Pakistan's defence budget cut - retracted. Increased by 7.

[Flintlock]

Of course, there is nothing stationed on the Western border by India is there?

However, I am not discounting that India has to keep in mind the Chinese threat.

As I said, it is upto Pakistan to buy it.

From what I can see, Pakistan is not buying that argument.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

u want india-pak friendship

Sure I do, but not the kind of lala land friendship. Simple act of live and let live will suffice.Why fight a war for someone in Kashmir, when both you and I have nothing to gain over it.

but all the dirty work of reducing our deterrence has to be done by pakistan

Guess what no one asked you to reduce your detterance. Your current level of detterancce coupled with procrurement cycle will be enough, anything more will eat way development in other sectors. Do you seriously want me to believe that you will reduce your deterrance when you have healthy economy?

we buy 3 subs, u buy 6, we think of ordering 3 more, u quickly retort with another 6 including a nuclear sub.

You dont get it do you, India is doing to you what USdid to Soviets, your government is smart enough not fall in that trap.

u say u have enough money in your coffers, but what about the 400m indians living on less than a dollar a day,

So reducing defence spending from 1.9% of GDP to one percent is going to solve the problem?

30% of our population lives below the poverty line and we say we have enough.

That 30%never matterd, all through history we have had poverty and yet spent on defence, but with high spending thanks to Indias spending you are biting away from the other sectors pie which shalll prove to be disastrous, your economy is neither rosy add to that high oil and commodity prices and internal conflicts, ever wondered why Pakistani Rupee is falling against dollar while the reverse is happening in every other country. More defence spending results in more dollars spent for defence which is directly poportional to increased percentage of GDP spent unlike India where defence spending is the lowest in terms of GDP.
Cheers

 

[Energon]

The argument was a hypothetical one. But so long as India continues to claim all of JK as its territory, capturing/absorbing (take your pick) that territory, it remains a threat.

India already controls the territory in question, it is Pakistan that has the history of attempting to acquire it through warfare. Given the context of military engagements your point is still moot. The reigns to stop these conflicts are in the hands of Pakistan, not India. The latter has not tried to use military might to "absorb" Pakistani territory; in fact it has returned all of the captured areas at the end of each conflict. The Indian government went so far as to not bomb the supply lines of the Pak Army across the LOC during Kargil, which was the IAF's first recommendation and instead sacrificed the lives of thousands of soldiers fighting an uphill battle (literally). The only valid argument I can see pointing towards Indian mobilization has been that involving the Siachen glacier; however the LoC was not defined around the glacier in the Simla accords and there was no bombing or shelling of any sort indicating a hostile intrusion of Pakistani territory (demarcated beyond the LoC)

Beyond absorbing/capturing- Indian intervention and aggression in East Pakistan in 1971 also show that weakening and dismembering Pakistan would be a policy that India could pursue and has pursued. Add to this a quote by Indira Gandhi posted by MBI Munshi sahib:

The level of hostility around 4 decades ago was a lot different than it is today; and yes, having two hostile Pakistans on either side was a risk which needed to be neutralized; and the West Pakistani blunder in the East certainly provided a good reason. However, no Pakistani territory was ever occupied or "absorbed" by India despite the overwhelming military victory; which if I'm not mistaken is still the premise of this argument. I'm sorry for not giving any credence to your source MBI Munshi, the editor and part author of "India Doctrine" a comical compilation of the 'who's who list of disgruntled losers' bemoaning the great Indian tyrant which makes for some truly entertaining reading provided one gives up on reality. You're giving way too much credit to the Akhand Bharat movement by repeatedly quoting sources like MBI Munshi and Quarashi who need to get their Haloperidol prescriptions refilled. If you are taking Indira Gandhi's supposed rhetoric at the height of tensions literally, then why aren't you wondering about the existence of Bangladesh, her decision not to completely destroy western Pakistan despite complete air dominance and returning all the captured land? I'm sorry, but your bogeyman hypothesis has way too many holes in it.

