undertake such adventure, the CSD was rubbished off!

Now, as we can see that india is (slowly) moving towards the direction of modernization to include inducting equipment and gadgetry (i'll not list it down) essentially required for a blitzkrieg kinda operation (read building upon its 'capability' to actually unfold such a maneuver), i think, we have all the right to 'fear' india.

And a goal post shift. Right on cue. So the 'intention' of your enemy, as you perceive of it, does matter after all. Right. What else is new?

 

[Zarvan]

Unless we are talking about high school bullies brawling over a chick, nations with strong democratic institutions don't and can't change intent overnight, on a whim, in a vacuum, without a context. Capability must be matched adequately by a well thought out policy to use that capability in the most efficient manner possible, in carrying out an 'intent'. Policy, itself, takes time to mature.

Canada or Mexico is not terribly concerned with US capabilities, much the same way as Pak is not loosing sleep over China's. Because intent and a policy to that effect are missing in US and China. Pakistan, however, has proved time and again, basic rules of statecraft do not apply to it.


No need to exaggerate just to make your points look credible. As with Kashmir and Junagad, reading a little bit of history would help.


Not necessarily. Indian policy is not just to defend, but take the war back to Pakistan, if need arises. How much of it is feasible in reality is a separate debate.


How do you suppose a national army defend the nation's interest and safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity against external threat, if not by waging war. More importantly, what would IA do when 'deterrence' fails. Drop their pants, point their azz towards the enemy and fart in unison, and hope that the stench drives them away? The key here is not how, but what IA intends to do. What you missed is IA doesn't want to 'wage war' to further any territorial ambition, something that you accuse IA of.


And a goal post shift. Right on cue. So the 'intention' of your enemy, as you perceive of it, does matter after all. Right. What else is new?

Indians stop talking do something or keep quiet I am fed up of your claims show something or just......................

 

[Xeric]

Unless we are talking about high school bullies brawling over a chick, nations with strong democratic institutions don't and can't change intent overnight, on a whim, in a vacuum,

It's funny how you easily create 'new' kind of definitions out of the blue.

^^ Looks like as if you want me to lecture you as regards to the methodology of 'intentions'.

See, that's the beauty of an 'intent', it can be conceived through a brain-fart and then negated the very next second through another brain-fart. You may 'intend' to drive through india on a motor-bike while sitting on a commode, but then by the time you are finished washing your arse, your intent might already have changed because you consider that your arse cant bear the rigors of a rough cross country ride through india, no? But then we are talking of countries and their militaries here, right? So one has to condone to the fact that 'intent' at such strategic levels are not without a reason (read context) and therefore:.....

without a context

.
The context behind the 'intention' of storming Pakistan with some IBGs, supported by massive fire support and then declare 'bus kafi' hai is in the backdrop of escalation 2001-02, the failure of Op Parakram, Mumbai Attacks, Surgical Strikes et al.

But then, just like you were intending to go on a joy ride on your bike while you sat on the 'crown', and then rubbished off the idea before you 'renounced' the crown, in a similar fashion the indian govt and military are now trying (for quite some time now) to 'rubbish off' the same idea by giving the underdiscussion article/topic alot more wieghtage than it deserves. See, it's not really a rocket science.

Capability must be matched adequately by a well thought out policy to use that capability in the most efficient manner possible, in carrying out an 'intent'. Policy, itself, takes time to mature.

^^ Pu$$y, you are saying exactly the something that i have said, but with a 'twist'. Please see to it.

Canada or Mexico is not terribly concerned with US capabilities, much the same way as Pak is not loosing sleep over China's. Because intent and a policy to that effect are missing in US and China. Pakistan, however, has proved time and again, basic rules of statecraft do not apply to it.

Sure, we have not mastered in creating reasons and casus bellis like you indians do Re-Parliment and Mumbai..

No need to exaggerate just to make your points look credible. As with Kashmir and Junagad, reading a little bit of history would help.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...ia-dissects-pakistan-half-mock-battles-6.html

Indian Military Rehearse Pakistans Dissection In Mock Battles

^^You know what, it is really guud to see you guys going back on your 'intents' and 'capabilities' at the same time, though the (new kind of) intent is very much there, only that it has changed faces (Akhund Bharat>dismember Pakistan>dissect us>cold start cum limited war>surgical strikes), this is notwithstanding the fact that you guys are still working on attaining the (new) capability.

Seriously, i on a personal note, love the versatility of the india (military) mind.

Not necessarily. Indian policy is not just to defend, but take the war back to Pakistan, if need arises. How much of it is feasible in reality is a separate debate.

Super powers have varied doctrines, wannabe supa-powers dont!

If india is so docile (as being vigorously debated by you and the writer of the article), then it should have had only one/a particular doctrine where it would just 'defend' india from internal and external threats. This again, is in consonance with a 'defensive' military who does not have the capacity (read capability) to run over its neighbors, but then that's not the case. How can you claim that the 'indian threat to Pakistan is a myth' as you do agree that "Indian policy is not just to defend, but take the war back to Pakistan"?!

