India India - Pakistan Relations

Gessler

Contributor
Moderator
India Moderator
Messages
739
Reactions
31 1,614
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Interested members can use this thread to air out their thoughts w.r.t the unfolded/unfolding political situation in our neighbour Pakistan:


Please be courteous and professional as possible.

@crixus @Jackdaws @Paro @Peace Lover @Amardeep Mishra @Rajaraja Chola et al.

There has long been a saying:

Pakistan is run by three As

Army
Allah
America

It has been proven true yet again. In some ways the developments have been pretty positive for both US & India - they get to consolidate a military leadership they're willing to work with vis-a-vis Afghanistan or Chinese influence, we get a civilian leadership we're willing to work with (Sharifs).

The biggest looser in all this? The Chinese.

Their civilian pawn (PTI/Imran Khan) has been ousted, their military pawn (Faiz Hameed) has been prevented from attaining power. China found out for the first time the grip the US govt. has on the Pak establishment/deep state. Their hard-earned "all-weather ally" has gone running back into American hands.
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,757
Reactions
1 1,579
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
There has long been a saying:

Pakistan is run by three As

Army
Allah
America

It has been proven true yet again. In some ways the developments have been pretty positive for both US & India - they get to consolidate a military leadership they're willing to work with vis-a-vis Afghanistan or Chinese influence, we get a civilian leadership we're willing to work with (Sharifs).

The biggest looser in all this? The Chinese.

Their civilian pawn (PTI/Imran Khan) has been ousted, their military pawn (Faiz Hameed) has been prevented from attaining power. China found out for the first time the grip the US govt. has on the Pak establishment/deep state. Their hard-earned "all-weather ally" has gone running back into American hands.
China will still dictate terms to Pak. For all practical purposes, that's the only country consistently giving financial and diplomatic support to Pak. Turkey and Malaysia will not support Pak all the time and neither of them holds a permanent Security Council seat.
 

Zapper

Experienced member
Messages
1,610
Reactions
8 694
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
India
China will still dictate terms to Pak. For all practical purposes, that's the only country consistently giving financial and diplomatic support to Pak. Turkey and Malaysia will not support Pak all the time and neither of them holds a permanent Security Council seat.
Malaysia backed off the moment we cut palm oil imports and replaced em with Indonesia who were more than willing to fulfill our requirements. Turkey and that too Erdogan can only voice support in some platforms but they're not like the chinese who'd provide freebies or funding to keep pak going
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,197
Reactions
94 18,623
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
The biggest looser in all this? The Chinese.

Their civilian pawn (PTI/Imran Khan) has been ousted, their military pawn (Faiz Hameed) has been prevented from attaining power. China found out for the first time the grip the US govt. has on the Pak establishment/deep state. Their hard-earned "all-weather ally" has gone running back into American hands.

There will be a readjustment period, but I don' think the PRC loses that much at all.

It was Sharif clan et al (again under fauj diktat just like now) that the Chinese started CPEC with to begin it (IK at that time was criticiing it fairly heavily till he came to power with fauj help and fauj made him get with the program and make nice etc).

Faujis/DHA essentially have the reins in assuaging PRC honchos et al. that nothing fundamentally changed and to let the political circus/theatre (that they orchestrated) blow over just like before.

The biggest losers are the echo chamber dweebs (IK sycophants and youthias) who are now being dragged out....kicking, screaming and crying into a brutal cold reality of what their delusions were/are and what their aukat is. I will post some interesting funny highlights later maybe heh.
 

Gessler

Contributor
Moderator
India Moderator
Messages
739
Reactions
31 1,614
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
There will be a readjustment period, but I don' think the PRC loses that much at all.

It was Sharif clan et al (again under fauj diktat just like now) that the Chinese started CPEC with to begin it (IK at that time was criticiing it fairly heavily till he came to power with fauj help and fauj made him get with the program and make nice etc).

Faujis/DHA essentially have the reins in assuaging PRC honchos et al. that nothing fundamentally changed and to let the political circus/theatre (that they orchestrated) blow over just like before.

The biggest losers are the echo chamber dweebs (IK sycophants and youthias) who are now being dragged out....kicking, screaming and crying into a brutal cold reality of what their delusions were/are and what their aukat is. I will post some interesting funny highlights later maybe heh.

There is a major difference though - US no longer desperately needs Pakistan in Afg, and there are going to be major differences in their attitude toward Pakistan's relationship with China going forward.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,197
Reactions
94 18,623
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
There is a major difference though - US no longer desperately needs Pakistan in Afg, and there are going to be major differences in their attitude toward Pakistan's relationship with China going forward.

