Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Preparations for fourth India-Pakistan war

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Preparations for fourth India-Pakistan war

    President Clinton said Thursday he will make clear during his upcoming trip to India and Pakistan that they face a ``dangerous future'' because of their nuclear arms race.

    Amid deep U.S. concern about the potential for a nuclear showdown between two historic rivals, a U.S. public policy group(FAS) on Wednesday showed satellite photos of a missile site in central Pakistan that it said would probably be a prime target for India.

    An estimated 3,500 militants from Pakistan are now inside Indian-held Kashmir and an additional 5,000 are trained and ready to join them.

    Indian army said they anticipate an increase in fighting this summer and agreed with President Clinton's assessment that the India-Pakistan frontier was ``the most dangerous place in the world right now.''

    --
    Clinton says fourth war (maybe nuclear) is round the corner. If this is a nuclear war, god knows what will happen. Else it would be Kargil like situation this summer too.

    #2
    If there is a fourth war, it is going to be Dam a Dam Mast Qalandar, either India is going to survive or Pakistan. This war is going to be decisive.

    Comment


      #3
      Maybe the entire Hindu race will be wiped out.

      Comment


        #4
        Chup Bay...Nuclear War bohat bay waqoofana action ho ga. aap kay khayal mein hum bachain gay? aap kay khayal mein uss radiation ka assar survivors par naheen ho ga.

        Jiyo aur Jeenay doh

        Comment


          #5


          It is highly unlikely that Pakistan would wish to be part of any full scale hostilities. Hence, the encompasing of what is now referred to as the "limited war doctrine" is very sceptical too.

          In short, the politicians will not get their FOURTH WAR.

          There are too many sensible military men around to stop that from happening. (I expect, quite rightly I believe, that there are similar officers on the Indian side too).

          as XFactor says, Its not child's play!!!

          Comment


            #6
            Mohabat,

            I do not know all about the previous three wars but I have pretty good idea about the wars of 1965 and 1971. There is no doubt that Pakistan lost miserably in 1971. I still remember that when former East Pakistan was lost to Indian Army the morale of people in West Pakistan was at lowest ebb. Indra Gandhi had ordered to break in pieces the remaining portion of Pakistan. It was damn easy to do that. But our Uncle Sam came to our help and warned Indra Gandhi to stop the war in West Pakistan otherwise face the Seventh Fleet stabled at Bay of Bengal. Our idiot rulers were busy in having women and wine in their palaces thought that since Uncle Samís 7th fleet was in Bay of Bengal so not to worry about East Pakistan. Uncle would fight for those drunkards and saved them from humiliation. They never thought that the Fleet was there to save their asses in West Pakistan.

            Year 1965 was the best year for Pakistan. India virtually lost that war in 17 days. It was again our stupid rulers who did not do their homework before starting the war. The best part of the war was that whole nation had become one, that was the excellent time to take over Kashmir. There should have been no backing out. That was the time for fighting to finish. Again Uncle Sam come in picture and asked Pakistan to opt for cease fire and return all the land and prisoners to India without any condition. When General Ayub Khan signed the agreement in Tashkent, Indian PM, Lal Bhadur Khan Shastri, died of happiness soon after the meeting. Pakistan lost the winning war due to the thought less actions of stupid general/president of Pakistan. Not only we lost the war but also we lost a number of heroes who laid their lives gallantly and forgotten. I want to write about those heroes perhaps in some other time.

            Since I have gone through the two wars, I must say that it is not enough that how much you are equipped with modern weaponry, but it is the unity of people and spirit that makes the difference. Today Pakistan may have the modern warfare, but definitely lacking in unity and spirit of fight for the right cause, which we lost 35 years ago. I am afraid that due to lack of this particular aspect, Pakistan will never win if fourth war is begun.

            FARID

            Comment


              #7
              Salaam Farid Saheb!
              It would be great if you could write about the two wars! That is a great idea! Especailly 1965 war as I know nothing about it. My father was serving in Wagah sector when the war started. I cant wait for your article on the wars!

              It would be great if you could start another thread. And yes! You are absolutely right about the 65 war, the thing to see was that the nation had become one that faithful September night, and especailly General Ayub's speach had brought the real men out of us. My mother tells me as she was in lahore in those days that lahoris, headed towards the borders with sticks and hockeys to fight the Indian brigade attack on BRB. Now that is courage. That kind of stories make me proud to be a Pakistani and have faith that if there is another war, Insha Allah how ever big the enemy is we will face them like Shers and the war would be decisive.

              Comment


                #8
                Farid I agree with you on that a war is won with the right spirit and not just with weapons, thatís what our military leaders and Dr. Khan if Iím not mistaken have told us many times. However we do not lack the spirit, look around and youíll find enough examples (Kargil and Kashmir are two examples) Ė we have problems focusing on one common goal plus we have a pathetic record in fighting against propaganda. And we loose at table talk not at war ground.