I am arguing that the threat was there and effectively neutralized because of the conventional deterrent.
On Pakistan deterring India militarily:

Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

I have read this NPEC analysis, and although its fairly decent does not make mention of most facts outside the realm of military posturing which played a big part in the 2002 standoff. Nonetheless it clearly states that Vajpayee's decision not to go to war based on the Pakistan Army's counter mobilization is mere speculation. Also, it does not take into account the fact that Vajpayee was clearly aware that India in 2002 was in absolutely no position to engage in a war (given his administrations economic goals); Colin Powell's intervention with the help of all the CEOs of companies with major stakes in India (The world is Flat- Tom Freedman); or that the grand mobilization was merely a theatrical show of force for which there is a historical precedence; or that Pakistan's not having a no first use policy unlike India actually left the nuclear question totally open. Furthermore, if India truly wanted to be the aggressive tyrant you say it is who refuses to accept Pakistan's right to exist or what have you, then its entire army would be amassed along the border and not harbored in cantonments located in Madhya Pradesh which was the main reason for the longer mobilization time (refer to the Cold Start doctrine literature). In fact, the Cold Start doctrine was adopted after the 2002 episode because it was clear that there was no point in having the cantonments away from the borders; but again, this was reactionary move.

There was no "Pakistani Orchestrated Terrorism", if you are referring to the attack on parliament. What you had was the Indian government using that attack by terrorists (the accusations repetitively similar to the nonsense churned out hours or minutes after most terrorist attacks in India - a tradition thankfully being broken now, after the recent bombings)

The Pakistani terrorism in India goes way beyond the attack on the Parliament. It includes the financial, logistical, spiritual and material support of many a terrorist outfit operating across the border in addition to one of the longest and most expensive insurgency in history. The Parliament attack was merely one incident; but it did at the time put Pakistan at the top of the differential list for a very good reason.

It is true however that Pakistan did clamp down on supporting cross LoC infiltration by militants.

These efforts should be commended and promoted. The success of Pakistan in curbing their support for cross border militancy has reduced tensions, finger pointing and reactionary mobilizations; again, for a good reason.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India already controls the territory in question, it is Pakistan that has the history of attempting to acquire it through warfare. Given the context of military engagements your point is still moot. The reigns to stop these conflicts are in the hands of Pakistan, not India. The latter has not tried to use military might to "absorb" Pakistani territory; in fact it has returned all of the captured areas at the end of each conflict. The Indian government went so far as to not bomb the supply lines of the Pak Army across the LOC during Kargil, which was the IAF's first recommendation and instead sacrificed the lives of thousands of soldiers fighting an uphill battle (literally). The only valid argument I can see pointing towards Indian mobilization has been that involving the Siachen glacier; however the LoC was not defined around the glacier in the Simla accords and there was no bombing or shelling of any sort indicating a hostile intrusion of Pakistani territory (demarcated beyond the LoC)

The level of hostility around 4 decades ago was a lot different than it is today; and yes, having two hostile Pakistans on either side was a risk which needed to be neutralized; and the West Pakistani blunder in the East certainly provided a good reason. However, no Pakistani territory was ever occupied or "absorbed" by India despite the overwhelming military victory; which if I'm not mistaken is still the premise of this argument. I'm sorry for not giving any credence to your source MBI Munshi, the editor and part author of "India Doctrine" a comical compilation of the 'who's who list of disgruntled losers' bemoaning the great Indian tyrant which makes for some truly entertaining reading provided one gives up on reality. You're giving way too much credit to the Akhand Bharat movement by repeatedly quoting sources like MBI Munshi and Quarashi who need to get their Haloperidol prescriptions refilled. If you are taking Indira Gandhi's supposed rhetoric at the height of tensions literally, then why aren't you wondering about the existence of Bangladesh, her decision not to completely destroy western Pakistan despite complete air dominance and returning all the captured land? I'm sorry, but your bogeyman hypothesis has way too many holes in it.

Energon,

I am not sure why you continuously ignore the context in which my comments were made, even though it should have been clear after my exchange with IPF that I was referring to limited territorial ingress by India (capture/absorb whatever) for gaining a bargaining or coercive advantage for whatever goal it had in mind.

And you are wrong, India does not control all of JK while its claim extends to the territory under Pakistan's control. So long as the dispute remains unresolved and India claims the entire territory, the threat of an Indian attack to "absorb/capture" Kashmir remains. That India has not done so so far does not mean anything - the intention to damage Pakistan has already been illustrated beyond a shadow of doubt by virtue of its support for a violent anti-State group and military aggression in East Pakistan, and so long as normalization eludes India and Pakistani relationship, Pakistan has an extremely strong reason to learn from history and maintain a credible military deterrent.

