How India debated a war with Pakistan that November

[Bang Galore]

No i wont say that.But GOI's and usa's role is obvious in 26/11 as the peels of layers like onion is are getting revealed.

What role?

There was obvious indian hand in 26 /11 which GOI is trying to suppress with the release of 2 other indian nationals in court case for obvious reason.

What obvious hand & what obvious reason?

26/11 case investigations cant be called impartial.there were lot many things hidden from public eyes.As time passed lot many things got revealed.Moreover 26/11 trial in indian courts cant be called impartial.

What things according to you were hidden?

This case has to be investigated by UNO and all people who are found involved must be tried in ICJ.

Investigated by the UN? ICJ? Not very serious, are you? India would have to abdicate its responsibilities as a nation state to do that.

 

[humanfirst]

No i wont say that.But GOI's and usa's role is obvious in 26/11 as the peels of layers like onion is are getting revealed.There was obvious indian hand in 26 /11 which GOI is trying to suppress with the release of 2 other indian nationals in court case for obvious reason.26/11 case investigations cant be called impartial.there were lot many things hidden from public eyes.As time passed lot many things got revealed.Moreover 26/11 trial in indian courts cant be called impartial.This case has to be investigated by UNO and all people who are found involved must be tried in ICJ.

'Obviously it is a false flag by india and usa'-this was the stand of most pakistanis in the early months after attacks.But with more and more investigation pakistani involvement became more and more clear.Pakistan admitted attackers where their citizens,voip communication of attackers where traced back to pakistan,geo tv found out the whereabouts of kasab,later two pakistanis where arrested by italian police in relation to funding of attacks,later the arrest of david hedley revealed the participation of isi!And your sole proof against indian involvement is that 'two indian muslims arrested by indian investigation agencies were acquited because of lack of sufficient evidences'what a proof!!Try harder to support your jihadi brethren by blaming india more.

 

[IceCold]

would you be happier if india had attacked and defeated pakistan ??
is that what you REALLY want ??

Seems like you are already sure about the outcome of a possible conflict between India and Pakistan. But then again your sarkar and your armed forces weren't otherwise we would have witnessed the end of Pakistan along ago.

 

[Roby]

According to him indian missiles are re-painted russian ones,india forcefully occupied andaman islands from indonesia(that is the epic one)He blames india a us dog for not taking action against pakistan after mumbai attacks but elsewhere he says india is involved in mumbai attacks!(and his proof is that two indian muslims accused of supporting attackers were acquited due to lack of sufficient evidence)One need not be a rocket scientist to guess where he is from.Anyway we must understand their feelings,things havent been going smoothely for them after mumbai attacks.

Well, according to an Indian forum, she is posting from Hyderabad-India.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Seems like you are already sure about the outcome of a possible conflict between India and Pakistan. But then again your sarkar and your armed forces weren't otherwise we would have witnessed the end of Pakistan along ago.

i intended no offence.. Nor did i predicted a sure result. it was just a question '' if she would be happier if india defeate pakistan ?''
that all..

 

[IceCold]

While the pressure was intense for India to strike & the Armed Forces were so inclined as well perhaps in hind sight it was just as well India did no do so.

This has nothing to do with Paks options to retaliate but simply on the fact that it would have polarized fissiparous elements in Pak - something which would go against India. It suits India to keep Pak on ' simmer' than to increase the heat. Pak is doing a fine job of being at war with itself.

As usual giving to much self importance are we.

Yet if the strike had taken place the Congress stood a chance of victory in the next elections.

You mean of what would have left of India would vote congress for their demise.

 

[airuah]

You mean of what would have left of India would vote congress for their demise.

in such a situation ....yup...we would still be facing our politicians and we will have to tolerate them ......well atleast you would be rid of such a scenario .....then no nation would comment on type of govt(democracy/military dictatorship)and also no one would worry about where the power lies(elected govt/military).....