                Any way, like Gulsher I too would love to read about the wars, all of them.

                Gulsher
                You can read about the wars at PakDeffís sites while Farid is typing

                Comment


                  #9
                  India and Pakistan have fought three wars - two of them over Kashmir - and Clinton said he is profoundly concerned because their relationship has a new low and could escalate into a nuclear Armageddon. Indian and Pakistani governments dismiss such a possibility.

                  ''I completely rule out a nuclear war,'' Atal Bihair Vajpayee reiterated earlier this week.

                  And in any case, while the two countries argue and fight over their claims, most of the insurgents in Indian-held Kashmir want independence. Seventy-two percent of the Muslims in Indian-held Kashmir, according to a survey cited by the Economist, would not want to join Muslim Pakistan. Besides their desire to preserve their unique culture, many are wary of Pakistan's political instability and endemic ethnic quarrels.


                  Moreover, the Hindus and Buddhists, making up 35 percent of the population of Jammu and Kashmir, want to stay with India.

                  Comment


                    #10


                    Mohabbat, your population statistic is very optimistic.
                    The Pakistani figure is as low as 7% but the UN puts the figure of Non Muslims at 14% (Does not include the Indian Army .... otherwise it may be very high )

                    Sorry, bad joke, but it was hard to resist.

                    As for the spirit of war....well, I believe there were many questions being asked about Pakistan's resolve in the spring of 1965 Rann of Kutch, where the Indians claimed that the forces of Pakistan were morally "sub-standard", (the word is an actual quote). However, September 1965 was a BIG SURPRISE was it not.


                    You can not tell what resolve would be like unless you put a country to the wall.
                    You see, that is what many Indian soldiers I have met do not understand. They think Pakistan is fighting for some arbitrary prestige. On teh contrary, they are very well aware of the adversity of teh odds. They know that on paper India has an advantage that can not be doubted. They also know that they can not step back. India can recover from a complete, but Pakistan can not. That is what adds that little extra. That is why Chiwanda witnessed soldiers under tanks, that is what led to Fl Lt Yunis's kamakazi run.

                    Pakistani soldiers know that they are teh last line of defence.

                    Indian soldiers very frequently talk about CONTINGENCIES and FALL BACK SCENARIOS.

                    I am surprised when they hear that Pakistanis don't really consider such options, because they know, they will not have them.


                    In 1965 the internal disarray was far greater than today. The military had to launch many STIFF campaigns against political machinery. The Islamic parties were being supressed very heavily as they had no real way of getting the country of the mess the Beaurucrats had left it in. The islamic parties were protesting every chance they had.
                    The BNP was rising, Sindhu desh was at its ebb and even Punjab had movements originating in its heart land.
                    The papers were still discussing why the Pakistanis had bowed to UK's pressure in teh Rann of Kutch.
                    Were it not for the industrial reforms brought by teh Army and the heavy hjanded peace keeping, Pakistan was under political chaos.

                    That was the back drop to the 1965 war. Indira Gandhi in her memoirs mentioned Pakistan's "FOGGY SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT" , as one of the factors she said India had relied upon in the 1965 decision to open greater and more avid fronts.
                    But, come the 5th of September, the people stood by their soldiers.


                    In 1971, the greatest advantage India had was that they had the local population of Bangladesh on their side. It was in effect a civil war that turned into a full war.
                    For such a scenario to be repeated in any part of the present Pakistan is very optimistic.


                    As for Pakistan's status with regrards to a 4th war. Pakistan's Armed Forces would go through all the options to avoid such an event.
                    However, if it is thrusted upon them, then be asured, they will find the resolve to defend the way only a muslim can.

                    However, I pray that such a day does not come.
                    David might beat Goliath, but the cost to David might be too high to pay for teaching Goliath a lesson.

                    Allah is all knowing and he is best of plotters and planners.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/07..._de_sac+.shtml

                      Clinton's Kashmir cul-de-sac

                      By Mustafa Malik, 3/17/2000

                      During his trip to India next week, President Clinton plans to discuss the future of Kashmir. A Muslim secessionist movement has been raging in an Indian-held Kashmiri valley, causing 26,000 deaths and massive human rights abuses by Indian security forces and rebels.


                      The Indians stubbornly oppose ''meddling'' by outsiders on Kashmir. It is their own business, they say. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and his colleagues say they will not allow ''mediation'' by any country on the issue. They have not, however, ruled out discussing it with Clinton.


                      A Himalayan territory of snow-capped mountains and sparkling lakes, Kashmir used to be a princedom outside British-ruled India, which was divided in 1947 into Hindu-majority India and Muslim Pakistan. India occupied the southern two-thirds of the Muslim-majority Kashmir after Pakistanis had grabbed the northern third. The quarrel between them lingers because each country claims the part of Kashmir held by the other.