So, quick, tell us which one is it? A papu-bacha india with a defensive policy or a taking-the-war-back-to-Pakistan india that would render the purpose of this thread flawed?

BTW, this ("How much of it is feasible in reality is a separate debate") is exactly the topic of this thread, if you can remember.

i know, the thread has taken quite a toll on your senses, so i dont blame you.

How do you suppose a national army defend the nation's interest and safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity against external threat, if not by waging war.

Please go read about the armies that has a Defensive Doctrine as their alma mater. i have done enough schooling for two days. BTW, this is done by creating a 'deterrent' which in this case are the nukes. Deterrence against an aggressor, that's to say. And in tandem to this (defensive) deterrent there has to be some potency to 'take the war into Pakistan', which you have already admitted to and which india amply possesses, hence we can conclude that this thread and the idea (that an indian threat to Pakistan is a myth) is just wastage of bandwidth and a bull shyt.

Congrats! You have once again have been face-palmed (via your own arguments). And that's no cheap achievement to have

Still, if you want to carry on with the so called debate, then i would like to continue from this point of mine; "Deterrence against an aggressor, that's to say..." but then Kargil happened, right? So this means that your deterrence failed (which in turn would imply that your policy was (deterrence) screwed up) and hence your aggressive posture (dovetailed with taking-the-war-into-Pakistan), thus this bring us back to the same point again (thanks for making us running in circles): The indian threat to Pakistan is NOT a myth Bravo! you did it one more time

But wait, it was not us who hinted upon the possibility of a Limited War under a nuclear umbrella, nor was it Pakistan that 'intended' to Cold Start, which in fact is very much in line with india-taking-war-into-Pakistan, and thus http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...s/111850-why-indian-threat-pakistan-myth.html is just another brain-fart. So one more time, should we let go of the thread and the idea within and go back and smoke some guud shyt, no?

More importantly, what would IA do when 'deterrence' fails.

This would simply imply that your strategy was fcuked up. Dont blame us for your failures. And this in turn would imply that india should be capable of taking-war-into-Pakistan, and thus.......... (i am sure that you know what i want say ).

Drop their pants, point their azz towards the enemy and fart in unison, and hope that the stench drives them away?

Hmm...though that would be one 'glamorous' sight to behold, but then if you dont want to do that and instead take some tangible steps, than what's the fcuk with the purpose of this thread?!

The key here is not how, but what IA intends to do. What you missed is IA doesn't want to 'wage war' to further any territorial ambition, something that you accuse IA of.

We have discussed this before. The 'territorial ambition' is dying down/had died down (remember the transition from akhund bharat to surgical strikes, no?), but this doesnt mean that IA doesnt want to wage war to teach Pakistan a 'lesson'. And if that so, why are we discussing this topic/thread at the first place, for crying out loud?

And a goal post shift. Right on cue. So the 'intention' of your enemy, as you perceive of it, does matter after all. Right. What else is new?

Yeah right. i know it was subtle.

 

[toxic_pus]

It's funny how you easily create 'new' kind of definitions out of the blue.

^^ Looks like as if you want me to lecture you as regards to the methodology of 'intentions'.

See, that's the beauty of an 'intent', it can be conceived through a brain-fart and then negated the very next second through another brain-fart. You may 'intend' to drive through india on a motor-bike while sitting on a commode, but then by the time you are finished washing your arse, your intent might already have changed because you consider that your arse cant bear the rigors of a rough cross country ride through india, no? But then we are talking of countries and their militaries here, right? So one has to condone to the fact that 'intent' at such strategic levels are not without a reason (read context) and therefore:......

I wasn't creating any definition. I was trying to explain how a democratic country with a functioning parliament operates. I know now, that explaining democratic process to a Pakistani fauji is like milking a bull.

The context behind the 'intention' of storming Pakistan with some IBGs, supported by massive fire support and then declare 'bus kafi' hai is in the backdrop of escalation 2001-02, the failure of Op Parakram, Mumbai Attacks, Surgical Strikes et al.

Yes, the context is clear provocation from Pakistan.

^^ Pu$$y, you are saying exactly the something that i have said, but with a 'twist'. Please see to it.

D!ck, I have been saying this from the beginning. If you have an attention span of a goldfish, it is not my problem. Please see to it.

Sure, we have not mastered in creating reasons and casus bellis like you indians do Re-Parliment and Mumbai..

Right. 1965, 1971, 1999 all happened on another planet.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...ia-dissects-pakistan-half-mock-battles-6.html

Indian Military Rehearse Pakistans Dissection In Mock Battles

^^You know what, it is really guud to see you guys going back on your 'intents' and 'capabilities' at the same time, though the (new kind of) intent is very much there, only that it has changed faces (Akhund Bharat>dismember Pakistan>dissect us>cold start cum limited war>surgical strikes), this is notwithstanding the fact that you guys are still working on attaining the (new) capability.

Basically strawman. Nevertheless, IA practicing 'dissection' of Pakistan is not the same thing as IA having the capability of replicating it in reality.

As a sidenote, I am really enjoying the fact that even a theoretical exercise like 'cold start' or 'surgical strikes' can have your kameezes in such a twist.