 

[Contrarian]

I don't think that will work. If a distant America with all its economic and military might feels compelled to listen to North Korea then a far more powerful economic and military neighbor power like Pakistan (when compared with US vs NKR) will almost certainly be a force to deal with in a mere decade or two.

This is not just chest thumping.

Pakistan has powerful allies all around. They may not be as helpful as they can be but they make sure Pakistan gets 'bailed out'. Even militarily Pakistan has managed to acquire some more advanced weapons since 9/11.

Your thinking is the kind of thinking which works to postpone resolutions of disputes. You, like Israelis, are status-quo entities. Fix the problems now and the peace dividends will surprise us all in a mere few years.

It works on a simple concept which is proving itself. Does India have much more global leverage vis-a-vis Pakistan compared to 10 years ago?
Has India now been able to bypass Pakistan yelling to the world to not get an preferential treatment to infact get it? something India had been trying for decades earlier?

Its the economy. That leads to military. Does Indian military now possess qualitative as well as quantitative military advantage over Pakistan? Answer is yes, is it overwhelming-no. Was there such an advantage before(not just in numbers but in technology)? No

Simple, you get economically strong and you can dominate Pakistan. The only breaker to this hypothesis is Pakistan ALSO economically matching India. However, that seems very unlikely in the near future-say 10 years.

 

[IceCold]

Simple, you get economically strong and you can dominate Pakistan. The only breaker to this hypothesis is Pakistan ALSO economically matching India. However, that seems very unlikely in the near future-say 10 years.

However what seems very unlikely? Pakistan economy growing or matching India? for the first part may i ask why not..... why will Pakistan economy remain the same while Indian economy will remain immune to any sort of meltdown(economic or political or perhaps natural disaster) and as suggested my your country men, continue to grow?
To your latter part, do remember Pakistan is a small country compared to India, so we dont need to match India, we just need to make sure that we are doing fine and by fine i mean meeting our requirements in all forms from poverty to military.
If 10 years is a base line for any assumption to be made on Pakistans economy, i say we keep in view the time period from 99-2005, that makes it roughly six years and in those six years from a collapsed economy, we went all the way to achieve a very high GDP by 2005, infact if i remember it correct it was even higher then Indias.
So here is my question which i asked to another Indian member but he choose to deflect, so here i am asking it again.......Why do Indians think Pakistan economy will remain the same while India economy will continue to grow?

 

[Peacefull]

If another incident like 26/11 happens - Options india might have,

1) Openly support bolouch rebels, (arms, money & international recognition to their struggle)
2) Fund organisations like TTP,
3) Use its clout in international forum to pressure members to cut Aid to pakistan,
4) Massive Military build up
5) Arm RAW even more.
Last not least - remove no first use policy on nukes.

Could not think of more, apart from these i do not think India would go on a direct war with pakistan, if somebody said it would then i think they are lying.

 

[Peacefull]

Options pakistan might have,

1) Get more closer to china,

 

[IceCold]

If another incident like 26/11 happens - Options india might have,

1) Openly support bolouch rebels, (arms, money & international recognition to their struggle)
2) Fund organisations like TTP,
3) Use its clout in international forum to pressure members to cut Aid to pakistan,
4) Massive Military build up
5) Arm RAW even more.
Last not least - remove no first use policy on nukes.

Could not think of more, apart from these i do not think India would go on a direct war with pakistan, if somebody said it would then i think they are lying.

India is already doing all the above five things mentioned in your list. From arming the baloch rebeles to supporting and funding terrorist orgainisations such as TTP using Afghan soil, India is using where ever possible its clout to get Pakistan sanctioned, reduce its aid and even perhaps declared as a terrorist state, its another story that none of the above is happening.
Massive buildup, already going on, has happened in the past after parliament attack, RAW is also pretty active specially from Afghanistan.
In short India is already doing everything it can to marginalize Pakistan. You have to come up with something more creative.