Of course. Bajwa asking Russia to withdraw from Ukraine etc, has not gone unnoticed by China.

But the Chinese have always factored this in, if you look closely at how they have layered CPEC to begin with.

It is high on symbolism more than anything truly grounded (in the economic model proven in last 30 years that needs factories + human capital development and organisation first). They were never doing Pakistan any favours by any stretch....and for a reason. They only trust them so much, and mostly to generate foibles and nuisance value (at this low cost) to India.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,197
Reactions
94 18,623
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday congratulated new Pakistan Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif within minutes of him being sworn in. He also said that India desired peace and stability in a region free of terrorism.

Modi tweeted, “Congratulations to H. E. Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif on his election as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. India desires peace and stability in a region free of terror, so that we can focus on our development challenges and ensure the well-being and prosperity of our people.”


Pakistan Parliament on Monday elected unopposed Shehbaz Sharif as the 23rd prime minister of the country, bringing to an end the political uncertainty that had gripped the nation since a no-confidence motion was introduced against his predecessor Imran Khan on March 8.


Shehbaz, 70, was the only candidate left in the race after former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi announced that his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party would boycott the voting, and staged a walkout.

“Sharif has secured 174 votes and has been declared as prime minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” according to the formal result announced by Speaker Ayaz Sadiq who presided over the session after Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri said his conscience did not allow him to conduct the session.

In the House of 342, the winning candidate should get the support of at least 172 lawmakers.

In his maiden address to the House as the prime minister, Shehbaz, the younger brother of former three-time prime minister Nawaz Sharif, said: “We want good ties with India but durable peace is not possible until the Kashmir dispute is resolved.” He attacked Khan for not making “serious and diplomatic efforts” when India abrogated Article 370 in August 2019.


He also asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi to come forward to address the Kashmir issue so that the two countries could concentrate on tackling poverty, unemployment, shortage of medicines and other issues on the two sides of the border.
 

crixus

Contributor
Messages
1,021
Reactions
1,160
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Its nothing more then a customery message to a head of state . Modi understands pretty well that the best way to deal Pakistan is to ignore it and it actually worked pretty well for us .
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,107
Reactions
21 1,922
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
China will still dictate terms to Pak. For all practical purposes, that's the only country consistently giving financial and diplomatic support to Pak. Turkey and Malaysia will not support Pak all the time and neither of them holds a permanent Security Council seat.
We need to look a little deeper, I think. Pakistan may no longer be entirely satisfied by living off hand-outs. When their Army Chief talks seriously about force reduction, it shows intent and purpose. He does not want to use the Army's powerful grip on the entire economy of Pakistan to keep together a comfortable and viable income and capital amount that sustains the Army (and also, to some extent, the Navy and the Air Force). He realises, I think sensibly, that keeping a tight grip on the collars of an already-choking man is a very short-sighted way to go.

Pakistan can afford to reduce its Army to one-third that of the Indian Army facing it, that is, one-third of 27 divisions, around 9 Divisions. Pakistan can, in short, run a very tight defence with 135,000 men armed with the best weapons and the best equipment in the world, heavily oriented towards defence. That leaves a long western frontier, and a toxic insurgency that is really independent of any Indian sly effort at motivating. Another 3 Divisions of light infantry, with medium or light tanks, or even well-armoured, well-gunned infantry fire support vehicles and an outstanding fleet of rotary winged close air support aircraft, will take care of the long border; an addition to their well-manned gendarmerie will take care of their counter-insurgency burdens. That means the Army can be cut down to 180,000 soldiers without compromising its capability.

There is no reason that they need to compromise on their naval capability or on their aerial salience. Lightening the pressure on finance allows them great luxury in staffing and equipping their Navy and their superb Air Force.

So, both to cope with economic stringency and to improve the quality of their equipment, this is a good way forward for Pakistan.

If it sets of a virtuous cycle with the Indian Army, who will have no reason to maintain 27 Divisions to face 9, and who will then be able to systematically upgrade its troops facing those of the PLA, nobody will mourn.
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,757
Reactions
1 1,579
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
One of the Prime Minster Narendra Modi’s greatest successes was in handling cross-border terrorism and the finesse with which the Balakot aerial strike was conceived and implemented which “blew away the myth of Pakistan’s nuclear blackmail”, writes National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, who was in the operational cockpit during both the surgical land strikes of 2016 and the Balakot aerial strikes 2019.

