Afghanistan - India - Pakistan

[Karachi]

as a pakistani i dont have anything against indians or their culture, however both pakistan's military and indian military are the real evil here and yes as a pakistani i say that it will be benefit to india to see a destroyed destabilized pakistan, thats why i believe they are supporting many terrorists groups with in pakistan, same way pakistan is most likely supporting terrorrist groups in india, again the whole thing is ISI vs RAW and this is effecting the whole region in a negative way.

Also i dont think India can so easily invade pakistan, Pakistan is the 6th strongest military in the world and India is 4th and pakistanis maybe a bit divided on ethnic lines internally, however when it comes to india all pakistanis are united, even pashtun tribesmen have said that if india tries to invade pakistan, they will defend pakistani territory, my point is if india invades, pakistanis will become more united in their stand against India

[randolph85]

as a pakistani i dont have anything against indians or their culture, however both pakistan's military and indian military are the real evil here and yes as a pakistani i say that it will be benefit to india to see a destroyed destabilized pakistan, thats why i believe they are supporting many terrorists groups with in pakistan, same way pakistan is most likely supporting terrorrist groups in india, again the whole thing is ISI vs RAW and this is effecting the whole region in a negative way.

Also i dont think India can so easily invade pakistan, Pakistan is the 6th strongest military in the world and India is 4th and pakistanis maybe a bit divided on ethnic lines internally, however when it comes to india all pakistanis are united, even pashtun tribesmen have said that if india tries to invade pakistan, they will defend pakistani territory, my point is if india invades, pakistanis will become more united in their stand against India

6th largest doesnt translate into 6th strongest.

[Karachi]

^ thats true, but india cannot invade pakistan and will not, it will be really dumb of them if they do, because they know both countries will be damaged and possibly totally destoyed, both countries have 100+ nuclear weapons. the equation between pakistan/india is not like palestine/isreal or Iraq/America, it is much much closer

[Admin Khan]

^ thats true, but india cannot invade pakistan and will not, it will be really dumb of them if they do, because they know both countries will be damaged and possibly totally destoyed, both countries have 100+ nuclear weapons. the equation between pakistan/india is not like palestine/isreal or Iraq/America, it is much much closer

Ever heard of BRIC economies? No nation can afford a problem with those nations.

[Karachi]

Yes i agree that india is like 20x stronger in economy, buts its not the same in military, so it cannot afford to take risk to invade

[KhalsaWarrior]

Yes i agree that india is like 20x stronger in economy, buts its not the same in military, so it cannot afford to take risk to invade

With the kind of news and events that we have witnessed recently, you've got more chances of the US running over your country than India.

But you do bring about some good points. But I would say that its both India’s economic and military concerns that are holding it back from waging a full scale war on Pakistan. Economically we are not strong enough to sustain it and militarily we aren’t strong enough to finish off Pakistan in a jiffy. Militarily we might be capable of sustaining a protracted war but the impact on our economy wouldn't be good. If I remember correctly, the Fin Min was thinking about imposing a Kargil tax in case the war had extended beyond the 2 1/2 months. Foreign companies and capital, many of whom are based out Delhi/Gurgaon, areas that are closer to the border, will take flight if we are involved in a long war. If you would follow the post-liberalization history of foreign investment in India, the southern areas - Bangalore, Hyderabad and Mumbai in the west were the first to get huge capital inflows. Their relatively larger distance from the border and any possible conflict was a major deciding factor. So in a nutshell, India's got more to lose than Pakistan.

