Longewala 'lies' - Nailed

[Capt.Popeye]

I can add one little snippet to @Capt.Popeye's masterly deconstruction of the situation at the time. If West Pakistan had been a target, seriously, Sam would not have been quite so insistent on keeping his mountain divs. on the qui vive against China. There was a little row that reportedly broke out between the COAS, General Sam Manekshaw, the DMO, Lt. Gen. I. S. 'Norman' Gill and the Chief of Staff, Eastern Command, Maj. Gen. J. F. R. 'Jake' Jacob. Jacob claims in his book that he asked Gill to transfer two mountain divisions to the effort against East Pakistan, and that Gill did him that favour in a clandestine manner, without Manekshaw getting to know.

Why would Manekshaw not have used his deployed mountain divisions on the western front if he had any serious intentions there? As we have already seen from the East Pakistan campaign, the Indian thinking at the time, and Eastern Command must have presented the plan to the Army Chief before launching it, was to concentrate forces on the point d'appui, not to keep them scattered about. If he permitted his northern boundary to be weakened for a few precious weeks to fight in East Pakistan, he would surely have done the same for any putative attacking campaign against West Pakistan.

There was no such campaign. There was no such intention. The only shift of forces from east to west is one that @Capt.Popeye has mentioned; P. C. Lal's shift of air force units to the west, once it was clear that the fall of Dhaka was certain, and East Pakistan was in the bag.

A post-script: Much though I personally admire Jacob, and notwithstanding the warm and cordial sentiments he has always expressed towards my late father and late uncle, both collaborators of his at certain times, he tends to exaggerate his own position, and some incidents reported in his book are frankly fantasy. The Norman Gill story was one. My uncle saw Gill's copy of Jacob's book, and the incident reported above was annotated in the margin: Bull Shit!

Gill was too good a soldier to try these clandestine manoeuvres behind the back of his chief.

@Joe Shearer; Thanks for adding to the facts of the matter.

May I add a little more to the discussion. Some things have been overlooked in any discussion of 1971; even on the Indian Side. Part of that is the role of Lt.Gen.Sagat Singh. His push into East Pakistan from the NE was what led decisively to the fall of Dhaka. If the sobriquet "Lightning Campaign" were to applied to this War; then it would fit most appropriately to what his Command did. Mountain troops under Maj.Gen.K.V.Krishna Rao were in the van of one of his thrusts. The Military Chronicles of that time have been less than fair to Lt.Gen.Sagat Singh. Maybe that can be understood in the context of Sam Bahadur the "Master of the Dramatic Flourish" and Jake Jacob (the Good Staff Officer that he was) as a "Great Schemer". In such circumstances; the work of "Blood and Guts" types like Sagat Singh will get over-looked. Apart from that, Gen.Sagat Singh remained a self-effacing personality all his life. While Jake Jacob, came into his own element after the passing of Sam Maneckshaw.

But most of all; it would be easy to overlook the role of the Mukti Bahini in the Conflict. Largely a bunch of rag-tag young farmers (chashas) and idealistic students with a sprinkling of professional soldiers from the EPR; dressed mainly in Lungies and Canvas-Shoes (the fauji kind), armed with Lee-Enfields and Sterling SMCs a LMG was the "ultimate heavy weapon" for them!
But this is what they fought with and harried and hounded the Regular Army that faced and out-gunned them. It was their action, that helped pave the way for the IA push into what became BD. I was fortunate to have met many of them; after the War when they had become "17-19 year old Veterans! And Disabled Veterans at that in the wards of the ALC minus limbs, waiting to be fitted with prostheses and for repatriation to a newly-born Country and an uncertain personal future."
Can anyone of us imagine what it would be to be in circumstances like that?

Joe; I have not read V/Adm.MKR's book yet, only excerpts (but I will). He describes how East Bengali river fishermen and boatmen (or Majhis) re-trained to become frogmen and commandos with "river-reed aqualungs!" as breathing devices and effectively disabled supply lines that plied on the riverine highways of East Bengal. I have spoken with some of the people who trained them and who attest to their sterling role in setting the stage for the final denouement.

All of this formed part of the Campaign that I followed on my own map ( hand drawn and expanded 5 times from a School Atlas Map of the SGI) complete with Flags, pins and ribbons (actually wool-yarn)!!!