Your argument on Kargil is flawed - India did not initiate strikes in Pakistani territory for the same reason Pakistan severely limited its support for the fighters in Kargil - preventing an escalation of the conflict into a full fledged official war, and resulting in an eventual factoring in of the Nuclear factor.

There was a reason why Indian officials took pains to deny that the IAF ever crossed the LoC when the two Migs were shot down - officially here was no war between India and Pakistan, and Pakistani soldiers had not crossed the LoC.

But even in that restraint was the understanding that Pakistan's conventional deterrent would not allow a cakewalk into Kashmir or Pakistan, allowing for the room Pakistan would need to play the nuclear card.

In East Pakistan India very wisely did not occupy because it had already supported and armed a seperatist movement. There was no way the Bengali nationalists would trade one "occupation" for another. The East Pakistan aggression did however indicate that India would strike Pakistan where it was weak and seek to destroy or dismember it, and that lesson, as I mentioned above, should not be forgotten so long as the relationship remains hostile. Nonetheless, your use of "absorb/capture" is a continued contextual distortion which I clarified in my first paragraph above.

Your continued digression into "Akhand Bharat" references is getting quite irritating honestly. This is the second instance (the other in the history thread) where you have sought to impose views expressed by me in an entirely different context and thread onto the discussion, where I never ventured into the Akhand Bharat issue.

Your accusation of resorting to Munshi and Quraishi quotes is rubbish - at no point have I ever quoted Quraishi or Munshi. Even here the only thing I have borrowed is a quote attributed to Indira Gandhi, and that to point out that what India did in 1971 was nothing but pure calculated aggression backed up by an intensely hostile Indian leadership.

I am not really interested in dealing with this horse pukey in every response of yours where you disagree with me.

I have read this NPEC analysis, and although its fairly decent does not make mention of most facts outside the realm of military posturing which played a big part in the 2002 standoff. Nonetheless it clearly states that Vajpayee's decision not to go to war based on the Pakistan Army's counter mobilization is mere speculation. Also, it does not take into account the fact that Vajpayee was clearly aware that India in 2002 was in absolutely no position to engage in a war (given his administrations economic goals); Colin Powell's intervention with the help of all the CEOs of companies with major stakes in India (The world is Flat- Tom Freedman); or that the grand mobilization was merely a theatrical show of force for which there is a historical precedence; or that Pakistan's not having a no first use policy unlike India actually left the nuclear question totally open. Furthermore, if India truly wanted to be the aggressive tyrant you say it is who refuses to accept Pakistan's right to exist or what have you, then its entire army would be amassed along the border and not harbored in cantonments located in Madhya Pradesh which was the main reason for the longer mobilization time (refer to the Cold Start doctrine literature). In fact, the Cold Start doctrine was adopted after the 2002 episode because it was clear that there was no point in having the cantonments away from the borders; but again, this was reactionary move.

Not just the NPEC, but almost every single analysis of the Cold Start I have read recognizes the importance of the Pakistani conventional deterrent working as planned in conjunction with flaws in the Sundarji doctrine as being responsible for the creation of Cold Start. While US intervention may have been what made India blink first and withdraw, it was the Pakistani conventional deterrent that created the space for that external pressure, as well as the spectre of nuclear war, to come into play.

Some Indians have chosen to go into la la land and buy into the myth of "US business leaders" single handedly making India withdraw. If Friedman actually draws this conclusion then he is ridiculously off keel, though the conclusion might fit in better with the premise of his book and hence might have been drawn with a particular bias and goal in mind.

The Cold Start doctrine was created to address failures that occurred in Op. Parakram, and as such it gives us an insight in to what India actually wanted to achieve, and would want to achieve in a future conflict.

Most analysts agree that it revolves around holding tracts of territory in Pakistan for bargaining strength (hence my argument of absorbing/capturing territory) and/or destroying vital targets, and that leads us to my original argument that a nuclear deterrent is not enough.

The Pakistani terrorism in India goes way beyond the attack on the Parliament. It includes the financial, logistical, spiritual and material support of many a terrorist outfit operating across the border in addition to one of the longest and most expensive insurgency in history. The Parliament attack was merely one incident; but it did at the time put Pakistan at the top of the differential list for a very good reason.

Pakistan has sponsored no terrorism in India. We supported a freedom movement in Kashmir.We did no more than what the CIA did in Latin America, Africa and Afghanistan, or what India did with the Mukti Bahini or what Pakistani intelligence and law enforcement suspects it is doing in Balochistan.