Super powers have varied doctrines, wannabe supa-powers dont!

If india is so docile (as being vigorously debated by you and the writer of the article), then it should have had only one/a particular doctrine where it would just 'defend' india from internal and external threats. This again, is in consonance with a 'defensive' military who does not have the capacity (read capability) to run over its neighbors, but then that's not the case.

Doctrines change with change in perception, which further changes with change in circumstances. Nothing is permanent in the long run. Altering a doctrine according to changed circumstances is not anathema to an inherently defensive military.

How can you claim that the 'indian threat to Pakistan is a myth' as you do agree that "Indian policy is not just to defend, but take the war back to Pakistan"?!

So, quick, tell us which one is it? A papu-bacha india with a defensive policy or a taking-the-war-back-to-Pakistan india that would render the purpose of this thread flawed?

Quit clutching at straws. The sentence that you quoted ends with, 'if need arises'.Go figure what that means.

BTW, this ("How much of it is feasible in reality is a separate debate") is exactly the topic of this thread, if you can remember.

Not really. How IA wages a war is not the topic of this thread. The topic is, in a roundabout way, if IA has any intention to wage an unprovoked war. Next time you want to defaecate in a thread at least try to grasp the topic.

i know, the thread has taken quite a toll on your senses, so i dont blame you.

Yes that age old strategy of 'if you can't dazzle with brilliance baffle with bullsh!t' is indeed working. My head hurts.

Please go read about the armies that has a Defensive Doctrine as their alma mater. i have done enough schooling for two days. BTW, this is done by creating a 'deterrent' which in this case are the nukes. Deterrence against an aggressor, that's to say. And in tandem to this (defensive) deterrent there has to be some potency to 'take the war into Pakistan', which you have already admitted to and which india amply possesses, hence we can conclude that this thread and the idea (that an indian threat to Pakistan is a myth) is just wastage of bandwidth and a bull shyt.

Did you say deterrence? Isn't it what IA doctrine that you quoted says - 'Preserve national interests and safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of India against any external threats by deterrence....' and isn't it, what we are saying is the reason for IA's build up. You are now biting your own tail.

Still, if you want to carry on with the so called debate, then i would like to continue from this point of mine; "Deterrence against an aggressor, that's to say..." but then Kargil happened, right? So this means that your deterrence failed (which in turn would imply that your policy was (deterrence) screwed up) and hence your aggressive posture (dovetailed with taking-the-war-into-Pakistan), thus this bring us back to the same point again (thanks for making us running in circles): The indian threat to Pakistan is NOT a myth Bravo! you did it one more time

Wait, WHAT? Let me get it right:

Indian deterrence failed in Kargil because Pakistan was successfully irresponsible and reckless and hence India has assumed this 'aggressive posture' which might render Pakistan's future irresponsibility and recklessness unsuccessful. Therefore India is a threat to Pakistan.

You should immediately donate yourself to a museum of anthropology. People should actually pay to see you.

But wait, it was not us who hinted upon the possibility of a Limited War under a nuclear umbrella, nor was it Pakistan that 'intended' to Cold Start, which in fact is very much in line with india-taking-war-into-Pakistan, and thus http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...s/111850-why-indian-threat-pakistan-myth.html is just another brain-fart. So one more time, should we let go of the thread and the idea within and go back and smoke some guud shyt, no?

Duh! The 'Limited War under a nuclear umbrella' was reference to Kargil and the point made through that was, if Kargil could happen once, it may happen again as long as irrationality rules the roost in Pakistan. The non-existent cold start was also a theoretical exercise to deal with Pakistan's penchant for using 'non-state' actors.

I know you are trying desperately to establish that India does have an evil design to launch an unprovoked attack against saintly Pakistan with a desire to dismember it and hence these pesky banias are indeed a threat. So far, FAIL.

This would simply imply that your strategy was fcuked up. Dont blame us for your failures. And this in turn would imply that india should be capable of taking-war-into-Pakistan, and thus.......... (i am sure that you know what i want say ).

Translation: I am clueless about what you are asking. So I would pretend I can't read and that would make my evasion sound so logical.

We have discussed this before. The 'territorial ambition' is dying down/had died down (remember the transition from akhund bharat to surgical strikes, no?), but this doesnt mean that IA doesnt want to wage war to teach Pakistan a 'lesson'. And if that so, why are we discussing this topic/thread at the first place, for crying out loud?

Except that India never had any territorial ambition and since you know it pretty well, you are now trying to latch on to anything you can get your hands on to.

Yeah right. i know it was subtle.

Yup, so subtle that 'it' didn't even exist.

PS: My head hurts. My fingers hurt. My eyes hurt.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

'Intent' can change in an instant, and the capability to support any such 'change in intent' exists on the Indian side through the massive military deployment it maintains against Pakistan. Pakistan and India are hostile nations that have fought wars and continue to claim territory held by the other. it is simply irrational to argue that the actions of one nation during some arbitrarily chosen timeline somehow indicate 'no intent to attack the other'. Therefore any rational leadership would cater to the threat posed by the significant military deployment of a hostile nation, in this case India.