But coming back to @Oscar's post that set off my response; the possibility that India could and would replicate the events of the East in the West was a distinct impossibility!

To start with India had no resources to do so; no plan to so.
There was no equivalent of the MB that would allow India to hold large chunks of Pakistani Territory.
There would have no blessings forthcoming for any such stratagem from the USSR (at the peak of its Imperial Powers) in the form of Vetos; to fend off the UN.
There was no such idea in Indira Gandhi's mind; even though she occupied the de-facto role of "Empress of India".

 

[deckingraj]

Rather then debunking the bunkum, you have helped me reinforce it. See, the Pakistan problem does not mean invading Pakistan; it means leaving it in a hapless state in which it is no further threat to India.

The only claim being debunked here is that west Pakistan was on IA radar. Their role was to hold you chaps in west and complete the onslaught in East. Now even a kinder garden kid can crack it that all was done to weaken Pakistan, i am not sure if anyone can deny it.

Forget about the war for a second and ponder over what was done post grand surrender...We had close to 90K chaps from your side which is a very substantial number(no parallel in decades). Now please tell me what you think we bargained(which was primarily under IG domain) that made you feel we were after West Pakistan?

Hence, inspite of the extreme nature of the "Pakistan problem" statement.. it does not detract that essentially that was the goal in 71 and is the goal now.

Ummm this is what you want to do with your arch rivals. Now how much one can do or how much one can succeed is a different ball game.

Moreover, in no reference to Nixon's 7th fleet did I mention east Pakistan but rather the continuation of the conflict into the west. Regardless of his thug ideals, the presence of the 7th fleet sent a message to the soviets that the conflict would expand beyond just Pakistan and India if the west was to fall.

Ummm...no!!....7th fleet went back becuase they were too late. Soviet's were present and waiting for them way before. Had Russians arrived late we must have discussed a different history.. Here is an expert for your reference...

In an interview to a Russian TV programme after his retirement, Admiral Kruglyakov, who commanded the Pacific Fleet from 1970 to 1975, recalled that Moscow ordered the Russian ships to prevent the Americans and British from getting closer to “Indian military objects”. The genial Kruglyakov added: “The Chief Commander’s order was that our submarines should surface when the Americans appear. It was done to demonstrate to them that we had nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean. So when our subs surfaced, they recognised us. In the way of the American Navy stood the Soviet cruisers, destroyers and atomic submarines equipped with anti-ship missiles. We encircled them and trained our missiles at the Enterprise. We blocked them and did not allow them to close in on Karachi, Chittagong or Dhaka.

At this point, the Russians intercepted a communication from the commander of the British carrier battle group, Admiral Dimon Gordon, to the Seventh Fleet commander: “Sir, we are too late. There are the Russian atomic submarines here, and a big collection of battleships.” The British ships fled towards Madagascar while the larger US task force stopped before entering the Bay of Bengal.


Look we(India and Pakistan) are giving too much importance to us here...If we look into history the biggest bone of contention was East and West Germany...These two powers did not lock their horns even there, forget about West/East Pakistan.....

 

[SQ8]

The only claim being debunked here is that west Pakistan was on IA radar.


Ummm...no!!....7th fleet went back becuase they were too late. Soviet's were present and waiting for them way before. Had Russians arrived late we must have discussed a different history.. Here is an expert for your reference...

In an interview to a Russian TV programme after his retirement, Admiral Kruglyakov, who commanded the Pacific Fleet from 1970 to 1975, recalled that Moscow ordered the Russian ships to prevent the Americans and British from getting closer to “Indian military objects”. The genial Kruglyakov added: “The Chief Commander’s order was that our submarines should surface when the Americans appear. It was done to demonstrate to them that we had nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean. So when our subs surfaced, they recognised us. In the way of the American Navy stood the Soviet cruisers, destroyers and atomic submarines equipped with anti-ship missiles. We encircled them and trained our missiles at the Enterprise. We blocked them and did not allow them to close in on Karachi, Chittagong or Dhaka.

At this point, the Russians intercepted a communication from the commander of the British carrier battle group, Admiral Dimon Gordon, to the Seventh Fleet commander: “Sir, we are too late. There are the Russian atomic submarines here, and a big collection of battleships.” The British ships fled towards Madagascar while the larger US task force stopped before entering the Bay of Bengal.