 

[deckingraj]

However what seems very unlikely? Pakistan economy growing or matching India? for the first part may i ask why not..... why will Pakistan economy remain the same while Indian economy will remain immune to any sort of meltdown(economic or political or perhaps natural disaster) and as suggested my your country men, continue to grow?
To your latter part, do remember Pakistan is a small country compared to India, so we dont need to match India, we just need to make sure that we are doing fine and by fine i mean meeting our requirements in all forms from poverty to military.
If 10 years is a base line for any assumption to be made on Pakistans economy, i say we keep in view the time period from 99-2005, that makes it roughly six years and in those six years from a collapsed economy, we went all the way to achieve a very high GDP by 2005, infact if i remember it correct it was even higher then Indias.
So here is my question which i asked to another Indian member but he choose to deflect, so here i am asking it again.......Why do Indians think Pakistan economy will remain the same while India economy will continue to grow?

You are right when you say that Pakistan do not need to match India, all they need to do is take care of their economy. But Malay is talking about next 10 years and keeping national jingoism apart if we look purely on economic terms there are lot of big challanges that Pakistan is facing

- WOT : It will take hell lot of time to bell the cat. TTP is blowing bombs in every corner of Pakistan and this to me is the biggest obstacle for economic vibrant Pakistan

- Political Instability : Another big reason Pakistan keeps falling back in the trap. As you said that period from 99-2005 was real good and Pakistan even surpassed India in GDP growth. With that in mind one should ask what happened that today you need IMF to bail you out.... Mush brought in the stability because he holded all the powers - Center, ISI and Army....

- Love for Jihad : This is controversial because you are not going to agree to it. However terrorist/freedom fighters/assets whatever you want to call them brings in short term benefits but in long term they are a big headache. Something which is dangerous and results are in front of us

- Dependence on West : The more you are dependent on them the more short term gains but big long term losses

- Animosity with India : Most from the other side of the border will not agree but animosity with India has done lot of damage to Pakistan, much more than what it has done to India...In fact the scales cannot be even matched. With India's vibrant economy and level of animosity remaining the same Pakistan will have to invest heavily in defense to keep the parity same, there is no doubt this will put a big strain on your coffers which otherwise should have been invested in making the Pakistan economy self-sufficient.

One should definitely ask what has Pakistan gained from Animosity with India??? Apart from a strong Army are there any substantial gains??? If the answer is Yes then this should continue, if the answer is no then all the efforts should be done to fix it. Mind it not because Pakistan is scared of New-Delhi but because this is in best interest of Pakistan....As far as India is concerned animosity with Pakistan is a nuisance but that's about it...

 

[IceCold]

You are right when you say that Pakistan do not need to match India, all they need to do is take care of their economy. But Malay is talking about next 10 years and keeping national jingoism apart if we look purely on economic terms there are lot of big challanges that Pakistan is facing

- WOT : It will take hell lot of time to bell the cat. TTP is blowing bombs in every corner of Pakistan and this to me is the biggest obstacle for economic vibrant Pakistan

WOT has put a big strain on our economy agreed however it is not going to last another 10 years. With US itching for an exist strategy and Pakistan being the real power broker between the taliban and US/NATO, we will pretty much end this war within a year or two. As for TTP i know you will disagree but we know from where TTP gets its funding from but with the withdrawal of the US, Pakistan would make sure that their is a friendly regime in Kabul, one that does not allow India to continue its shady activities anymore, TTP will be history.

- Political Instability : Another big reason Pakistan keeps falling back in the trap. As you said that period from 99-2005 was real good and Pakistan even surpassed India in GDP growth. With that in mind one should ask what happened that today you need IMF to bail you out.... Mush brought in the stability because he holded all the powers - Center, ISI and Army....

It does not matter who brought in the economic stability,point being we got one in just six years as opposed to malays 10 years. This was the reason i mentioned the above said period, to show that we can recover from a complete melt down to such as achieving a higher GDP then India in just six years. You make it sound as if ISI and army are two separate entities and not one under the state of Pakistan, a common misconception and lack of understanding among Indians.