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'.

There is no 'sense of entitlement' in that claim - I am merely calling out your bluff. If, as you claim, India has ' no intent' to be the aggressor against Pakistan, then there should be nothing to stop India from unilaterally and officially (get it ratified by your Parliament) giving up all claims to J&K territory currently administered by Pakistan. Giving up any claim to that territory does not mean India reduces its current military deployment along the LoC and border, it simply validates the Indian argument of 'no intent to be the aggressor and maintain the status quo'.

Without giving up claims to any territory administered by Pakistan currently, India, because of her significant military deployments against Pakistan, is a significant threat to Pakistan.

 

[toxic_pus]

'Intent' can change in an instant, and the capability to support any such 'change in intent' exists on the Indian side through the massive military deployment it maintains against Pakistan. Pakistan and India are hostile nations that have fought wars and continue to claim territory held by the other. it is simply irrational to argue that the actions of one nation during some arbitrarily chosen timeline somehow indicate 'no intent to attack the other'. Therefore any rational leadership would cater to the threat posed by the significant military deployment of a hostile nation, in this case India.

The argument of instantaneous change of intent is bogus. A strong parliamentary democratic process will ensure that there is none, except where there is blatant provocation from Pakistan, and a genuine lack of logistics will do the rest. If it still doesn't, the presence of Pakistani nukes will invariably do the trick. Unless you are saying that Pak nuke deterrence is farce and you don't have faith in it.

A rational leadership would take these into account, together with history, to determine if 'hostile' India poses a real military threat to Pakistan.

Btw, the 'arbitrary' timeline begins from 15th Aug, 1947 till 2011. And in all these 60 odd years India has indicated that there is no intention to attack Pakistan, unless provoked.

There is no 'sense of entitlement' in that claim - I am merely calling out your bluff. If, as you claim, India has ' no intent' to be the aggressor against Pakistan, then there should be nothing to stop India from unilaterally and officially (get it ratified by your Parliament) giving up all claims to J&K territory currently administered by Pakistan. Giving up any claim to that territory does not mean India reduces its current military deployment along the LoC and border, it simply validates the Indian argument of 'no intent to be the aggressor and maintain the status quo'.

Without giving up claims to any territory administered by Pakistan currently, India, because of her significant military deployments against Pakistan, is a significant threat to Pakistan.

Actions, or in India's case, lack of it, speak louder than words. Although India claims the other side of Kashmir, it is merely on paper and India has demonstrated it's intent, by more or less diligently maintaining status quo for the last 64 odd years. On the other hand it is Pakistan that has proved it's malicious irredentist intent by trying to militarily wrest Kashmir on one occasion and several key parts of it on other occasions and of course, by fomenting terrorism. Asking India to give up claim on Kashmir, where it is legally entitled to make such claim but has deliberately never acted on it, while Pakistan gets to maintain it's illegal counter claim, on which it has acted without prejudice, is indicative of the typical hubris of a cheerleader of Pakistani military-jihadi complex and does reflect that sense of entitlement, a willingness to be blinkered and an unhealthy desire to have one's cake and eat it too.

If lack of action on India's part - and by your submission India was and is 'capable' of doing that - hasn't been able to convince Pakistan, what will a ratified disclaimer do to assuage Pakistan's irrational paranoia. What stops India from going back on the disclaimer and launch an attack.

And just to remind you, once again, 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.

The onus is now no longer on India no matter how much you try to shift the blame. Neither is there a dying need on India's part to solve Kashmir, as some would say, when status quo is doing the trick.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The argument of instantaneous change of intent is bogus. A strong parliamentary democratic process will ensure that there is none, except where there is blatant provocation from Pakistan, and a genuine lack of logistics will do the rest. If it still doesn't, the presence of Pakistani nukes will invariably do the trick. Unless you are saying that Pak nuke deterrence is farce and you don't have faith in it.

Your 'strong parliamentary democratic process' is also riddled with inflammatory and hateful rhetoric against Pakistan and the 'occupation of Indian territory by Pakistan'. It is ludicrous to suggest that another nation's threat perceptions be based on claims that a hostile nation has a 'parliament' that will act as a firewall. You may have faith in your elected politicians and parliament, but don't expect Pakistan to.

A rational leadership would take these into account, together with history, to determine if 'hostile' India poses a real military threat to Pakistan.

Btw, the 'arbitrary' timeline begins from 15th Aug, 1947 till 2011. And in all these 60 odd years India has indicated that there is no intention to attack Pakistan, unless provoked.

'History' indicates unprovoked Indian aggression and support for terrorists/rebels in 1947 in Junagadh as well as aggression and support for rebels/terrorists in East Pakistan. 'History' does not support Indian claims of 'peaceful intent'.

Actions, or in India's case, lack of it, speak louder than words. Although India claims the other side of Kashmir, it is merely on paper

That doesn't cut it. If India truly does not desire to be an aggressor against Pakistan and does not claim the territory administered by Pakistan, then there is absolutely no reason to officially end its claim to that territory. Without such an official change in position, 'intent' and the rest of it is just empty rhetoric.