Doval went on to warn that while the first two counter strikes were land-based and aerial, “tomorrow, it may be different from both” if the adversary again causes disproportionate casualties. “Domain and level will not be inhibiting factors,” writes Doval in the chapter, “Tackling adversaries through strong and effective national security policies” in the book ‘Modi@20’ unveiled on Wednesday.


The lack of response to the numerous incidents of bombings in Indian cities during the UPA era had agitated Modi ever since he was Gujarat chief minister. The decision not to retaliate for the Mumbai attacks had earned India the “infamous nomenclature” of being a “soft state”. “The first-of-its-kind operations after Uri enhanced India’s global prestige. It caused panic in the adversary’s mind and momentarily disrupted terror training and planning of more attacks,” he said.

Revealing more details on 2016 surgical strikes, Doval recalled that it was a simultaneous operation by multiple strike teams at four disparate locations. The novel planning for the strike generated chaos, panic and confusion by creating the “enemy is everywhere syndrome”. The then Pakistan Army leadership castigated its ground formations for failing to block even one strike team, despite having a large number of forward deployed troops. More importantly, it was a political call by the Prime Minister, “which meant that he was taking responsibility, not only for success, but also failure. This exhibited risk-taking at the highest level—a quality shown by very few”.

 

crixus

Contributor
Messages
1,021
Reactions
1,160
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Uncertainty of reaction from Indian side is what these strikes have achieved
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,757
Reactions
1 1,579
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Uncertainty of reaction from Indian side is what these strikes have achieved
Actually, they just drew a line in the sand. You cross it and there will be payback. Under MMS, they considered bombing Muridke and under Vajpayee also they considered crossing the LoC but didn't because of Pak's constant nuclear blackmail of things spiralling out of control. Good thing that Modi called their bluff.
 

Paro

Well-known member
Messages
368
Reactions
538
Nation of residence
India
Actually, they just drew a line in the sand. You cross it and there will be payback. Under MMS, they considered bombing Muridke and under Vajpayee also they considered crossing the LoC but didn't because of Pak's constant nuclear blackmail of things spiralling out of control. Good thing that Modi called their bluff.
They have been crossing LOC for decades now. only Modi publicized it on television. One of the brutal massacres across LOC by AI was binda mohri sehri and that too we know because Paks didn't have any option but to complain to UNMOGIP. I head at least another 2 at this scale have been performed in early 2000s and one after 2010 among them was one on a retried pak generals vacation home.

In a separate piece also for Scroll, Datta goes as far as to give us a specific example authorised by then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in 2000, conducted by India’s 9 Para (Special Forces):

Between 1998 and 2014, there have been several strikes by Indian forces across the LoC. Just after the Kargil war, Captain Gurjinder Singh Suri, posted on the LoC with 12 Bihar battalion took a team of ghataks (infantry battalion commandos) across the LoC to take out Pakistani posts in retaliation of an earlier attack. While Captain Suri was killed in the assault, he was posthumously awarded the Maha Vir Chakra, India’s second-highest military gallantry award. On March 2, 2000, Lashkar-e-Taiba militants massacred 35 Sikhs leading to a major covert operation. A team from 9 Para (Special Forces) was sanctioned by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s government to carry out a raid inside Pakistan. Led by a Major, the Special Forces team went into Pakistan and came back after killing over 28 Pakistani soldiers and militants. The proof of their action was never disputed. Similar raids took place in 2007 and 2013, in retaliation for attacks against Indian military targets.


also there have been revenge incidents like lahore train bombing done and accepted by our agencies inside pak.
 
Last edited:

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,757
Reactions
1 1,579
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
They have been crossing LOC for decades now. only Modi publicized it on television. One of the brutal massacres across LOC by AI was binda mohri sehri and that too we know because Paks didn't have any option but to complain to UNMOGIP. I head at least another 2 at this scale have been performed in early 2000s and one after 2010 among them was one on a retried pak generals vacation home.

In a separate piece also for Scroll, Datta goes as far as to give us a specific example authorised by then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in 2000, conducted by India’s 9 Para (Special Forces):




also there have been revenge incidents like lahore train bombing done and accepted by our agencies inside pak.

You are right and I've heard about these. Perhaps I should have been clearer. Modi Govt publicly acknowledged what it did and drew the line in the sand.
 

kaniska

Member
Messages
8
Reactions
7
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
India
It is an interesting counter-narrative viewpoint from the author and publisher of the article.


