The enemy and Pakistan Army

[karan.1970]

You reminded me of my college days. That said, Old Monk does suck

As much as I am in love with single Malts, I will fight you to death on this claim of yours

 

[RazPaK]

Well the last few posts prove that Indians just come here when they are drunk and say ridiculous things.

 

[MilSpec]

beg to disagree there mate, your own nationalist murdered your founder for the "crime" of giving away the land of Bharat Mata, now that killer is touted as a true heart & a hero, your extremists dont want status que on the contrary they want the rule from Landi Kotal to Ras Kumari and this attitude is quickly getting support and strength in your military.
whereas Pakistan Army is curbing the Islamists influence and keeping checks at Hizb Tahrir, your terrorist officer who was involved in the bombing of Samjhota express is seen as a hero by your fellow Indians.

First, very good to see you back here!
Secondly, Indian armed forces and services have always been very non-communal, this is another myth perpetrated to malign India in pakistan by conspiracy theorists. I have never met in my lifespan a single individual who has ever suggested ghodse as an hero. I think it is in the best interest of pakistan to abandon the Indian Boogeyman Syndrome. That doesn't mean changing your so-called minimum deterrence, keep it, keep buying f16's and FC1's, raise more tank columns but stop telling a 5 year old kid that number one enemy is India. There are bigger evils on both side.

 

[Joe Shearer]

As usual, Developereo, you deliver the bad news in the unctuous tones of a head-waiter informing us that we will most certainly get a table within the next hour. Unmatched smooth delivery, almost brings us to believe that we are hearing good news, aand end off the day, it is the same upper cut. Smooth. I am afraid there is nobody within handshaking distance of your bland ferociity; since it is futile to try, I have sought to look at your arguments from an Indian point of view and present it in very humble, down-to-earth terms. Apologies in advance for not being able to match your polished perfection of style.

I have skimmed the thread and not read every post fully -- notorious_eagle, RazPak and others have been fighting the good fight here --, so what I write below may be repetitive and already addressed. If so, please feel free to ignore.

First off, the OP is a brilliant piece of analysis; it is one of those information-dense treatises where every single line conveys meaning, unmarred by superfluous fluff. It is unfortunate, then, that so many people have missed some important statements in the OP.


This should dispel any confusion that the article justifies the army's role in civilian affairs or denies the societal problems. The problems and their severity are acknowedged, along with the proper remedy: civilian political solutions aided, if needed, by specialized security forces. It is also acknowledged that many of these problems have indigenous origins but are used opportunistically by foreign elements, including India.

First of all, this exercise is entirely founded on sand, on assumptions that only Pakistan and a Pakistani can make, and on foisting such assumptions on to India and to the thinking of Indians. Pakistan's existential obsession with India, and her inability to think of anything without a direct or indirect reference to India, sticks out prominently, as prominently as Ian Chappell's compelling canine example. This fundamental mistake, to think that what a Pakistani thinks Indians are thinking is correct, vitiates the entire exercise. It is not without a certain amusement that one notices that the great communicator himself, in penning this vade mecum, falls into the same pit.

Next,
This is where American and Indian goals coincide. Talks of Asian brotherhood notwithstanding, India has an unflinching interest in seeking Pakistan's demise. The reasons are multifold:

- No one in the region will take India's role as leader seriously unless it can subjugate Pakistan, and India needs to dominate the region before it can even begin to think about any global ambitions.

Begging the question a bit, isn't it? Just because Pakistan is determined not to allow India to be the leader in the region does not mean that India wants to be the leader in the region. All India wants is a peaceful and pleasant experience at SAARC meetings, not the teeth-bared hostility of one of the members infecting any combination of the others. A wish to avoid rows does not really translate into a wish for hegemony. These are all the frightful nightmares that the Pakistani deep state suffers - apparently, from the tone and tenor of this post, to an increasing degree of concern and anxiety.

There is no need for such concern.

- Access to the CARs, both for their resources and also as a chess move against China. India blew it in Afghanistan post Soviet withdrawal, so Uncle Sam had to come along and reinstate a pro-India puppet. Note that the Indian access to Afghanistan through Iran is suboptimal because of the perpetual need to placate the GCC Arabs. Of course, the Indians will say that their diplomacy has managed the problem well, but the one thing better than a managed problem is a non-existent problem. With a balkanized Pakistan and emasculated puppet regimes lining the road from Delhi to Tashkent, India will be sitting pretty.

Absent your elegant, polished prose, I can only say in an earthy vein "Bollocks."

Again, a demonstration of extrapolation of Pakistani wishes onto others. India has had natural good relations with Afghanistan in the past. Sadly, most of those who are members of this forum were not even born at the time, so it is difficult to explain to them, and somewhat pointless, given their tumescent pre-adult posturing.

Second, India's role in Afghanistan during the time of the Afghan preoccupation with Soviet Russia was clearly understood: it was never going to be an act of collaboration with the US, which had in the past done so much to punish India at every turn for seeking to maintain an independent position.

A thought in passing. Do you not find it passing strange that your eager, even ardent collaboration with the US should lead to today's sad state of affairs? Probably not; you probably see your roles as the members of the relay team that took the baton and ran on, while your erstwhile allies cheered in a desultory manner from the sidelines.