Asking India to give up claim on Kashmir, where it is legally entitled to make such claim but has deliberately never acted on it, while Pakistan gets to maintain it's illegal counter claim, on which it has acted without prejudice, is indicative of the typical hubris of a cheerleader of Pakistani military-jihadi complex and does reflect that sense of entitlement, a willingness to be blinkered and an unhealthy desire to have one's cake and eat it too.

And here we go, the facade falls apart. The point is not about the validity or legality of the Indian claim, the point is that the Indian argument of not coveting the territory administered by Pakistan is a lie, and that makes the massive Indian military deployment along the LoC and IB a significant threat.

If you don't claim the territory, then give up the claim officially to 'prove peaceful Indian intent'. Otherwise it is all hogwash.

If lack of action on India's part - and by your submission India was and is 'capable' of doing that - hasn't been able to convince Pakistan, what will a ratified disclaimer do to assuage Pakistan's irrational paranoia. What stops India from going back on the disclaimer and launch an attack.

Indian 'lack of action' is the result of the ability of Pakistan to impose a significant cost upon India in the case of any aggression by India. That 'cost' is enabled by Pakistan's own military and nuclear deployments to counter the threat posed by Indian military deployments, in the face of continued Indian claims upon territory administered by Pakistan, and past history of Indian aggression against Pakistan.

And just to remind you, once again, 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.

The onus is now no longer on India no matter how much you try to shift the blame. Neither is there a dying need on India's part to solve Kashmir, as some would say, when status quo is doing the trick.

The only thing your argument above tells me is that 'in the past India was willing to give up her claims on territory administered by Pakistan, but currently does claim that territory'. If you currently officially claim territory administered by Pakistan, then the Indian military deployments against Pakistan are a significant threat to Pakistan.

 

[toxic_pus]

Your 'strong parliamentary democratic process' is also riddled with inflammatory and hateful rhetoric against Pakistan and the 'occupation of Indian territory by Pakistan'. It is ludicrous to suggest that another nation's threat perceptions be based on claims that a hostile nation has a 'parliament' that will act as a firewall. You may have faith in your elected politicians and parliament, but don't expect Pakistan to.

No need to conflate. The point was if instantaneous change of intent is possible in a parliamentary system as opposed to a dictatorial or de-facto dictatorial regime such as Pakistan, except in case of exigencies.

Your nuclear deterrence, coupled with India's severe lack of logistics, as was evident in 01-02, still remain there to ensure no 'instantaneous' change of intent.

'History' indicates unprovoked Indian aggression and support for terrorists/rebels in 1947 in Junagadh as well as aggression and support for rebels/terrorists in East Pakistan. 'History' does not support Indian claims of 'peaceful intent'.

When I mentioned history, I forgot to mention consensus history outside of Pakistani school text book and state propaganda.

That doesn't cut it. If India truly does not desire to be an aggressor against Pakistan and does not claim the territory administered by Pakistan, then there is absolutely no reason to officially end its claim to that territory. Without such an official change in position, 'intent' and the rest of it is just empty rhetoric.

And here we go, the facade falls apart. The point is not about the validity or legality of the Indian claim, the point is that the Indian argument of not coveting the territory administered by Pakistan is a lie, and that makes the massive Indian military deployment along the LoC and IB a significant threat.

If you don't claim the territory, then give up the claim officially to 'prove peaceful Indian intent'. Otherwise it is all hogwash.

Indian 'lack of action' is the result of the ability of Pakistan to impose a significant cost upon India in the case of any aggression by India. That 'cost' is enabled by Pakistan's own military and nuclear deployments to counter the threat posed by Indian military deployments, in the face of continued Indian claims upon territory administered by Pakistan, and past history of Indian aggression against Pakistan.

The only thing your argument above tells me is that 'in the past India was willing to give up her claims on territory administered by Pakistan, but currently does claim that territory'. If you currently officially claim territory administered by Pakistan, then the Indian military deployments against Pakistan are a significant threat to Pakistan.

India can't officially give up claim on P0K until Pakistan officially gives up claim on entire Kashmir. Invocation of validity of India's claim was to drive home this point. Diplomatic battles with ink, in suit and tie, is not the same thing as a war with guns and tanks. It is irrelevant if India officially denounces its claim on P0K, as long as India can demonstrate it's intent through actions. And India has indeed demonstrated it to the World at large, by, first, diligently maintaining the status quo and, second, openly asking Pakistan to recognize LoC as IB. On the other hand Pakistan's constant refusal to accept LoC as IB, except for a brief period towards the end of Musharraf's rule, provides enough reason to assume that Pakistan still harbours it's irredentist agenda and may try to pull a stunt as it has in the past. India's 'massive military deployment along the LoC and IB' is therefore justified.

As I have agreed earlier that it is indeed Pakistan's call, if this 'massive military deployment along the LoC and IB' is read as India's intention to force a preemptive war on Pakistan to stake it's claim on P0K or to break Pakistan into two, as has been ridiculously claimed by another poster or a deterrence against Pakistani desire to push its boundary further inside what India claims as it's own territory. It is this call that will reflect the rationality of the Pakistani leadership. So far, it has been a disappointment.

I'll repeat once again. India doesn't stand to loose anything if you misplace your priorities. It is you who will be bleeding. India is more than content with the status quo

 

[IND151]

[QUOTE]Why an Indian threat to Pakistan is a myth


Colonel (Dr) Anil Athale (retd)

India has neither the intent nor the capability to pose a major threat to Pakistan. But the bogey of an India threat is kept alive in Pakistan mainly to help the military to ensure it relevance and dominance of the country, says Colonel (Dr) Anil Athale (retd)

This is season for busting long held myths. The Abbottabad raid by the Americans without the apparent knowledge of Pakistanis and Osama bin Laden's long stay there in a garrison town has exploded the myth of the Inter Services Intelligence as the world's 'premier' spy outfit.

Though this was more a creation of the lazy Indian media, it had acquired a life of its own. In reality, the ISI has been a major failure. It has witnessed a number of attacks on its own offices in Pakistan and terrorist attacks on many targets, the latest being the one on a major naval aviation base near Karachi. The truth is that the ISI's reputation was built on the many successful operations it carried out in/against India.

But these attacks could only be carried out because the ISI had a huge support base in India in the shape of organisations like the Students Islamic Movement of India, Indian Mujahideen, Ahle Hadith and the Tabiligi Jamaat. When bereft of this kind of support in its own country, the ISI has moved from blunder to blunder.

But the mother (and father) of all myths is the notion of 'perennial Indian security threat to Pakistan'. This myth has enabled the Pakistan Army to milk their country dry of all resources and also keep a firm grip on power by promoting fear psychosis. It is time cold military logic is brought to bear on this.

Threat perception is a sum total of capability plus intention. Let us take intention first. Except for a tiny fringe element, no major political party in India has any interest in undoing Partition.

It is not out of any charity but due to the fact that addition of turbulent, violent 180 million people to India's existing billion is not a prospect that any Indian relishes.

[COLOR="red"[B]]Given the dismal socio-economic and educational statistics and the mess that Pakistan is, no sane Indian wants that part of undivided India to become part of India again.[/B][/COLOR]

Pakistanis could point out to the Indian intervention in erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh or Sri Lanka (the Indian Peace Keeping Force episode) as evidence of Indians' ill intentions. It is necessary to point out the fact that Bangladesh is an independent country today and there is not a single Indian soldier or Indian base either there or in Sri Lanka.

After the task of sending back the refugees was achieved, India withdrew from Bangladesh. The Sri Lankans were sceptical of Indian intentions, so much so that the then President R Premadasa even collaborated with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. [COLOR="red"]Yet even the most anti-Indian Sri Lankans today accept that India made great sacrifices and left on its own.
[/COLOR]
It is time to remind the Pakistanis that India returned the Shakkargarh area as well as areas in Sindh after the 1971 war along with the 92,000 prisoners of war.

If India, like Israel after 1967 war, had intentions to grab Pakistani land, it could well have continued to dilly-dally its return!

Ruling a hostile country of 180 million is beyond the capability of India and there are no attractive economic gains or scarce resources like oil in Pakistan that could attract India. There is no earthly 'interest', economic, political or military that would serve by India conquering Pakistan.

The oft-heard argument of Pakistani military leaders and security experts is that they plan their security based not on 'intent' but on capability. The logic is that intent can change any time.

Accepting this argument, though a dubious one (for instance India has obvious military capability to attack and capture all other six countries in South Asia but no 'interest' and therefore no intent to do so), let us examine the military balance between India and Pakistan.

The Indian Army is 1.1 million strong compared to the 0.55 million strong Pakistan Army. But it must be noted that at least 1/3 of this force is needed at all times to guard the nearly 2,000 km of India-Tibet border.

Even during the 1971 war when the Soviet Union had deployed close to 44 divisions against China (from the normal three divisions) on the Amur-Ussuri river border, India could not withdraw much of the forces from North.


The situation today is very different -- there is no Soviet Union to force the Chinese into passivity (as in 1971) and with a rail link to Lhasa, China is in a stronger position in Tibet.

In case of any future conflict between India and Pakistan, only around 8 lakh troops of India would be available against Pakistan to match 4 to 5 lakh granting that around 1 lakh troops are on the Afghan border. This is much less than the normal three times superiority that is needed for a successful aggression.

Modern warfare is technology intensive. In terms of sophistication, thanks to the American supplies post 9/11, in most of the fields, Pakistan has far better equipment than the Indians. The table below gives an idea of the various major armaments of both.

Old tanks - India(3673), Pakistan(1821)

Modern tanks - India(444), Pakistan(835)

Anti-tank guns/missiles - India(3000), Pakistan(14400)

Artillery guns - India(10,758), Pakistan(4521)

Source: Sipri and IISS.

Thus while India has a certain edge in overall number of tanks, in terms of sophistication, Pakistan is actually ahead of India. Some years ago, the Indian Army chief had openly acknowledged that most Indian tanks lacked night fighting capability.