Look we(India and Pakistan) are giving too much importance to us here...If we look into history the biggest bone of contention was East and West Germany...These two powers did not lock their horns even there, forget about West/East Pakistan.....

As I said before, the accounts for and against the narrative both exist. I gave an Indian one that supports the solution for W.Pakistan narrative.
Here is another one.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Bangladesh war secrets revealed

Perhaps the Nehru did not wish to end West Pakistan as suspected by Nixon but she did wish to neuter it.

Hence, Kissinger cleared up the air regarding the role of the US in the war years later in India.

Veteran diplomat Henry Kissinger denied that the United States had made a secret pact with India to prevent an attack on West Pakistan. After the 1971 war which saw the break up of Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh, the US asked India not to strike against West Pakistan.

Addressing the opening gala dinner keynote address at the India Today Conclave, the former US Secretary of State said that the war broke out just when the US was conducting negotiations with China through Pakistan. "India and the former Soviet Union had made a near-alliance around this time. It was in the national interest of the US to preserve West Pakistan," he said

No secret deal with India during 1971 war: Henry Kissinger : India Today Conclave 2012, News - India Today

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Capt.Popeye

Bad connection. However, I am thrilled by your recognition of the role of Sagat Singh and of the Mukti Bahini themselves. More later.

I am glad to know you like the thriller off line. You will meet at least two other famous actors in the course of the telling.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

@Capt.Popeye

Bad connection. However, I am thrilled by your recognition of the role of Sagat Singh and of the Mukti Bahini themselves. More later.

I am glad to know you like the thriller off line. You will meet at least two other famous actors in the course of the telling.

Looking forward to more of that.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

As I said before, the accounts for and against the narrative both exist. I gave an Indian one that supports the solution for W.Pakistan narrative.
Here is another one.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Bangladesh war secrets revealed

Perhaps the Nehru did not wish to end West Pakistan as suspected by Nixon but she did wish to neuter it.

Hence, Kissinger cleared up the air regarding the role of the US in the war years later in India.


No secret deal with India during 1971 war: Henry Kissinger : India Today Conclave 2012, News - India Today

What you said in the underlined part above, now creeps closer to the truth.

I have explained IG's mind-set in the earlier post: she had seen the Pakistan Army emasculated; then she was happy to let the Pakistani Political Estt. then run it on a tight leash. But she over-estimated Bhutto's qualities and acumen, just as many in the International Arena were liable to.

If you consider that to be "settling the Pakistan problem once and for all"; then that may be so; but then you would have to accept that the Pakistani Army was synonymous with the Pakistani Problem; which I consider that it was.
Since the Pakistani Army tail wagged the Pakistani National Dog at least insofar as policies and relations with India were concerned.
But if you are intending to linearly extrapolate that to encompass the entire Pakistani Nation and its populace; then even Indira was far more sanguine and neutral than you can imagine.

 

[SQ8]

Why are you referring to Pakistan/Pakistanis as, you or your etc? Are you not Pakistani yourself?

What happened to you? I can pick out many technical faults with your analysis, but..

You were generally the guy who gave the average case scenario/analysis, not the best or the worst case.

Secondly
This implies you associate Pakistan as the representative of subcontinental Muslims.
I disagree. India has not put forth any demeaning conditions on Bangladesh, and ofcourse Indians, regardless of caste, colour, creed or religion shall enjoy the bounties by national economic growth or subservience of other nations.

Any particular reasons for your shift from Pakistan is 'a nation' to Pakistan is the 'qila of Islam' ? I find it rather intriguing.
@Oscar a reply to this post would be appreciated as well. I find your choice of words in the last para rather out of the blue.

I do not associate Pakistan as the Qilla of Islam or anything of that sort. But rather as an exemplar of Subcontinent Muslims. Now odd as that may sound considering India has a considerable number of Muslims who are to a large extent very patriotic about their country, yet the self-imposed identity of Pakistan as a Muslim state will always leave a psychological association perhaps not by Indian Muslims but Indian non-muslims of having Muslims in power. After all, underhanded taunts have been used by extreme right wingers in India against Muslims of "going to their own country"(Pakistan) in the past and such motives do pop up now and then as well. So with Pakistan(regardless of whether they support the country or not) any ambitions or any hope of Muslims ever regaining their chance of communal equality is to be quashed along with it.

What you said in the underlined part above, now creeps closer to the truth.

I have explained IG's mind-set in the earlier post: she had seen the Pakistan Army emasculated; then she was happy to let the Pakistani Political Estt. then run it on a tight leash. But she over-estimated Bhutto's qualities and acumen, just as many in the International Arena were liable to.

If you consider that to be "settling the Pakistan problem once and for all"; then that may be so; but then you would have to accept that the Pakistani Army was synonymous with the Pakistani Problem; which I consider that it was.
Since the Pakistani Army tail wagged the Pakistani National Dog at least insofar as policies and relations with India were concerned.
But if you are intending to linearly extrapolate that to encompass the entire Pakistani Nation and its populace; then even Indira was far more sanguine and neutral than you can imagine.

That is exactly what I had meant in the first post. A Pakistan that promotes its national interests is not in the interests of India. A Awami League Bangladesh... ever compromising and subservient is the solution sought for Pakistan then and today as well.

Now I do not support many of the methods used to promote national interests, but national interests they are and to give them up is essentially making Pakistan a eunuch for India.

There are right and left wings, pro peace and pro war.. sane and insane voices in all state machinery and leadership. These cycle throughout but one does end up dominating the other. The voice of coexistence still echoes in India to a large extent as it does in Pakistan. However, they are drowned out by the more extreme and more belligerent in the finality of national purpose in Pakistan long ago and the same has become of India as well.. and that I belief with conviction; regardless of how anyone else thinks of it.

 

[ssethii]

i was drawing parallels for the present situation(internal war) with the situation that lead to our defeat in east Pakistan.
hatred for bangalis in west then and hatred for fundamentalist in ruling elite now.
The leader of jui-f is a funny man though but take him seriously when he says "ye aa'yein meri zarooraton ko poora nhe kar raha"

Knowing the military/ economic/ social history of Pakistan,

it is oversimiplistic to say the following:

1. hatred for bangalis in west

is in anyway or form similar to

2. hatred for fundamentalist now



Please explain what you really want to say.

Thank you[/quote]

If you can read the pulse of this nation then you will see there are more fundamentalists in the society than secular ones. The only reason they are holding back is they don't want violence but that doesn't mean they will accept the system as is, so killing those violent fundamentalist won't change anything. Time will take it's course and we might end up losing some landmass again.

It will become a big issue if we don't deal with it now. It's an issue of our identity and it won't go unnoticed.
I hope you understand now.

i was drawing parallels for the present situation(internal war) with the situation that lead to our defeat in east Pakistan.
hatred for bangalis in west then and hatred for fundamentalist in ruling elite now.
The leader of jui-f is a funny man though but take him seriously when he says "ye aa'yein meri zarooraton ko poora nhe kar raha"

Knowing the military/ economic/ social history of Pakistan,

it is oversimiplistic to say the following:

1. hatred for bangalis in west

is in anyway or form similar to

2. hatred for fundamentalist now



Please explain what you really want to say.

Thank you[/quote]

If you can read the pulse of this nation then you will see there are more fundamentalists in the society than secular ones. The only reason they are holding back is they don't want violence but that doesn't mean they will accept the system as is, so killing those violent fundamentalist won't change anything. Time will take it's course and we might end up losing some landmass again.

It will become a big issue if we don't deal with it now. It's an issue of our identity and it won't go unnoticed.
I hope you understand now.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

That is exactly what I had meant in the first post. A Pakistan that promotes its national interests is not in the interests of India. A Awami League Bangladesh... ever compromising and subservient is the solution sought for Pakistan then and today as well.

Now I do not support many of the methods used to promote national interests, but national interests they are and to give them up is essentially making Pakistan a eunuch for India.

Ah, @Oscar; now I detect some confusion there. Were the Pakistan army's interests identical with the Pakistan Nation's interests? Was Ayub Khan the only person in Pakistan to be able to understand and define Pakistans's interests?
Even Bhutto (as was demonstrated so clearly in the run-up to 1971) put his own interests above his Nations.
So which was this Pakistan that was promoting its own National Interests?
The Awami League of that time and Hussain Suhrawardy were not subservient to India's interests and had no inclination to be in any way, what changed that?
Indian interests?