That brings me to another, slightly controversial, set of arguments. The above points and some other recent strategic reports, that I have happened to access from other forums tell me that to offset the need for a protracted war and at the same time, hit back at Pakistan, India has taken the following actions –

a) Buy and develop military equipment that would help in a short and swift war. C-130s and Globe-masters that we have recently bought from US are heavy strategic lift aircrafts, good for dropping paratroops for incisive strikes. Recently bought M177 mechanized howitzers too are for fast ground moves. Raising additional Special Forces battalions also points towards similar tactics. Inducting self-developed cruise missiles and top of the line fighter aircraft are for nullifying ground radars AA batteries and achieving air-superiority in the least possible time. Bear in mind that I haven't mentioned Cold Start, which is yet an unverified war-doctrine and its best we don't count it in any argument.

b) This is the controversial part. Since its clear that India cannot engage in a full scale war with Pakistan, India has evolved other methods to get back at Pakistan for the terrorist activities. India is trying to decrease Pakistan's influence wherever possible, inside or outside Pakistan. Afghanistan is an example of decreasing influence outside Pakistan. Forging stronger bonds with China via trade is another. Internally, I have reason to believe that RAW is supporting BLA. I dont think India supports TTP since that would undermine NATO's efforts and harm our traditionally good relations with the NA. But supporting BLA is considered fair game by India and Bugti is treated like a state guest. At the same time, they are doing it so well that Pakistan hasn't been able to furnish any proof apart from spent shells and Vickers WWII machine guns with Chinese markings.

But all of the above hinges on a strong economy. A strong economy gives us the money to buy all the hardware above and to support the insurgencies inside Pakistan. If it was upto me, I would much rather have peace between India and Pakistan and have the extra money spent on uplifting our poor and building schools and healthcare that we so badly need. But that is the idealistic way and not how the world works and strategic interests are more often preferred over internal needs.

[Michin Khel]

Musalmaan mi malgarey di yo pakhtana mi khapal di wrora ..noor khalak kho preeda


I don't watch Paki news...My dad always puts it on..really gives me a headach, ARY news is really annoying, deer da na sarey zaman di.

You are not a Pakistani nor you live in Pakistan so its natural that you wont watch Pakistani channels.

[randolph85]

india doesnt need to invade pakistan, it can leave it in the dust with its rising economy and worldwide political alliances. india today is the darling the world, the west believes that india is what china was 20 years ago and wants to be there when india is a large power in the future. though i dont believe india will achieve what china did, its a good strategy on the part of the west, including russia. in the future, india will be to pakistan what china is to south korea, not even on the same level.

if pakistan wants to compete with india, it can start by building its economy and stop taking loans.

[graveyardofempires]

You are not a Pakistani nor you live in Pakistan so its natural that you wont watch Pakistani channels.

Jee Madame Jee

[Admin Khan]

india doesnt need to invade pakistan, it can leave it in the dust with its rising economy and worldwide political alliances. india today is the darling the world, the west believes that india is what china was 20 years ago and wants to be there when india is a large power in the future. though i dont believe india will achieve what china did, its a good strategy on the part of the west, including russia. in the future, india will be to pakistan what china is to south korea, not even on the same level.

if pakistan wants to compete with india, it can start by building its economy and stop taking loans.

Not for nothing, but Pakistan is also a pretty rich nation.

[Karachi]

pakistan is possibly the most strategic located country in the world, it is close to india, china,central asia and middle east. however our government/adminstrators are idiots, they will never realize the potential and yes Pakistan is also a resource rich country, however again because of the lack of interest from the government to develop these fields, the country is becoming poorer by the day. Lets see what happens in the future though, if a good government comes like (Imran Khans) party, then things can change for the good perhaps

[Karachi]

With the kind of news and events that we have witnessed recently, you've got more chances of the US running over your country than India.

But you do bring about some good points. But I would say that its both India’s economic and military concerns that are holding it back from waging a full scale war on Pakistan. Economically we are not strong enough to sustain it and militarily we aren’t strong enough to finish off Pakistan in a jiffy. Militarily we might be capable of sustaining a protracted war but the impact on our economy wouldn't be good. If I remember correctly, the Fin Min was thinking about imposing a Kargil tax in case the war had extended beyond the 2 1/2 months. Foreign companies and capital, many of whom are based out Delhi/Gurgaon, areas that are closer to the border, will take flight if we are involved in a long war. If you would follow the post-liberalization history of foreign investment in India, the southern areas - Bangalore, Hyderabad and Mumbai in the west were the first to get huge capital inflows. Their relatively larger distance from the border and any possible conflict was a major deciding factor. So in a nutshell, India's got more to lose than Pakistan.