To counter larger Indian numbers, Pakistan has far more anti-tank guns and missiles. Thus the so-called Indian conventional edge is a myth. In artillery India does have greater numbers, but it must be remembered that at least 1/3 of these would be on the China border. Readers may remember how in 1999, the final assault on Kargil heights was delayed as guns had to be moved from China border.

Modern wars are often called land-air battles. The air arm plays a crucial role in land campaign as well as strategic tasks in depth areas. Here India enjoys a clear edge in the sense that to its 385 modern fighter/ground attack aircraft, Pakistan can field only 58.

India also has another 189 older aircraft while bulk of Pakistani aircraft numbering 374 are old and obsolete.

In the air war, technology is far more important and with its Sukhoi 30 MKI, India has a clear superiority.

But Pakistan has emphasised the defence aspect and has close to 226 fighters to defend its air space as compared to 112 of India.

The India Air Force is certainly capable of creating air superiority on parts of Pakistan for a limited period. When in the past the Indian Air Force chief's stated that India can attack and destroy terror camps, he was banking on this superiority.

Post bin Laden's killing as Pakistan apprehended that India may try similar attack; the Pakistan PM went to China to redress the balance in air. In May 2011, China has promised immediate delivery of 50 fighter aircraft to Pakistan.

On sea, however, the picture is very different.The Indian Navy out-ships and outguns Pakistan by a factor of 8, true to its size.

Two factors mitigate this Indian superiority. Clear that it lacks resources for any kind of control of sea, Pakistan went in for a sea denial strategy. It must be remembered that it was Pakistan that had the first ever submarine in the subcontinent.

Even today, while India has 16 submarines (majority of them very old and due for retirement), Pakistan has 8 modern submarines. In addition due to its own reasons, the US navy has a very large presence in the northern Arabian Sea. With the close alliance between the US and Pakistan, the later can be assured of a degree of protection.

The main conclusion from this very broad analysis is that despite the great disparity in all other fields between India and Pakistan, in terms of military capability India has only a slight edge.

The picture of near parity becomes even clearer when we take account of the nuclear weapons.

It is undoubtedly true that Pakistan's small size vis a vis India and specially the fact that its strategic, fertile and densely populated areas are all along its eastern border within 150 km belt, it is vulnerable to Prithvi missiles of India. In case of an all out nuclear exchange, India can decimate Pakistan.

On the other hand, even with limited success in strikes with nuclear weapons, Pakistan can certainly destroy 5-10 Indian cities. The destruction of Mumbai-Pune industrial belt alone can damage 40 percent of Indian industry.

The question is, is it therefore worthwhile for India to even think in terms of nuclear exchange? The obvious answer is NO. It is this that has been holding Indian reaction to repeated terror strikes from Pakistan.

In the foreseeable future, till India does not acquire a capability to destroy most if not all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and their delivery system, Pakistani deterrence will continue to work. An effective missile defence shield is still in the embryo.

As seen earlier, India gains nothing from destruction/conquest of Pakistan. Irrespective of that it does not have the conventional military capability to do so.

Pakistan has a strong defence aided by the terrain like Punjab where canals are a major obstacle to rapid attacks.

But given its edge in the air power, India has the capability to mount a surgical attack in retaliation to a Mumbai 26/11 type terror attack.

If India alerts its nuclear forces prior to this action and clearly tells Pakistan that this is limited punishment and should Pak think of nuclear response, then we can 'pre-empt' with a conventional attack on their nuclear sites to be followed by nuclear one if Pakistan prepares to use them first, we should be able to call the Pakistani nuclear bluff.

This is all that the 'Cold Start' doctrine is all about. In this sense Pakistan does face a threat of a surgical and limited Indian strike.

But for Pakistan the option is very clear, to avoid this attack it has to stop creating monsters like the Lashkar-e-Tayiba or the Jaish-e-Mohammad. If there are no terror strikes mounted from Pak against India, the 'Cold Start' doctrine will remain mere doctrine.

From the foregoing discussion it is clear that India has neither the intent nor the capability to pose a major threat to Pakistan. It does, however, have the ability to mount raids and surgical strikes.

A retired Pakistani general Ikram Sehgal in an article in The News (May 26) has written a humorous article justifying the bogey. The general cleverly enumerates all the Indian formations that are poised against Pakistan, completely omitting any mention what Pakistan has to oppose it!

The general wants the gullible Pakistani 'janata' to believe that India is out to do them in.

The Pakistani theme song of Indian threat is based on the root cause theory. The argument goes something like this -- Kashmir should have come to Pakistan and India is refusing to hand it over, so India is the aggressor and in occupation of Pakistani territory in Kashmir. It is thus the Pakistan desire to get Kashmir through force that is at the root of subcontinents problems.

Even for the sake of argument one is to accept Pakistani position, it still begs the question about its inability to take Kashmir. Pakistan has tried in 1947 and 1965, direct military means.

Since 1980s, it is trying to get Kashmir by supporting an insurgency there. Given the military balance and the public opinion in India that will not accept another partition on basis of religion, Pakistan cannot get Kashmir for another 1,000 years.

The recent revelations by David Colman Headley alias Dawood Jilani have brought into open the relationship between terrorist organisation like the LeT and Pakistani armed forces (through its intelligence wing, the ISI).