- Love for Jihad : This is controversial because you are not going to agree to it. However terrorist/freedom fighters/assets whatever you want to call them brings in short term benefits but in long term they are a big headache. Something which is dangerous and results are in front of us

We can all agree to disagree on this one.

- Dependence on West : The more you are dependent on them the more short term gains but big long term losses

Being a small country and a hostile neighbor on the east, to some extent dependence on the west was not a choice but a necessity. You see Pakistan had no choice but to maintain a minimum credible deterrence against a much bigger rival. That leaves us with little options.

- Animosity with India : Most from the other side of the border will not agree but animosity with India has done lot of damage to Pakistan, much more than what it has done to India...In fact the scales cannot be even matched. With India's vibrant economy and level of animosity remaining the same Pakistan will have to invest heavily in defense to keep the parity same, there is no doubt this will put a big strain on your coffers which otherwise should have been invested in making the Pakistan economy self-sufficient.

Animosity with India was not by choice. The constant threatening attitude of India, not accepting Pakistan as a reality, breaking up of Pakistan, nuclear explosion, illegal occupation of kashmir(you will disagree with me on this one),all these things add up to what? never the less one thing is for certain maintaining a defense budget such as ours is never easy, i get that, infact we all do, every Pakistanis knows what we have to sacrifice to make sure we sleep at peace, yet not once have we regretted this choice. And by this i do not by any means support this animosity between India and Pakistan, infact i for one would love to see trade increase between India and Pakistan but until that day, i suppose we will stick with the current atmosphere, yet our economy still was on track, so i fail to see the connection between high military spending and not recovering up.

One should definitely ask what has Pakistan gained from Animosity with India??? Apart from a strong Army are there any substantial gains??? If the answer is Yes then this should continue, if the answer is no then all the efforts should be done to fix it. Mind it not because Pakistan is scared of New-Delhi but because this is in best interest of Pakistan.......

I don't think India has gained anything either with the constant threatening attitude towards Pakistan. You see you cant just clap with one hand, both sides have to reciprocate in order to achieve a mutual goal, have we seen that attitude, i say no.

As far as India is concerned animosity with Pakistan is a nuisance but that's about it.

Considering how much Pakistan centric India really is, i would say we are more then just a nuisance for India.

 

[deckingraj]

Though lot of disagreements yet i must say that i enjoyed reading your post as it is backed with Logic...So good job there and now allow me to respond....

WOT has put a big strain on our economy agreed however it is not going to last another 10 years. With US itching for an exist strategy and Pakistan being the real power broker between the taliban and US/NATO, we will pretty much end this war within a year or two. As for TTP i know you will disagree but we know from where TTP gets its funding from but with the withdrawal of the US, Pakistan would make sure that their is a friendly regime in Kabul, one that does not allow India to continue its shady activities anymore, TTP will be history.

I wish you good luck but you are definitely undermining TTP here. As you said that it needs two hands to clap so saying that everything is just because of unfriendly regime in AF might not be entirely true...Secondly US aint going anywhere....There is no way they can leave this theater...Yes you may find some withdrawal but complete withdrawal is highly unlikely....On top of that India has invested some $1.3 Billion there and if the reports about Indian involvement is true then keep in mind you are going to be engaged there for much longer than what you are anticipating....

It does not matter who brought in the economic stability,point being we got one in just six years as opposed to malays 10 years. This was the reason i mentioned the above said period, to show that we can recover from a complete melt down to such as achieving a higher GDP then India in just six years. You make it sound as if ISI and army are two separate entities and not one under the state of Pakistan, a common misconception and lack of understanding among Indians.

You misunderstood me buddy...When you said that economic stability was brought in just 6 years then you are just pointing to good fiscal years of Pakistan. Economic stability just don't erode away in a whisker of a second. Economic stability is nothing but an economic model that can bear the brunt of nuisance and carry on...An economic stable country do not come on the verge of collapse within a year or two, no???..Anyhow IMF bailout is something that we also needed in 91 so nothing wrong in it...However to reach where we have(mind it hell lot of stuff yet needs to be done),it took us whopping 2 decades...