Pakistan is in dire straits. India has previously rescued countries in South Asia like “Muslim” Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. There is no reason then why India cannot help a “Muslim” Pakistan.

Sheikh Rasheed, until recently Pakistan’s powerful interior minister, has warned that Pakistan’s atomic assets are at risk. He didn’t specify at what risk, but he must have thought about the risk of being purloined.

Now, who would like to purloin Pakistan’s nukes? It could be the TTP, Al Qaeda, ISIS-Khorasan, one of Pakistan’s homegrown jihadi networks, or rogue army officers. If any get their hands on a nuke or two, they could blackmail the whole state.

They could also consider selling the nukes. But who would want them? For a generation, it was believed that Saudi Arabia would buy nukes from Pakistan, but in 2015, Pakistan rebuked Saudi Arabia’s call for troops against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Miffed, Saudi Arabia turned to Israel. It would come to rely on Israel and not Pakistan if Iran went nuclear. Nobody else is on the market for Pakistan’s nukes. Rogue elements steal- ing a nuke would just want to take over the country and convert it into a jihadi state.

Pakistan is already half-jihadi but do you want to taste the full version? A jihadi Pakistan would at once threaten India with nukes. Does India want that?

PM Modi and Nawaz Sharif are friends. A friend in need is a friend indeed. Modi has various mechanisms to help out Pakistan. Trade is touted as one of them. But Pakistan needs help more urgently than trade would provide.

Admittedly, trade could dramatically lower the costs of goods in Pakistan. But Pakistan also risks being swamped with Indian goods. The Pakistani government could impose a tax on goods imported from India, and thereby earn revenue. In a few years, two-way trade could touch $10 billion.

But Pakistan doesn’t have the respite of a few years. And a tax on trade may not fetch much. What Pakistan needs is an infusion of billions of dollars on easy terms. In 2010, Pakistan was ravaged by floods. Manmohan Singh offered it a grant of $25 million, but Pakistan refused to take the money from “Hindu” India. The money had to be routed through the UN.

Even now, Pakistan may cavil at “Hindu” India helping it. It could even baulk at buying “Made in India” products. India is flush with cash and cheap Russian oil. It is extending lines of credits and oil facilities in the billions of dollars to Sri Lanka. Pakistan needs help so badly that it will take Indian money and aid if routed through an acceptable third party.

The question that arises is how India will recoup its money from Pakistan. What is bleeding Pakistan dry is the amount of money it spends on its defence. Ronald Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union by upping his own defence expenditure until it became unsustainable for the Soviets to match. The Soviet Union collapsed. The US had won the Cold War.

But the Americans’ victory was pyrrhic. If the Americans had not become the sole superpower or a hyperpower, they would not have indulged in the adventures that they did in the second Iraq war or even the war in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union as a strong counterpoise to America would not have let the Americans do what they did. In Iraq and Afghanistan, and later Syria, Libya and Yemen, the Americans tasted defeat.

India’s very defence premise is based on a two-front war with China and Pakistan. Admittedly, Pakistan goads China against India, but China too uses Pakistan against India. India had tried to defuse Pakistan by cosying up to China. That hasn’t worked. Why not defuse China by cosying up to Pakistan?

India’s poverty is not reducing fast enough for it to become what it aspires to be, a middle-income country. One of the key reasons is the amount of money that India spends on its defence. If there was a rapprochement with Pakistan, both countries could lower their defence expenditure dramatically.

Hawks in India believe that Pakistan wants to rule India. Many Pakistanis believe that India wants to break up Pakistan and solve its Pakistan problem that way. They cite what they consider the devious role India played in the break-up of Pakistan in 1971.

But a Pakistan that is not at odds with India and which is strong and stable and united is in India’s interests. If Pakistan breaks up, then India will find it impossible to cope with refugees from the other side of the border. India’s CAA law omitted Muslims. Now India would be full of Muslim Pakistanis.

Modi and Nawaz have met in Delhi, Lahore and Kathmandu. They must arrange another meeting between themselves. Pakistan should lay out what it needs and how it wants to receive the money and India should help as much as it can.

In years gone by, Bangladesh was seen as the basket case of South Asia. India provided Bangladesh with lines of credit worth billions of dollars. Today Bangladesh is outpacing India as an economy. May such a happy outcome also await Pakistan. And hopefully, in the 75th year of both countries’ independence, when since independence all we have done is fight and recriminate with each other, let new dawn of peace, friendship and cooperation begin, which puts aside historical angst and animosity for another 75 years.