That brings me to another, slightly controversial, set of arguments. The above points and some other recent strategic reports, that I have happened to access from other forums tell me that to offset the need for a protracted war and at the same time, hit back at Pakistan, India has taken the following actions –

a) Buy and develop military equipment that would help in a short and swift war. C-130s and Globe-masters that we have recently bought from US are heavy strategic lift aircrafts, good for dropping paratroops for incisive strikes. Recently bought M177 mechanized howitzers too are for fast ground moves. Raising additional Special Forces battalions also points towards similar tactics. Inducting self-developed cruise missiles and top of the line fighter aircraft are for nullifying ground radars AA batteries and achieving air-superiority in the least possible time. Bear in mind that I haven't mentioned Cold Start, which is yet an unverified war-doctrine and its best we don't count it in any argument.

b) This is the controversial part. Since its clear that India cannot engage in a full scale war with Pakistan, India has evolved other methods to get back at Pakistan for the terrorist activities. India is trying to decrease Pakistan's influence wherever possible, inside or outside Pakistan. Afghanistan is an example of decreasing influence outside Pakistan. Forging stronger bonds with China via trade is another. Internally, I have reason to believe that RAW is supporting BLA. I dont think India supports TTP since that would undermine NATO's efforts and harm our traditionally good relations with the NA. But supporting BLA is considered fair game by India and Bugti is treated like a state guest. At the same time, they are doing it so well that Pakistan hasn't been able to furnish any proof apart from spent shells and Vickers WWII machine guns with Chinese markings.

But all of the above hinges on a strong economy. A strong economy gives us the money to buy all the hardware above and to support the insurgencies inside Pakistan. If it was upto me, I would much rather have peace between India and Pakistan and have the extra money spent on uplifting our poor and building schools and healthcare that we so badly need. But that is the idealistic way and not how the world works and strategic interests are more often preferred over internal needs.

it is true what you are saying, the main problem between pakistan/india is the Kashmir issue, if Kashmir is solved, then i think 80% of the problems between pakistan/india will be solved, their would be no reason left for the two nations to support insurgies inside each other's territory. Really, other then this, i see no major problems between the two countries. Lets hope kashmir is resolved ASAP, there is no reason for Pakistan/india/Afghanistan to fight and hate each other in my opinion, because no one will win in this fight, everybody will lose.

[KhalsaWarrior]

it is true what you are saying, the main problem between pakistan/india is the Kashmir issue, if Kashmir is solved, then i think 80% of the problems between pakistan/india will be solved, their would be no reason left for the two nations to support insurgies inside each other's territory. Really, other then this, i see no major problems between the two countries. Lets hope kashmir is resolved ASAP, there is no reason for Pakistan/india/Afghanistan to fight and hate each other in my opinion, because no one will win in this fight, everybody will lose.

Karachi, I too would like to think that Kashmir is the main stumbling block for peace between India and Pakistan. I favor autonomy for Kashmir. Perhaps a joint governance, Andorra style structure or any which way.

[drona]

Only naive idealists lulled by the Pakistani propaganda believe that Kashmir is the "core" issue between India-Pakistan.

I support scrapping Article 370 and fully integrating J&K into the Indian Union. I have no problem in proposing the "joint governance" model for Ghulam Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

BTW KW, your opinions about "RAW operations" in Baluchistan are based on speculations and conjectures and not hard evidence, right ?

[KhalsaWarrior]

Only naive idealists lulled by the Pakistani propaganda believe that Kashmir is the "core" issue between India-Pakistan.

I support scrapping Article 370 and fully integrating J&K into the Indian Union. I have no problem in proposing the "joint governance" model for Ghulam Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

BTW KW, your opinions about "RAW operations" in Baluchistan are based on speculations and conjectures and not hard evidence, right ?

Yes. No evidence of India's involvement has been found as of yet. But I do like to believe that RAW isn't sitting idle while ISI bombs our trains and malls.