Third, as you probably know, but need to dissimulate in order to maintain the proprieties, the US works for its own interests, not for Indian interests. Nowhere in the world has she seen her ally's interests before her own, and India is not even an ally. I might remind you of the actual situation on the ground with regard to Pakistan's relationship with America, not the dreams of independence that your politicians and you parade on every possible occasion, not the guarded and meagre smiles prior to receipt of the lawyer's notice of the divorce action, but the reality. The subsidies, the subventions, the cheap arms and ammunition, the access to their war-fighting resources, the close and warm access to the American military machine, at the very top, the wink-wink nod-nod drone campaign, and the hunting license given to the American President - what a brave show it makes! Sixty years of an unequal relationship, but oh, so well served; almost with as much diligence and good grace as that service given to Jordan and to Saudi Arabia.

Far from hostility to America, your entire top echelon depends on the American relationship for the future of its youth. Even the most strident voices on PDF are those hothouse flowers sent to grow and blossom in the hothouse, away from the cruel realities.

Fourth, perhaps there is too much emphasis, almost a recurrence of the ZAB leitmotif, on the managing of the Pakistan/Afghanistan problem and those relating to the central Asian republics. There is such a thing as being too clever by half. I refer not to your comments at this point, but to the Pakistani propensity to imagine that some slick diplomacy will revolutionize the world. An exact functional equivalent of the military propensity for military misadventure. Clearly, no country today is so simple-minded that it cannot understand being manipulated, or being given the Honest John, Used Car Salesman, rush that your diplomatic services apparently hope to impart, the way it had sought legitimacy for Pakistani culturing of an entire breeding swamp for terrorism, until the scenery just collapsed and revealed the sordid reality behind.

Here, too, your hopes and ambitions are outlined very clearly by what you believe your opponent to be doing, or even what you believe your opponent ought to be doing.

The big thorn in the bushes here is, of course, Pakistan's pesky nuke arsenal. Therein lies the additional conformance of goals with the US. De-nuking Pakistan is high on the US agenda, not because it has something specifically against Pakistan, but one less player in the nuke game is always a good thing. Especially if that player is cozy with the Chinese and is uncomfortably close to the Middle East.

However, the American animosity to Pakistan is indirect and can be alleviated in time. The only irritant is the constant Indian reinforcement of its demand -- uttered not in so many words -- that emasculating Pakistan is India's price for any cooperation in the US's wider geopolitical games.

Bless you for always being there when you are needed.

My dear chap, should this not have been the proper heading for the entire thread - The Enemy and the Pakistan Army - but Not In So Many Words!

Imagine a whole thread, a whole - what was it? - "information-dense treatise", where the entire chain of arguments is based on wide-eyed conjecture.

Here, too, we are faced with the recurring Pakistani nightmare - The Indians are Coming! The Indians are Coming!

On the one hand, you have the audacity to predict what is in America's mind, and to intone in lofty cadences that American animosity to Pakistan is indirect and can be alleviated in time. On the other hand, you are so familiar with the inside story that you are able to say, without even a particle, a scintilla of evidence, that there is a constant Indian reinforcement of its demand that emasculating Pakistan is India's price for any cooperation in the USA's wider geo-political games.

What cooperation? Naval support in the Indian Ocean? Another extrapolation? Just because Pakistan sold itself for a mess of pottage, must we now be cast as the next salable asset? Have we sold out in the past, that you noticed? Or any of the world did? Might we speculate that Pakistan's extreme preoccupation with the Indo-American relationship is due to parting pangs? And the jealousy of a self-perceived rival taking one's place in a self-perceived relationship. There is no cooperation other than naval cooperation sought, and that is cooperation which is in the interests of the world, and all shipping that passes through dangerous waters.

What constant Indian reinforcement, when the main plank itself does not exist, and has to be looked for, with the melancholy admission that this has not been uttered, at least not in so many words.

Oh, dearie me. You'll be the death of me, yet. Carrying on like that, as if you believe any of this charming faradiddle.

Some Indians will claim that all this is hogwash and India, pure as the driven snow, seeks nothing but honest friendship with Pakistan. Some Indians may even believe that. But Pakistan's policy cannot be formulated based on the best elements from the other wise, but realistic appraisals. With festering issues like Kashmir and water disputes still extant, the needle shifts from 'realistic' towards 'malicious'. Constantly antagonistic diplomatic moves and other clandestine actions reinforce that appraisal.

Finally, coming to future projections, the Indians here are absolutely right that India's economic advantage is only increasing, along with all that it entails. The article, as mentioned above, acknowledges that Pakistan needs to get the engines firing on all cylinders instead of relying solely on a military defence.

I believe that the second last paragraph remains moot, and that it will be a sign of maturity and dawning realism among Pakistani readers if the right conclusions are drawn from it. The last paragraph speaks for itself, and in its confident hope for the mutual prosperity of the markets in our lands, we have the only part of the information

 

[Joe Shearer]

Huge difference: dam building and water rationing lacks the crucial element of plausible deniability which has been the hallmark of Indian aggression against Pakistan so far.