One of the unfortunate consequences of supporting rebels is that you can never control every action they make. The mujahideen committed atrocities in Afghanistan, while the US was supporting them, as did the rebels and regimes supported by the US in Latin America, as did the Mukhti Bahini in East Pakistan.

There has never been institutional support for the attacks on civilians by some rebel groups, though the involvement of rogue officers cannot be ruled out..

These efforts should be commended and promoted. The success of Pakistan in curbing their support for cross border militancy has reduced tensions, finger pointing and reactionary mobilizations; again, for a good reason.

Interestingly one of the Cold Start papers mentions how violence in kashmir actually rose after Operation Parakram, placing even more doubt as to what that exercise achieved.

Over the long run however, infiltration into IOK has declined, and that is to be commended and continued as the two nations work towards normalization.

 

[vish]

First, this anouncement is as much of a surprise to India/Indians as it is to Pakistan/Pakistanis.

Second, we never asked for it. We have no "intentions" over any Pakistani territory; as far as Pakistani Kashmir is concerned, we have very little to gain if we initiate a re-capture. Frankly, we won't do it because just love our place in the sun too much. Plus the terrain is any invader's nightmare.

Siachen is more China centric.

Operation Parakram was a failure; it took too long for the offensive corps to mobilize to the border. By then American economic pressure ensured that our governments loose their nerve and also the element of surprise had been lost. This mobilization did have an effect on PA and GoP though. Due to this, Cold Start was evolved.

As far as China is concerned, we have the best defenses against them, and they against us: the Himalayas. The thing that we worry is their encirclement, which our government has now decided to counter and is acting on that course.

Our defense budget will be decided as and how our government sees it fit. Our forces direly need modernization and we do lack infrasture in the North-East. Our Navy (the most expansive defense arm) needs to be strengthened too. Our Air Force needs more modern planes. Our Artilery arm is virtually in dire straits. I don't think we can afford all of the above by reducing our defense budget.

Frankly, it makes more sense for India and Pakistan to talk reduction in number of active troops close to the IB in places other than Kashmir. India won't reduce the number of troops in J&K because history dictates otherwise.

What worries me is that the Kashmir-centric fundamentalists/terrorists, which are no longer entirely under Pakistan's control and can operate outside the writ of the GoP/PA/ISI. So even if the GoP wants a solution on Kashmir that can be agreed by India, it would be difficult to reign in these terrorists. If these idiots manage to do another high-profile attack, the hawks on the Indian side might signal green for a Cold Start offensive. In short, everything goes kaput.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Second, we never asked for it. We have no "intentions" over any Pakistani territory; as far as Pakistani Kashmir is concerned, we have very little to gain if we initiate a re-capture. Frankly, we won't do it because just love our place in the sun too much. Plus the terrain is any invader's nightmare.

Siachen is more China centric.

Operation Parakram was a failure; it took too long for the offensive corps to mobilize to the border. By then American economic pressure ensured that our governments loose their nerve and also the element of surprise had been lost. This mobilization did have an effect on PA and GoP though. Due to this, Cold Start was evolved.

With all due respect Vish, while you might say that you are "satisfied with your place in the sun", your nations official policy remains that all of JK is an integral part of India. The aggression of East Pakistan and Siachen is also a fact, and surely you see why from Pakistan's perspective maintaining a credible conventional deterrent makes absolute sense.

Op. Parakram I have argued failed to a large part because the Pakistani conventional deterrent worked as planned, and gave the space for negotiations to work.

With respect to the budget cut, it is not likely to affect much, and will most likely be addressed next year. It does however sell with the electorate, and should also help take pressure off the Army.

If these idiots manage to do another high-profile attack, the hawks on the Indian side might signal green for a Cold Start offensive. In short, everything goes kaput.

So long as the threat of Indian aggression remains, justified or unjustified, Pakistan has to maintain a minimum credible deterrent.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

There is no doubt that there is poverty in India.

However, that does not mean that attention is only given to the social side alone, leaving defence of the nation void.

1962 is a grim reminder that populism does not guarantee peace.

Op Parakrama did not take off thanks to the US diplomatic intervention.

 

[vish]

With all due respect Vish, while you might say that you are "satisfied with your place in the sun", your nations official policy remains that all of JK is an integral part of India. The aggression of East Pakistan and Siachen is also a fact, and surely you see why from Pakistan's perspective maintaining a credible conventional deterrent makes absolute sense.