 

[SQ8]

Ah, @Oscar; now I detect some confusion there. Were the Pakistan army's interests identical with the Pakistan Nation's interests? Was Ayub Khan the only person in Pakistan to be able to understand and define Pakistans's interests?
Even Bhutto (as was demonstrated so clearly in the run-up to 1971) put his own interests above his Nations.
So which was this Pakistan that was promoting its own National Interests?
The Awami League of that time and Hussain Suhrawardy were not subservient to India's interests and had no inclination to be in any way, what changed that?
Indian interests?

Au Contrare.. You are confusing personal wishes for national requirements. The AL of today has less to do with the AL of then...and even if they do.. their interests then were different as they are today. I do not hold Ayub or any of the dictators in high wishes, nor bhutto to an extent... but as an example.. The atomic weapons program(debatable as it may be) seems to be serving particular national interests now(on the surface anyway). Shall we equate it entirely with Bhutto's interests?

As another example.. ensuring a Afghanistan that is not a gun to the back is in Pakistan's interest regardless of who is in power. Now if Afghanistan stable is shown to be a threat to Pakistan, would you as a Pakistani leader or even a common citizen be happy with the status quo?
sure, logic would argue that why dont we all talk it out?.. but history has shown(and continues) to show that Afghan and Pakistani interests do not coincide when it comes to their border. Ethics and Morals be damned(who really cares for them in international relations as Snowden just re emphasized) in such a situation and Pakistan's interests be supreme. Now I dont agree with the establishment's handling of the situation..but should I.. or would you as a Pakistani citizen be content with losing a certain section of your land in order to keep the Afghan's happy(provided it satisfies them and they dont go on more, more and more)?
So, Im not confused at all; I am looking beyond the leadership issues here.. and specifically to see National interests for the needs of the nation continue. Ayub's Hara Kiri in 65 may have a similar reasoning behind it,but then it comes down to the calibre of the leader and not the need of the day.. or rather the Doctor's prognosis of what the patient needs and choice of treatment. That depends on the acumen of the doctor, the disease and the presence of zero bias: sadly, leadership in Pakistan has had not the acumen to diagnose or treat the disease.. but a lot of the bias.

In either case, I consider prime those of Pakistan's interests I consider critical.. perhaps I may be wrong.. but protecting one's interests in natural.. be it Apple suing Samsung for copying "thin and curvy" designs or a man shooting another for his money..

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Au Contrare.. You are confusing personal wishes for national requirements. The AL of today has less to do with the AL of then...and even if they do.. their interests then were different as they are today. I do not hold Ayub or any of the dictators in high wishes, nor bhutto to an extent... but as an example.. The atomic weapons program(debatable as it may be) seems to be serving particular national interests now(on the surface anyway). Shall we equate it entirely with Bhutto's interests?

As another example.. ensuring a Afghanistan that is not a gun to the back is in Pakistan's interest regardless of who is in power. Now if Afghanistan stable is shown to be a threat to Pakistan, would you as a Pakistani leader or even a common citizen be happy with the status quo?
sure, logic would argue that why dont we all talk it out?.. but history has shown(and continues) to show that Afghan and Pakistani interests do not coincide when it comes to their border. Ethics and Morals be damned(who really cares for them in international relations as Snowden just re emphasized) in such a situation and Pakistan's interests be supreme. Now I dont agree with the establishment's handling of the situation..but should I.. or would you as a Pakistani citizen be content with losing a certain section of your land in order to keep the Afghan's happy(provided it satisfies them and they dont go on more, more and more)?
So, Im not confused at all; I am looking beyond the leadership issues here.. and specifically to see National interests for the needs of the nation continue. Ayub's Hara Kiri in 65 may have a similar reasoning behind it,but then it comes down to the calibre of the leader and not the need of the day.. or rather the Doctor's prognosis of what the patient needs and choice of treatment. That depends on the acumen of the doctor, the disease and the presence of zero bias: sadly, leadership in Pakistan has had not the acumen to diagnose or treat the disease.. but a lot of the bias.

In either case, I consider prime those of Pakistan's interests I consider critical.. perhaps I may be wrong.. but protecting one's interests in natural.. be it Apple suing Samsung for copying "thin and curvy" designs or a man shooting another for his money..

You have still not answered my questions?