Plausibly deniable aggression - can you hear yourself? Does it not seem somewhat - a tad, perhaps - contradictory a sentiment?

Just wondering. Not everything in a nightmare makes sense in the broad light of day.

 

[Ticker]

i believe the word of the Pandits than a Pakistani

Plight of the Kashmir Pandits: Refugees in their own nation | Mail Online


UNHCR | Refworld | Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir


The same Pakistanis love to talk about UN and Human rights watch when it comes to rohingyas which shows they are hypocrites

Hypocrisy - thy name is India.

Lying to her own people is a key trait of Indian leaders.

If one looks at Nehru’s speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, he said, “It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.” If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict “and we would change our Constitution about it”. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha.

However, the two faces of India were revealed in Nehru’s Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948.

He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), “Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948.

Same thing Indians did in East Pakistan and the same thing was repeated to her own Pandits in Indian Occupied Kashmir.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The game is not just between India and Pakistan, but in front of the whole world. The PR battle is just as important as the actual actions. With covert operations supporting various troublemakers within Pakistan, India can keep the pressure on Pakistan, all the while claiming to be the bereaved victim of terrorism.

With overt actions like water restriction, which are designed to have a direct economic impact on the civilian population, India would lose the moral high ground. It wouldn't matter if India had video recordings of ISI planning whatever, it still would not justify widespread economic retaliation on the civilian masses.

We are still on the theme of hypothetical actions that India might take that will endanger Pakistanis and Pakistan if those actions are taken, and which will look horrible in the eyes of the world when India takes them, and will put at threat Pakistanis and Pakistan, OMIGOD, I CAN SEE THEM COFFINS!

Too much coffee.

 

[Bang Galore]

Well the last few posts prove that Indians just come here when they are drunk and say ridiculous things.

You are fooling nobody with your act. JS, a few others & I have come to the conclusion that you are really a nice guy posturing as the tough s.o.b.. We are not falling for it. Nothing you say will be taken seriously unless your behaviour fits in with our agreed type.

We Indians are too smart for you. See how easily we have defanged a wannabe adversary by refusing to take him seriously. Chanakya would have been so proud.......

 

[vsdoc]

I actually like RazPak.

He is not religiously motivated.

He just hates us.

I can so live with that.

 

[Ticker]

You are fooling nobody with your act. JS, a few others & I have come to the conclusion that you are really a nice guy posturing as the tough s.o.b.. We are not falling for it. Nothing you say will be taken seriously unless your behaviour fits in with our agreed type.

We Indians are too smart for you. See how easily we have defanged a wannabe adversary by refusing to take him seriously. Chanakya would have been so proud.......

Then you have not even begun to understand the Chaudhary Saab.

I like what he says - You are a Coconut.

ha ha ha .... see the lure Chaudhary Saab.

 

[neutral_person]

Yeah, I bet PazPak's best friend is an Indian American, he just puts up the tough guy stance a little too much

 

[MilSpec]

Hypocrisy - thy name is India.

Lying to her own people is a key trait of Indian leaders.

If one looks at Nehru’s speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, he said, “It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.” If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict “and we would change our Constitution about it”. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha.

However, the two faces of India were revealed in Nehru’s Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948.

He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), “Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948.

Same thing Indians did in East Pakistan and the same thing was repeated to her own Pandits in Indian Occupied Kashmir.

Plz read UN resolution before commenting on Nehru.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/centra...lebiscite-un-security-council-resolution.html

 

[RazPaK]

You are fooling nobody with your act. JS, a few others & I have come to the conclusion that you are really a nice guy posturing as the tough s.o.b.. We are not falling for it. Nothing you say will be taken seriously unless your behaviour fits in with our agreed type.

We Indians are too smart for you. See how easily we have defanged a wannabe adversary by refusing to take him seriously. Chanakya would have been so proud.......

When you have to accredit your intelligence for yourself, it speaks volumes of what you truly are.


Whether I am a nice guy or a bad guy is completely irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that you all take me very seriously. I know that already.

I have gotten under Joe's skin many a time. You can ask him for yourself.

You are nobody here. Don't give yourself undue importance.

 

[neutral_person]

Hypocrisy - thy name is India.

Lying to her own people is a key trait of Indian leaders.

If one looks at Nehru’s speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, he said, “It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.” If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict “and we would change our Constitution about it”. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha.

However, the two faces of India were revealed in Nehru’s Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948.

He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), “Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948.

Same thing Indians did in East Pakistan and the same thing was repeated to her own Pandits in Indian Occupied Kashmir.

Are we still discussing Kashmir lol? I think its cute how some Pakistanis think they are actually going to take Kashmir from us

 

[vsdoc]

When you have to accredit your intelligence for yourself, it speaks volumes of what you truly are.


Whether I am a nice guy or a bad guy is completely irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that you all take me very seriously. I know that already.

I have gotten under Joe's skin many a time. You can ask him for yourself.

You are nobody here. Don't give yourself undue importance.

You are less than nobody.

And a tick from my new pup has a better chance of getting under my skin.

But I still think you're cool.