The reason why no Indian government has relinquished India's claim over entire JK is simply because it is political suicide. The IA knows well it is near impossible to take those lands militarily. This is the reason why the GoI is happy with the status quo (it keeps the "aam junta" happy). East Pakistan traces its roots to 1965; Operation Gikbraltar shocked the Indian policy making circles. When 1971 happenned, a very shrewed and smart lady was at India's helm. She took full advantage to extract the revenge. Further, if India would not have acted, the refugee crisis and the "genocide" would have become more severe. I believe we had no choice but to act. Siachen is an example of "Indian aggression" if you consider occupying of unmmarked lands as so. If I'm not wrong, the PA was also planning to do the same around the same time. We beat them in the race. I've never questioned Pakistan's decision to maintain its deterence, nuclear or conventional, for I believe that it is Pakistan's internal matter. My view is that the Pakistani defense establishment is relatively bloated if one looks at Pakistan's economy.

Op. Parakram I have argued failed to a large part because the Pakistani conventional deterrent worked as planned, and gave the space for negotiations to work.

Operation Parakram failed because the time that the IA took to mobilize itself was long enough for our leaders to loose their nerves and PA to mobilize. The element of surprise was lost and the estimate for casualities increased. You and me are more or less on the same plane here, or so I think.

With respect to the budget cut, it is not likely to affect much, and will most likely be addressed next year. It does however sell with the electorate, and should also help take pressure off the Army.

So long as the threat of Indian aggression remains, justified or unjustified, Pakistan has to maintain a minimum credible deterrent.

I do not question your country's deterence; I merely hold views on it and think that it can be further streamlined.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vish,

I apologize if I made incorrect assumptions about your views.

I believe I read them in the context of my discussion with Energon and IPF.

Cheers.

 

[vish]

Vish,

I apologize if I made incorrect assumptions about your views.

I believe I read them in the context of my discussion with Energon and IPF.

Cheers.

No problems sir...

Regards;

 

[Spring Onion]

Rs295 billion have been allocated for defence this time.

SO anyone can tell me where is the cut ????


If i am not wrong last time it was Rs275b

 

[Goodperson]

No question of freezing defence spending: Minister

Islamabad may have decided to freeze defence spending in its 2008-09 budget, but India has no such plans. Dashing hopes of Pakistan prime minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, who wanted India to reciprocate, defence minister AK Antony said on Tuesday that there was no scope for cutting defence spending considering the country’s military budget was far lower than its neighbours.

He said, “India’s defence allocation does not match its booming economy. It is below two per cent of our gross domestic product, while our neighbours have apportioned 3 per cent for defence.”

The Indian armed forces have been allocated a budget of Rs 1,05, 600 crore for 2008-09, of which Rs 48,007 crore has been earmarked for modernisation. The figure represents a 10 per cent increase over last year’s Rs 96,000 crore and barely offsets chronic inflationary trends. The allocation includes revenue expenditure of Rs 57, 593 crore for meeting day-to-day expenses of the military.

China’s declared defence budget for 2008 is in the region of US$59 billion, up 17.6 per cent from last year. The budgetary trend was similar last year when the increase was nearly 18 per cent. But the real picture could be different as Beijing has a reputation for underreporting its military spending.

According to Pentagon estimates, the declared total represents about a third of actual military spending if equipment purchases are taken into account. The Pentagon estimates China’s military expenditure in 2007 ranged from US$97 billion to US$139 billion.

No question of freezing defence spending: Minister- Hindustan Times

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Rs295 billion have been allocated for defence this time.

SO anyone can tell me where is the cut ????


If i am not wrong last time it was Rs275b

So it means that there is no cut and instead an increase.

Then what is all this ballyhoo about cuts?

And what then is the rationale for asking India to reciprocate a cut?

Odd!

 

[Spring Onion]

So it means that there is no cut and instead an increase.

Then what is all this ballyhoo about cuts?

And what then is the rationale for asking India to reciprocate a cut?

Odd!

Sir i dont know what is actual position but it was a cursory glance.

AS far as asking India to follow well that was the most idiotic on the part of the person who expected that.

Its like expecting a lion not to eat you because you are a vegetarian

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Mustn't do cursory glances or have gut feelings, when you are supposed to know the details and that should be no problem for a journaist to check back from the Financial News desk.

Your comments are taken to have more credence than the average poster since you report that news.