                      Most Muslims in the Indian-held part of Kashmir never really accepted Indian rule, while those on the Pakistani side seem reconciled to their fate. For four decades Muslims in Indian-held Kashmir lived in an uneasy peace under an arrangement worked out with New Delhi by their autocratic Hindu ruler. That agreement allowed them wide political, economic and cultural autonomy. The uprising began in 1989 partly as a protest against the infringement of that autonomy by the Indian government.


                      Numerous international peace missions have failed to untangle the feud over Kashmir, which former Pakistani Vice President Nurul Amin once called ''a heaven for tourists but a mine field for peace makers.'' The question is whether Clinton can help de-mine it.


                      Going for him is the weight of the world's sole superpower. Besides, the Indians badly want to expand trade and investment ties with the United States, which are on the agenda for his trip. And they know that he is determined to talk about Kashmir.


                      But the president's approach to the feud is unlikely to lead anywhere. He views it essentially as a land dispute between India and Pakistan. He wants it settled ''through bilateral negotiations'' between them, according to David Leavy, spokesman for the National Security Council.


                      India and Pakistan have fought three wars - two of them over Kashmir - and Clinton said he is profoundly concerned because their relationship has a new low and could escalate into a nuclear Armageddon. Indian and Pakistani governments dismiss such a possibility.


                      ''I completely rule out a nuclear war,'' Vajpayee reiterated earlier this week.


                      And in any case, while the two countries argue and fight over their claims, most of the insurgents in Indian-held Kashmir want independence. Seventy-two percent of the Muslims in Indian-held Kashmir, according to a survey cited by the Economist, would not want to join Muslim Pakistan. Besides their desire to preserve their unique culture, many are wary of Pakistan's political instability and endemic ethnic quarrels.


                      Moreover, the Hindus and Buddhists, making up 35 percent of the population of Indian-held Kashmir, want to stay with India.


                      An India-Pakistan dialogue, which Clinton plans to promote, would not reflect people's aspirations in Indian-held Kashmir. Moreover, it would have little effect on the brutal conflict between Indian forces and Kashmiri rebels.


                      New Delhi has deployed 500,000 troops in Kashmir and its vicinity to suppress the insurgency and refuses to reach out to the insurgents, all of whom it labels ''terrorists,''whether they are guerrillas or political activists. The rebels remain committed to struggling for independence to the bitter end.


                      A group of Indian politicians, including former Home Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, are asking the Vajpayee government to follow the Israeli-Palestinian route to peace, i.e. a dialogue with the insurgents. Former Indian Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao has called for a settlement conceding Kashmiris `'anything except full independence.''


                      Vajpayee's Hindu nationalist government, because of its traditional hard-line policy toward the Kashmiris, could sell Indians on a Kashmir deal more easily than any other political party. Whether it would remains to be seen.


                      India-Pakistan wars over Kashmir have not alleviated the suffering of the Kashmiris and, instead, have made archenemies of the two neighboring countries. Ending the Kashmir tragedy could be the first step toward defusing India-Pakistan tensions.


                      Mustafa Malik, a Washington-based journalist, worked in the 1970s as speechwriter for Pakistan Vice President Nurul Amin.


                      Comment


                        #12
                        Capt Gulsher Khan and Sabah,

                        Thanks for you compliments. I will definitely write on forgotten real heroes of 1965. Believe me every Pakistani, whether it was Punjabi, Sindhi, Pakhtoon, Baloachi or Bengali participated in that war, performed wheather active or supportive roll. That golden period perhaps will never come again.

                        It was most unfortunate that rulers of the time did not take full advantage of the situation. Not only they backed out but returned every thing that was won by the blood and efforts of the bravest men in the Muslim History.


                        FARID

                        Comment


                          #13
                          As Pakistanis we must all face up to reality. India has a much bigger army than ours and a more advanced military infrastructure. In a conventional war, Pakistan would lose within a week.

                          However Pakistan has been helped by one thing which is perhaps the only tool protecting her autonomy - the Nuclear climate created by India. This was arguably, India's greatest political blunder of recent times. By creating a nuclear atmosphere in the sub-continent it is now obvious that should the independence of Pakistan ever be jepordised she would have no option other than to use nuclear force against major Indian cities.

                          With this in mind it is not worth India fighting Pakistan because should they be in a position of victory to the extent of destroying Pakistan, the nuclear alternative would be employed. Pakistan cannot beat India in a conventional war and hence they will not attack.

                          No fourth war will take place, instead the proxy wars fought in Kashmir will continue until both the governments in India and Pakistan realise the catch 22 nature of their situation and reach a diplomatic resolution to a very simple problem.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X