One need not be a rocket scientist to know that no amount of terror attacks like the 26/11 on Mumbai can wrest Kashmir from India or destabilises the country. Then why these attacks like the one in Chattisingpura on March 20, 2000, attack on Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001, the Mumbai train blasts on 11 July 2006 or the latest Mumbai attack on 26/11, 2008?

The biggest impact of these actions is to raise tension between India-Pakistan. This serves the following Pakistani Army objectives:

1) Indian reaction to these terror strikes is described as 'threat' to keep Pakistanis united.

2) Keep the primacy of the army and get unlimited resources.

3) In case it provokes a backlash within India, it further strengthens support to groups like SIMI etc within India and helps the ISI.

4) Use it as an excuse to reduce efforts in war on terrorism.

The terror attacks on India are a win-win situation for the Pakistani Army. With their considerable military resources and nuclear threat they know that India cannot pose any credible threat to Pakistan. Hence, it is a no risk option.

On the other hand the resultant tensions help the army keep its iron grip on the hungry, turbulent and underdeveloped country.

International relations are often described as 'geo-politics'. In this the geographical element is unchanging and static, hence the politics or polices have to change to achieve desired results.

In case of Pakistan, its politics is frozen; hence it is political geography that needs to be changed if the Indian subcontinent is to have any hope of peace.

In 1971 major international powers were averse to it. It appears that in the present, except an emerging super power, the rest of the world would gladly accept a trifurcation of Pakistan.

Colonel (Dr) Anil Athale (retd) is coordinator of the Pune-based Initiative for Peace and Disarmament.

[/QUOTE]



i have high lighted important pints. now members dont have to go through all article.

 

[IND151]

Think again!

Think deep and you will know the reason and who is prime beef!

I know Anil Athale, he was my junior and he moves in the correct circles, not only domestically, but internationally. He meets Presidents and PMs. Don't go by his rank. He retired prematurely.

sir what was your rank in army when you retired

 

[Zarvan]

sir what was your rank in army when you retired

Indians do something or remain quiet man

 

[ucmicu]

Hyderabad, Junagadh, Manavadar, followed by Kashmir, Bangladesh, and for heaven's sake -- siachen and sir creek! n here we are listening to claims of india being oh such a nice neighbor!

As for your military abilities vs those of others -- see the muscle vs area spread out upon. Simulate it and your computer will assure you Pakis will advance where they choose, and when your muscle arrives -- they've just dug in and hold till you've had enough. It is your navy that has kept you alive to date. on one hand the fact that there is no question of you withstanding a blockade -- each time you actually blockade us. Without our supply lines, we have to pull back.

yet you amputated our only weakness in '71! -- oops!

via gwadar we can now bring in our oil from oman, uae, qatar, bahrain, saudia, kuwait, iraq, iran, -- their neighbors -- and then there are land routes. All these options have been worked upon since '71.

you guys talk of nukes as if there is no chance of them being used. They are simply more destructive bombs/war heads! Yes when it comes to strategic nukes the mutual threat should keep a lid on them -- subject to conditions -- yet with our navy/army armed with tactical nukes and your's not! I really fail to see how you can even imagine Pakis not using an option not available to you!? btw there is a difference between a nuke that goes off on the surface and one that goes off at a height of around 10-11kms -- in case you really intend to use prithvis (sigh!)

Once again we have your claims of air superiority! (sigh again!!) Yet they are self contradictory!!! you promise surgical strikes!!! so: where are they?

your problem is you look at your larger GDP n population / territory (9,6.5,4 times that of Pakistan) and take these figures as evidence of your superior strength. You do not realize the cost of being where you are not welcome.

If one is to show logic to an adversary -- the hostility would clearly have to detoured! let's take your person out of the picture for a while. Suppose Pakis correct their defense expenditure to GDP ratio to that of the US -- ie they increase their defense expenditure by a factor of three. Clearly the US would find it impractical to threaten to bomb Pakistan! Israels safety would far more be a topic when talking to islamabad!! Yet American GDP is 38 times that of Pakistan?! Which means Rawalpindi is getting more than ten times as much for the same money!!!

Troops consume a lot of money when away from home. The length of the supply lines, the payload, and the acquisition (cost) of what is to be supplied. Then the cost of engaging the enemy, when one of your own is hurt/dead -- when one not your own is hurt/dead!

Hopefully I should have made my point. Now let's jerk you back into the picture: every third indian soldier is in Kashmir!

Give yourselves a break guys. What is Pakistan? only 11% of the muslim ummah!, India is the only state you've got!! You're going to reduce yourself to something like Parsis etc!!! learn to be a bit resoureful, a bit cost effective. It's YOUR money i'm talking about: have mercy on it.

 

[SpArK]

Hyderabad, Junagadh, Manavadar, followed by Kashmir, Bangladesh, and for heaven's sake -- siachen and sir creek! n here we are listening to claims of india being oh such a nice neighbor!

.

Were these places taken away from you? (except BD, which is not ours either)

If YES how many years or months or days or even hours were they under the flag or was ruled by you guys?