We all know that economic progress and political stability in the country go hands in hands. Pakistan is state which has been deprived of political stability because of lot of coups...But since the real power(foreign policy) lies with powerful institutions like Army and ISI, a coup ironically brings in stability - of course short term. So in essence a coup brings in short-term stability which gives a boost to your economy but in the longer run hurts you much more....This is what i was pointing to when i said Mush brought in stability because he was the most powerful man in Pakistan. He had civilian govt, the military and the ISI backing. Can you say the same about your current civilian govt???

We can all agree to disagree on this one.

Fair enough....

Being a small country and a hostile neighbor on the east, to some extent dependence on the west was not a choice but a necessity. You see Pakistan had no choice but to maintain a minimum credible deterrence against a much bigger rival. That leaves us with little options.

See dependence on west was understood...but why animosity towards India??? I would have been sympathetic had India attacked you in 65, but it was opposite. Allow me to go a little off topic here but goodies that Pakistan was getting due to joining camps with west made you guys believe that beating India is not a difficult task. In other words dependence on west to keep India at bay is completely justified but attacking India??? As a result pakistan was under sanctions....Thereafter we have a long history of 71, Siachen, Kargil and what not...Results are in front of us.....Also the problems you faced were also faced by India...We had a very powerful foe in the east who gave us a good beating in 62 yet we did our best to not join any camps. Yes we were dependent on USSR primarily for our defense needs but we kept our relations going(in whatever way possible) with west.

Animosity with India was not by choice. The constant threatening attitude of India, not accepting Pakistan as a reality, breaking up of Pakistan, nuclear explosion, illegal occupation of kashmir(you will disagree with me on this one),all these things add up to what?

No buddy, it was by choice as well...I have given my reasons above. Your establishment had a firm belief that they can snatch Kashmir from India by force. Otherwise there was no other reason for 65. Look Kargil was not planned to fail..... Mush must have a firm belief that he can cut the lifeline of Siachen and force India to give up the glacier.....In short what i am saying is that there was no reason for Pakistan to attack India(there was no provocation fro our side)...Attacking India had adverse effects on Pakistan...

never the less one thing is for certain maintaining a defense budget such as ours is never easy, i get that, infact we all do, every Pakistanis knows what we have to sacrifice to make sure we sleep at peace, yet not once have we regretted this choice.

Exactly...You have to sacrifice a lot...Yes you do not regret that but we all know you had/have to sacrifice...Animosity with India was not good for Pakistan....Let's for a second say that India is/was evil but have Pakistan done enough on her part to mend ties with India???

And by this i do not by any means support this animosity between India and Pakistan, infact i for one would love to see trade increase between India and Pakistan but until that day, i suppose we will stick with the current atmosphere, yet our economy still was on track, so i fail to see the connection between high military spending and not recovering up.

All i said is that animosity played a part. It is not a zero sum game but played its part... The whole zia rule and radicalization of Pakistan was done to bleed India with thousand cuts....anyhow i have explained my point above in detail...

I don't think India has gained anything either with the constant threatening attitude towards Pakistan. You see you cant just clap with one hand, both sides have to reciprocate in order to achieve a mutual goal, have we seen that attitude, i say no.

No way. How can we gain anything by animosity. Whatever loss it is, a loss is a loss. Yes we can afford to spend so much on maintaining status quo but in the end all could have been avoided had our ties good. However i would like to understand a bit more about threatening attitude part. As far as i know there have been two attacks by Pakistan when there was no provocation from Indian side. We can debate on 71 but i will give it to you. Yes india did take benefit of the turmoil that Pakistan was in. This would be wrong/naive on my part to say that our strategist did not want to take benefit. Mind it i have ignore 47(since then Kashmir was not part of India) and Siachen(since it was disputed and boundary was not demarcated), however if you wish to include them then please do.

Considering how much Pakistan centric India really is, i would say we are more then just a nuisance for India.

This is a misconception. Though i would like to know when you say pakistan centric than what you mean???