The exchange of posts are connected to what you claimed that Indira Gandhi wanted to to do to Pakistan. Then you raised the point of Pakistani interests that needed to be neutered.
All of that discussion is related to a specific time-frame in history.
Hence all of my points are related to events, personalities (Suhrawardy, Bhutto, Ayub et al) and organisations (Awami League of Pakistan etc) of that time.

Suddenly you seem to have climbed onto a 'time-machine' and ridden into this present age!!!

 

[SQ8]

You have still not answered my questions?

The exchange of posts are connected to what you claimed that Indira Gandhi wanted to to do to Pakistan. Then you raised the point of Pakistani interests that needed to be neutered.
All of that discussion is related to a specific time-frame in history.
Hence all of my points are related to events, personalities (Suhrawardy, Bhutto, Ayub et al) and organisations (Awami League of Pakistan etc) of that time.

Suddenly you seem to have climbed onto a 'time-machine' and ridden into this present age!!!

If you recall the posts, they were connected to a reply to a member asking as to why India did not do so(attack Pakistan for the purpose of neutering her) in later years.. the time frame was never set for me. However if you wish to focus on that then so be it. What led to the events of E.Pakistan was the racism of a ruling elite..What the leadership of the PA did was deplorable as well. However, the uprising itself did threaten whatever was left of the state's writ in E.Pakistan. Now, in regards to the decisions and actions undertaken by the leadership being in the national interests of Pakistan it is no quarrel that most of these leaders had their own power in mind(Yahya declaring so openly while his erstwhile mentor Ayub ensuring his exit from the mess he created). But not all of the actions undertaken by the PA misaligned with national interests, and not all of Pakistan's interests were to be sacrificed at the altar to atone for its self-defeating actions against its eastern wing.

 

[JOEY TRIBIANI]

jhoot kab tak chupa rahay akhir

 

[FaujHistorian]

Rather then debunking the bunkum, you have helped me reinforce it. See, the Pakistan problem does not mean invading Pakistan; it means leaving it in a hapless state in which it is no further threat to India. Hence, inspite of the extreme nature of the "Pakistan problem" statement.. it does not detract that essentially that was the goal in 71 and is the goal now.

While a section of Indian hawks in their baboo beuracracy, or political establishment may make such irresponsible statements, Indian army knows, that India by its own will cannot make Pakistan hapless in any way.

Defeating Pakistani army and then dealing with the Iraq like situation is way beyond the league of Indian army now, and it always was.

Heck Indian army couldn't pacify or make hapless a tiny island of Sri Lanka, and instead INdian generals beat a hasty retreat.

Indian and Pakistani tussles on much higher level (than military jingoism) are in fact economic and social.

E. Pakistan militarily was really a cat-walk compared to W Pakistan for so many reasons that we need a separate thread for it.

This is a fact known to Pak army generals and Indian army generals.


So please do not spread misinformation.


Modern day Pakistan will not be invaded unless Pakistani military heartland of Punjab and Urban KP (Peshawar and Charsaddah) turns against the military itself.

In some ways Mullahs and Ayatullahs are using bogemen based on everything from Quran Hadees all the way to Amreeka and Israel and INdian slogans in order to do just that,

to turn the tables on Pakistani army.


How else one could explain killing of Pakistani soldiers and especially generals in numbers comparable if not more than any war against India.


So I beg you Mr. @Oscar not to allow these made up stories like Indian army wants to finish off Pakistan.

These stories do nothing but rouse Pakistanis against its own army, with the slogan that they are not doing enough to support "anti-INdian Jih@dis" in Pakistan.


I hope you understand.


Peace

 

[SQ8]

So I beg you Mr. @Oscar not to allow these made up stories like Indian army wants to finish off Pakistan.

These stories do nothing but rouse Pakistanis against its own army, with the slogan that they are not doing enough to support "anti-INdian Jih@dis" in Pakistan.


I hope you understand.


Peace

Jumping the gun Janab does not bode well either. Nowhere I have stated on India invading Pakistan but rather the removal of it as a threat. A Pakistan embroiled in civil war and fracturing on multiple lines is also removal of it as a threat.. and India had little hand to play in that as it was all our doing.. yet it does not mind it at all either.

The question is Not of invading Pakistan but removing it as a threat. The latter is achievable in so many ways.