(The writer is an expert on energy and contributes regularly to publications in India and overseas.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kaniska

Member
Messages
8
Reactions
7
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
India
At the end of the day, a stable Pakistan or the border areas near India should be peaceful within Pakistan...Otherwise, it will be a scarier situation where Talibs will be knocking at the Wagah border .....I understand, it is not a popular view, but we can have a debate and discussion in a rational manner.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,197
Reactions
94 18,623
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Author starts with mentioning some other neighbours for comparison.

Those neighbours don't occupy Indian territory to begin with, have not promoted terror attacks on Indian soil (and shelter its perpetrators) and have much better relations with India as result.

So, no there will be no measure of bailout toward Pakistan.

It has China to go for that, enjoy.
 

Gessler

Contributor
Moderator
India Moderator
Messages
739
Reactions
31 1,614
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
This shows a certain disconnect with reality.

A coherent state is always capable of posing a far greater threat to another country than an incoherent state riddled with civil war. I would argue its in India's interest to devolve Pakistan to a state of civil war, as that would totally eradicate their ability to mount a coordinated AirLand offensive at any point in the future.

If that also creates a global need to address Pakistan's nuclear weapons - even better.

photo_2022-04-10_00-25-11.jpg


I consider it largely a myth & counter-productive thought that a strong, stable society in Pakistan would be conducive toward peace with India. Compared to now, Pakistan was a much more stable society back in the 60s & 70s - and all that got us was war after war after war. When a nation-state considers you a threat, no peace is possible, full stop. The only way to prevent war in that case, would be to stop said country from being a coherent nation-state capable of waging coordinated war.

The same was true for Israel. They only started getting peace once those nation-states that waged war on them continuously for several decades devolved into civil-war. If you consider the threat posed by Syria of the Cold War years toward Israel and compare with the threat they pose now - its laughable.

Insurgencies & terrorism are not coherent strategies...they are useful as resistance against foreign invaders but as an offensive tactic they rarely work against a coherent nation state. Especially when such insurgency is not endemic to a society/culture but is being exported from elsewhere. India was handling dozens of insurgencies in the 80s & 90s...yet if one thinks the national security threats faced by India in the 80s/90s were worse than what was faced in the 60s/70s, I can only say they are missing the trees for the woods.

Yes, insurgencies can be a headache, but they are absolutely nothing compared to the possible threat a coherent Pakistani campaign can present to India, especially if done in coordination with the Chinese military.
 

Mehmed Ali

Contributor
Messages
496
Reactions
1 905
Nation of residence
England(UK)
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Pakistan is a artificial state it will be either balkanized Or nuked.
Well if you haven't noticed they have a nuke or two themselves as of artificial state India is also an artificial state as it is not ethnically, culturally homogeneous and yes Pakistan doesn't hold any part of India. You being what you are doesn't give you the sole right, that's illogical. Your religion doesn't make you intitled for anything because, for example in impossible case that I change my religion my property , contributions , forefathers etc are the facts which can't changed. Only fanatics don't comprehend that. Fanatisam can be expressed differently though, for example burning people alive on the trains, inventing 50000 history or lynching your nabour. So gentleman get of your high horse
 

Indian gir lion

Active member
Messages
105
Reactions
87
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Well if you haven't noticed they have a nuke or two themselves as of artificial state India is also an artificial state as it is not ethnically, culturally homogeneous and yes Pakistan doesn't hold any part of India. You being what you are doesn't give you the sole right, that's illogical. Your religion doesn't make you intitled for anything because, for example in impossible case that I change my religion my property , contributions , forefathers etc are the facts which can't changed. Only fanatics don't comprehend that. Fanatisam can be expressed differently though, for example burning people alive on the trains, inventing 50000 history or lynching your nabour. So gentleman get of your high horse
I dont know who you are nor you know who iam , but those who invent history are not us but the other side , they burnt certain people on trains and not us as far as lynching are concerned , Pakistan has pioneered it ,
In the hindsight every state is artificial, including present day Turkey
As for the rest of your argument. Go make them understand this .
We know all this things beforehand, for we don't claim turkish or arabic ancestry but them . but if they want enmity from us , they will get response from us plain and simple.
Since we are dealing with fanatics across the border , we will remain fanatics too.
Indias prosperity lies in complete destruction of Pakistan, as a nation state .
And vice versa is also true
 
Last edited:

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom