Haq's Musings: Demolishing Indian War Myths about Pakistan Indian War Myths about Pakistan ... In his book "War ... The movie was decried by many in India as "racist poverty porn"

Haq's Musings: Demolishing Indian War Myths about Pakistan

Haq's Musings

Riaz Haq writes this data-driven blog to provide information, express his opinions and make comments on many topics. Subjects include personal activities, education, South Asia, South Asian community, regional and international affairs and US politics to financial markets. For investors interested in South Asia, Riaz has another blog called South Asia Investor at http://southasiainvestor.blogspot.com and a YouTube video channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkrIDyFbC9N9evXYb9cA_gQ

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Demolishing Indian War Myths about Pakistan

While outwardly claiming to dismiss Pakistan as a defeated and failed state, the Indians continue to show by their actions that they are paranoid about their much smaller neighbor to the West by maintaining most of their troops close to the border with Pakistan.

For example, twenty four of the thirty three Indian infantry divisions are near Pakistan's borders. All three of India's armored divisions are poised against Pakistan. All three of India's mechanized divisions are positioned on Pakistani borders.

If Indians have such an impeccable record of successes against Pakistan in past wars as they claim, why is it that, in practice, they are so fearful of their little neighbor? Why are they planning to increase defense spending by 50% to spend $40 billion, 33% more than the entire 2009-10 Pakistani budget of $30 billion, on defense in 2009-10? Could it be that, in their heart of hearts, they really do not believe their own propaganda and their claims of victory over Pakistan are really hollow?

Let's examine this reality in a little more detail:

With the special exception of 1971( where Indira exploited the political follies by Bhutto and Mujib and RAW infiltrated the Awami League), Indian military has not scored any clear victories over Pakistan.

Even in 1971, Pakistanis inflicted heavy damage on Indian military.

"This airforce(the PAF), is second to none""The air war lasted two weeks and the Pakistanis scored athree-to-one kill ratio, knocking out 102 Russian-made Indian jets and losing thirty-four airplanes of their own. I'm certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below." "They were really good, aggressive dogfighters and proficient in gunnery and air combat tactics. I was damned impressed. Those guys just lived and breathed flying. "

(General (Retd.) Chuck Yeager (USAF) , Book: Yeager, theAutobiography).

In 1965, Pakistanis really whipped India's rear end.

"Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."

Roy Meloni,American Broadcasting CorporationSeptember 15, 1965.

1965 War, the Inside Story by R.D. Pradhan:

In Chapter 8 titled "Of Cowardice and Panic", the author describes the cowardice of Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad, the Indian general commanding officer in Lahore sector. When the general was fired upon by Pakistani forces, he "ran away". "On learning that, Lt. Gen. Harbakash Singh and the corps commander drove in a Jonga to the battlefront. Army commander found that the enemy (PAF) air attack had created a havoc on G.T. Road. (Indian) Vehicles were burning and several vehicles of 15 Division abandoned on the road, the drivers having run away, leaving some of the engines still running. Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad was hiding in a recently irrigated sugar cane field. As described by Harabakash Singh: "He (Prasad) came out to receive us, with his boots covered with wet mud. He had no head cover, nor was he wearing any badges of his rank. He had stubble on his face, not having shaved." Seeing him in such a stage, Harbakhash Singh asked him: "Whether he was the General Officer commanding a division or a coolie? Why had he removed badges of rank and not shaved? Niranjan Prasad had no answer."

Pradhan's book contains many different entries by Indian Defense Minister Y.B. Chavan. A Sept 9, 1965 entry reads: Had a very hard day on all fronts. Very fierce counter-attacks mounted and we are required to withdraw in Kasur area. COAS was somewhat uncertain of himself. I suggested to him that he should go in forward areas so that he will be in touch of realities. He said he would go next day.

In Line of Duty: A Soldier Remembers, Lt Gen Harbakhsh Singh reveals that not only did Gen Chowdhury play a very small role in the entire campaign, he was so nervous as to be on the verge of losing half of Punjab to Pakistan, including the city of Amritsar. Harbakhsh describes, in clinical detail, how our own offensive in the Lahore sector had come unhinged. The general commanding the division on Ichchogil canal fled in panic, leaving his jeep, its wireless running and the briefcase containing sensitive documents that were then routinely read on Radio Pakistan during the war. Singh wanted to court martial him, Chowdhury let him get away with resignation.

According to Shekhar Gupta, the editor of Indian Express, Harbkhash Singh recounts that a bigger disaster struck a bit to the south where the other division cracked up in assault, just as it encountered a bit of resistance. Several infantry battalions, short on battle inoculation, deserted and Singh gives a hair-raising account and confirmation of a long-debated rumor that Chowdhury panicked so badly he ordered him to withdraw to a new defensive line behind the Beas, thereby conceding half of Punjab to Pakistan. Singh describes the conversation with Chowdhury at Ambala where he refused to carry out the order, asking his chief to either put it down in writing or visit the front and take charge of the battle.

The London Daily Mirror reported in 1965:

"There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistanis"

"India", said the London Daily Times, "is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue.

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

UK - Air International - November - 1991

" the average PAF pilot is almost certainly possessed of superior skills when compared with, say, an average American pilot. As to those who are rated above average, they compare favorably to the very best."

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis publications - Volume 5

"Pakistan's air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style - Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen.

To prove its air superiority, PAF put its entire fleets on show for inspection after BOTH of the wars in presence of world dignitaries and aviation community. The five times bigger IAF should have been able to annihilate the tiny PAF to prevent such displays.

Yoichi Shimatsu, a Japanese journalist and former editor of Japan Times, wrote as follows about LeT and Kargil:

Blaming the Lahore-based Lashkar is all-too easy since the outfit was once the West Point of the Kashmir insurgency. The Army of the Righteous, as it is known in English, was a paramilitary force par excellence that routinely mauled the Indian Army along the Himalayan ridge that forms the Line of Control of divided Kashmir. In an attack on the strategic town of Kargil in late spring 1999, Lashkar broke through Indias alpine defense line and came close to forcing New Delhi to the negotiating table.

Along the sawtooth LoC, Lashkar is respected by professional soldiers on both side. A Pakistani hero who fought on the Baltistan heights, Corporal Ahmed, told me of his admiration for the stoicism of these jihadis, who wore sandals to battle in the snow. At a checkpoint in Indian-controlled Kargil, an army captain wearing a Sikh turban said frankly that nobody in the Indian Army could fight man-to-man against Lashkar.

Lashkar earned its reputation in clean-fought mountain warfare, pitting lightly armed guerrillas against Indian armor and superior firepower.

In its finest hours, these fighters would never consider the dirty tactics used against civilians in Mumbai, for example, the gangland-style executions using a shot to the back of a kneeling captives head. That is more typical of the Mumbai underworld.

Respected American South Asia expert Stephen Cohen of Washington's Brookings Institution recently told his audience: "Not a few Indian generals and strategists have told me that if only America would strip Pakistan of its nuclear weapons then the Indian army could destroy the Pakistan army and the whole thing would be over."

These remarks sharply contrast with the volumes being written in the West, particularly in the United States, about Pakistan's "obsession" with India. Pakistan is being incessantly lectured by the Western leaders and media to stop worrying about the security threat from India and focus exclusively on its western frontiers and the Taliban. Ignoring the past and current realities, these positions are often echoed by some of the liberal media editorials and commentators in Pakistan as well, in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary.

The facts on the ground speak louder than words. These facts clearly show that Indians are far more obsessed with Pakistan than Pakistan is with India. Having numerically and physically a much smaller military, Pakistan does have greater reason to be paranoid of Indian military intentions, and be prepared to deal with them.

Related Links:

Foreign Origin of India's Agni Missiles

India's Military Buildup

1965 War, the Inside Story

In Line of Duty: A Soldier Remembers by Gen Harbakhsh Singh

Challenges of Indian Democracy

India's Female Genocide

Dangers of Military Myths

Pakistan Military Business

India-Pakistan Military Balance

Global Firepower

Chuck Yeager on Pakistan Air Force

India's Research and Analysis Wing

GupShup Forum

RAW's Involvement in East Pakistan

Posted by

Riaz Haq

at9:57 PM

Labels:Defense Budget,India,Pakistan,War

118 comments:

Naveen KSsaid...

Haq, Its a pity u r trying to prove something by quoting coldwar era biased news reports by soldout journos and ex servicemen. No one cares a damn about them today. The world saw how the Americans were airlifted out of Saigon embassy as N.Vietnamese forces closed in and thus America was defeated for the first time. But for the American entertainment industry this was a war they won fair and square!

The world acknowledges that all the India-Pak wars were started by Pakistan and each time Pakistan was defeated by India. U cannot quote selective biased reports to prove otherwise and no ones gonna buy it.

Pakistani General Niazi had the "unique distinction" of surrendering to the Indian army by removing his service revolver and being stripped off his regalia. This was the first time it happened to a General after the 2nd World War. Pakistanis will live with this infamy forever.

We Indians will spend on our defence according to our needs. Pakistan can also do the same. But we will still have resources to spend on our poor but for Pakistan u have to beg.

Btw I am still to fathom what that Jap wrote about LeT. India brought to the negotiating table?? ROFL!! It was Nawaz Sharif who ran to the then US President Clinton and begged him to extricate Pakistan out of the Kargil mess created by Pakistanis themselves.

BTW, it was not expected from a person of ur stature to flag some report glorifying a terrorist org.

Pakistan has no option but to obey what the West commands it coz to keep Pakistan running it need Western dole.

Pakistani rulers have to attend meeting called to fix its dole amount by its so-called friends. Whereas India's rulers attend meeting that are called to save the world from recession! The difference is huge my friend, very huge!

July 9, 2009 at 12:09 AM

Anonymoussaid...

"These remarks sharply contrast with the volumes being written in the West, particularly in the United States, about Pakistan's "obsession" with India. Pakistan is being incessantly lectured by the Western leaders and media to stop worrying about the security threat from India and focus exclusively on its western frontiers and the Taliban. Ignoring the past and current realities, these positions are often echoed by some of the liberal media editorials and commentators in Pakistan as well, in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary.

The facts on the ground speak louder than words. These facts clearly show that Indians are far more obsessed with Pakistan than Pakistan is with India. Having numerically and physically a much smaller military, Pakistan does have greater reason to be paranoid of Indian military intentions, and be prepared to deal with them."

You are comparing apples with orange. In West, when we talk about Pak. obsession with India, we are indirectly complimenting that India is a diverse, secular, pluralistic democracy with her own identity whereas Pakistan defined itself after independence on Kashmir issue and Jihadism(which they called freedom fighting until 2001). Even now, ordinary Indians don't give a damn about Pakistan and are more obsessed about finding a primary school for their children, whereas Pakiland with its sprawling Madrassas are taught from a young age that fighting Indian Kafir is their life mission. Also in India, there is nothing like a weekly prayer in temples where the priest stands on a podium and pray for Azadi Kashmir and victory against infidels and all others chant "Aameen".

When it comes to budget spending, it has its own dynamics - from a military strategic point of view, India has every right to see Paistan as a "threat", given the reasons mentioned above, and also 3 past wars. Pakistan is criticized because Pakistanis(yes the "educated" sorts) would like to believe that their country is weak and violent because of Indo-Israeli conspiracy, rather being honest that their country did not put any emphasis on building civil soceities and Jihadis within the country are the problem. Now atleast that Sardari admitted a well known fact, that terrorism problem is created by Pakistan herself, hopefully it is a new beginning.

July 9, 2009 at 1:36 AM

Anonymoussaid...

Raiz

If you want you can read the surrender statement of the major general of pakistan army in east pakistan to india.

India would not like to do its terrroist operation by making people as refugees that is the reason you require more people

In the name of killing terrorist it does not want to create few million refugees in the country whether it is muslims or hindus.

July 9, 2009 at 6:03 AM

Anonymoussaid...

Riazbhai you are 150% correct. Pakistan army is best in world. PAF is pride of nation. Against PAF India will not do any misadventure. But I am not understanding Lashkar part. Lashkar will cause big problem in Pakistan like Jaish. Also Lashkar will do bad thing against Shia in the future. They can hurt India but also they can hurt us.

July 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Riaz Haqsaid...

Anon:I personally do not like LeT, its current leadership and its tactics, especially since it was banned. After starting as a genuine Kashmiri freedom movement, it has fallen into the wrong hands. The quote I have is from a respected journalist Yoichi Shimatsu who argues that banning Lashkar under US and Indian pressure has wrongly painted the entire Kashmiri freedom struggle as a terrorist movement and it has turned the remnants of Lashkar into a undisciplined bunch probably being exploited by the underworld criminal figures like Dawood Ibrahim.

July 9, 2009 at 4:31 PM

Anonymoussaid...

"The world acknowledges that all the India-Pak wars were started by Pakistan and each time Pakistan was defeated by India. U cannot quote selective biased reports to prove otherwise and no ones gonna buy it."

This is the most delusional piece of crap I have ever heard. India sent its army to invade Hyderabad and Goa.

Pakistan's desire to seek its territory - Kashmir is as justified as India's invasion of Hyderabad.I assumed you haven't been told that the people of Kashmir is under the occupation of India.

India's dirty hand in 1971 is well known.Today,India is worried about the influx of Bangladeshis into their land which one day will lead to disintegration of North-East India.Gee,you get what you sow.

"Pakistan has no option but to obey what the West commands it coz to keep Pakistan running it need Western dole. "

Really, I heard the US just spanked India recently by banning Israel's arm sale to India.The shoooper power India indeed.

"Pakistani rulers have to attend meeting called to fix its dole amount by its so-called friends. Whereas India's rulers attend meeting that are called to save the world from recession! The difference is huge my friend, very huge!"

Whoa.They came to the wrong country - India even with such economic growth has its poverty increase by 5%. I hope the world is not that stupid to seek views from a delusional nation like India.China,Yes.But India,God save humanity.Ask the Pandit of CitiBank.

July 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Anonymoussaid...

Riaz,

Unlike JKLF, the LeT was NEVER a Kashmiri movement. LeT was formed by ex-Afghan war mujahidin with the blessings and financing by ISI. LeT never looked back and now boasts of global ambitions operating from the Punjab province of Pakistan. There is plenty of research being done on LeT. Its roots run deep in Pakistan and at some point it'll bleed Pakistan heavily.

July 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Riaz Haqsaid...

Anon:

Do you know if the great Indian poet Iqbal was Punjabi or Kashmiri? While you are at it, figure out for me if Pak politician and former minister Sheikh Rashid is Punjabi or Kashmiri? Do you have any clue how Kashmiris and Punjabis relate to each other? Can you always tell the difference? I certainly can't.

July 9, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Anonymoussaid...

Riaz,

Why limit to Kashmir? The sub-continent is filled with ethnic similarities that do not stop at borders. Take the case of Pashtuns on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. In their view, all Pashtuns are the same but a Durand line seperates them. I see little difference between the Balochis in parts of Pakistan and those in Afghanistan.

No matter the ethnic, lingusitic or cultural similarities among Pashtuns or Balochis, Pakistan does not hesitate to crush the freedom movements using fighter planes and helicopter gunships. Call it cruelty of history or necessity of nationhood; that is the reality we live in.

July 9, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Riaz Haqsaid...

Anon:You are confusing the issue of ethnicity. My comment was in response to the claim that LeT is Punjabi and not Kashmiri.

Your claims about Pushtoons are baseless as to their freedom. Pushtoons voted to join Pakistan in a referendum, unlike the Kashmiris, Hyderabadis, Junagadhis and Goans who were militarily annexed by India.

July 9, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Anonymoussaid...

Riaz

We will have to talk about war then we must have the tak about the war. Indian leader however corrupt are elected in india, in pakistan it is selected by the USA.

Army general would not do anything against the dictate of USA as the resource and logicstic come from there.

As a matter of fact in many technology neither india nor pakistan has reached self sufficiency espeically in the field of nuke.

I read that the calibration and measuring equipment does not getr produced anywhere but with western countries as neither india nor pakistan has the specialization in many chemical and composite industries.

Pakistan wasted its resources in the last sixty bitching about india and india moved far ahead in economy to be considered as four nation for the growth of the world. Yes, pakistan has been considered as one of two nuisan ce states. Great achievement.

July 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM

Anonymoussaid...

Riaz,

Your argument is like pot calling the kettle black. I wonder how would you explain the invasion and annexation of Baluchistan in 1947. Despite the Khan of Kalat refused to join Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah sent in the army. Even today, the Balochis feel occupied and the Pak army mows the freedom fighters down with heavy armor.

Soon after Independence there was no fixed formula, communal criteria or mutually agreed strategy for apportioning princely states to either India or Pak. Talking about it now, which many Pakistanis do, is like beating a dead horse.

July 9, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Naveen KSsaid...

To the anon @ July 9, 2009 4:36 PM

"This is the most delusional piece of crap I have ever heard. India sent its army to invade Hyderabad and Goa."

Yes India did send her troops into these states coz the people of these states wanted to join the Indian Union but the rulers of these states were holding out. Goa was ruled by the Portuguese and not by any native rulers. Goans were yearning to join the India Union. So were majority of Deccan Hyderabadis. It was within India's right to annex these states with force.

"Pakistan's desire to seek its territory - Kashmir is as justified as India's invasion of Hyderabad.I assumed you haven't been told that the people of Kashmir is under the occupation of India."

The undisputed leader of the Kashmiris was Sheikh Abdullah the grandfather of the present Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir. He was for union with India. Pakistan invaded JK b'coz it was the lifeline of Pakistani Punjab as the rivers that watered it originated/flew thru JK. For Pakistan it was another matter that JK was also majority Muslim in population. Pakistan did not have any right to invade JK. Period.

"Really, I heard the US just spanked India recently by banning Israel's arm sale to India.The shoooper power India indeed."

Hahaha! u dont even have ur facts right. Greedy Americans are offering India 2 of its best fighter planes and dont want to lose to Israel/Swedish joint bid. Thats why they asked Israel to withdraw from the bid. Pls google for more info.

As for ur last comment, in the long run India has everything going for it to emerge as a superpower. We are not rash in our decisions. We take our time but in the end slow and steady pays for us.

July 10, 2009 at 5:33 AM

Subhsaid...

Whatever you are claiming are not fact. However India is not fear of Pakistan Army all but the terrorist who are prepared at Pak Soil is concerned to India. But these terrorist groups are also danger to Pakistan as we hear and see various attack in Pak. More over we should not compare defense power of two nation. What is needed is progress and development of two nation. If we compare two nation progress in the field of economy India is far ahead of PAK and we expect from Government of Pak as well as People of Pak that they will give more attention on the progress and development which will not only help the people of pak but also give prosperity in the Indian reason.

July 11, 2009 at 2:19 AM

Anonymoussaid...

Riaz-either way you think -the truth is read in Wall Street Journal or German headlines or British papers-Pakistan is a sanctuary for terrorists!!! So whats your point about India. Lets keep Kashmir aside--can you survive as nation? Do you know what will happen to Pakistan is US stops funds? It will split in a month!!! If India decides it will happen in a week.But who wants to put his finger in such a religous mess.We want stable Pksitan that will find a respectable place in Islamic world and nothing to with India!!! Infact India will happy to ban cricket ties with Pakistan because India does not need your nation for anything.The only nuisance you can create is shouting like dogs thats all muslims should unite for sake of some crap ideology!!!! The more India keeps you away that harder it is for you to sustain!!!!! As far as Pak army fighting with India---dream as much you can-you have right for that. Again we want a stable Pakistan not anymore than that. We do not want a hell of religious criminals in millions pouring to Our nation when your nation collappses-thats why do not want your nation to collapse.

July 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Anonymoussaid...

Hahahah.. I thoroughly enjoyed ur post.. hilarious. I always feel sorry for the people who have some language skills, willingness to write but not have their facts correct... anyways keep writing, its fun to read !

July 18, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Anonymoussaid...

riaz, Hillary Beegum is in India. Food for next post ? Probably not ;-)

July 19, 2009 at 1:46 PM

acsaid...

Indian elites suffer from inferiority complex. Their "greatest" victory was subduing single division of Pakistan army in 1971 which was trapped by land/sea hit with desertion by Bengal manned air force. Although Pakistan emerged as much stronger strategically and Bengal is still a security thread to Indians, it is celebrated as a glorious holiday.

July 25, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Jaydevsaid...

Channel 4 exclusive..enjoyhttp://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=27874456001

July 27, 2009 at 7:19 AM

Anonymoussaid...

Indians have no option but to seek Pakistan's stability as they have been effectively deterred by Pakistan's nuclear and conventional forces. Back in 2002 the Indians put 1 million men on the border, and achieved nothing.

August 4, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Anonymoussaid...

Seems all Indians have been fed the same lies, India has won all wars against Pakistan and Pakistan started all wars.

1971 saw 90,000 Pakistani soldiers surrender.

The truth is everytime India started wars except kargill, which was not really a war buty a skirmish.

In th enext war between Pakistan and India, the world will witness the breakup of India into smaller states.

Out of 90,000 Pakistanis, half were civil servants, only 40,000 pakistani soldiers did surrender against a force of over 400,000 Indians, and I blame that on cowardly Niazi.

In the air Pakistan won all wars soundly, see Chuck Yeagers comments.

In 1965 Pakistan soundly beat up India, a nation four times bigger with a force 3 times bigger, that is something to be proud of for Pakistan.

Today Pakistan is stronger than ever, and India cannot harm Pakistan unless it wants to risk suicide, it can only shriek and make noise, everyone knows, it has run out of any real options, Pakistan can give it a real bloody nose and even hack off a limb or two.

September 12, 2009 at 10:50 PM

Anonymoussaid...

Seems all Indians have been fed the same lies, India has won all wars against Pakistan and Pakistan started all wars.

1971 saw 90,000 Pakistani soldiers surrender.

The truth is everytime India started wars except kargill, which was not really a war buty a skirmish.

In th enext war between Pakistan and India, the world will witness the breakup of India into smaller states.

Out of 90,000 Pakistanis, half were civil servants, only 40,000 pakistani soldiers did surrender against a force of over 400,000 Indians, and I blame that on cowardly Niazi.

In the air Pakistan won all wars soundly, see Chuck Yeagers comments.

In 1965 Pakistan soundly beat up India, a nation four times bigger with a force 3 times bigger, that is something to be proud of for Pakistan.

Today Pakistan is stronger than ever, and India cannot harm Pakistan unless it wants to risk suicide, it can only shriek and make noise, everyone knows, it has run out of any real options, Pakistan can give it a real bloody nose and even hack off a limb or two.

September 12, 2009 at 10:52 PM

tituraj_doleysaid...

riazzz bhai,

u r a real frustated looser!!! u cant even reply to the people who replied against your original post. It is funny even to believe that there is anything like 'India's obsession with pakistan' given the history we have. India has never claimed a single inch of pakistani land!!! I really fail to understand why would India be obsessed about pakistan as India is a far more developed country than pakistan!! And the reason why India is developed than pakistan is that India doesnt have retarted people like you who boasts of waging wars even in 21st century.

As far as the war facts are concerned , i would not like to go on looking for individual persons ratings( though i'm very sure i would manage to collect many more than you)..instead i give you a clear picture of facts on the wars which will hopefully open your eyes!!..

1)1947 war:

Casualties and losses 1,104 killed[1](Indian army) 684 killed (State Forces)[2] [3]3,152 wounded [1] 1,500 killed[4] (Pakistan army)

2,633 killed, 4,668 wounded[5] Furthermore the geographical conditions were not supportive for indian military as india had to travel long distances.

1965 war:

Deaths:3,000 Indian soldiers, 3,800 Pakistani soldiers

Territory held:

India held 710 mi(1,1840 km) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 mi(545 km) of Indian territory.

had it not been the ceasefire India would have easily captured Lahore!!!

Also be noted that India at that time was very weak as it was just recovering from the Indo-Sino war. And the coward paskitanis only tried to take advantage of that!!! U boast of 'Extraordinary ' Air space performance by PAF..but my brother do you also know that at that time the US had provided the best Fighter jets of that time to pakistan??? On the other hand India's fighter planes were mostly self made!!!

1971 war:

I hope u know it....

1999 argil war:

Kargil War Part of the Indo-Pakistani Wars

An Indian Bofors 155 mm howitzer field gun being repositioned during the war. Date May-July 1999 Location Kargil district, Kashmir Result Indian victory as India retakes all Pakistani occupied ridges. Pakistan withdraws from rest of Indian-controlled Kashmir to pre-war Line of Control. Territorialchanges Status quo ante bellum Belligerents

India Pakistan,MujahideenForiegn volenteers Commanders Ved Prakash Malik Pervez Musharraf Strength 30,000 5,000 Casualties and losses Indian Official Figures:527 killed,[1][2][3]1,363 wounded[4]1 POW Pakistani Estimates:357 - 4,000 killed[5][6] (Pakistan troops)665+ soldiers wounded[5]

....so all in all pakistan is the looser!!!

October 4, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Riaz Haqsaid...

tituraj: "It is funny even to believe that there is anything like 'India's obsession with pakistan' ....."

If India is not obsessed with Pakistan, then why is it that India continues to deploy most of its troops on Pakistani borders? India has about 33 infantry divisions. Twenty-four are on Pakistan borders. They have three armored divisions, all three against Pakistan borders. They have three mechanized divisions, all three against Pakistan borders.

If Indians are not obsessed with Pakistan, then why is it that Indians engage in obsessive Pakistan-bashing on the Internet, even though India has only 7% of Indians have access to the Internet versus 11% of Pakistanis, according to ITU data?

t is not a secret that Indians suffer from "Israel envy", as described by Sashi Tharoor, and many Indians would like nothing better than to "do a Lebanon", as described by Pankaj Mishra, if they can do so without paying a heavy price.

Let's not forget, it was Kiyani's unambiguous warning of swift response, heard loud and clear in Delhi after Mumbai last year, that deterred Indian air strikes in Pakistan.

As to your numbers that you call "facts", all you have done is repeated the false claims and baseless propaganda of Indian government and pro-government media and analysts, while ignoring the data I have posted. It is shameful for Indians to claim victory over a much smaller neighbor who gave them a good thrashing repeatedly.

About 1965 war you claim," Also be noted that India at that time was very weak as it was just recovering from the Indo-Sino war. And the coward paskitanis only tried to take advantage of that!!!"

First, it was widely reported that India was the first to cross the International border into Pakistan near Lahore in a surprise attack. Pakistan responded forcefully and pushed the Indian military back into Khem Kharan, Indian territoty and took it from India. If Pakistan wanted to take advantage of India's drubbing by China in 1962, why would it wait for three years to do it?

You assert, "And the reason why India is developed than pakistan is that India doesnt have retarted people like you who boasts of waging wars even in 21st century."

First, India is not any more developed than Pakistan. India remains a poor, backward , third world country with the largest number of poor, malnourished and hungry people, according to all of the published indicators of well being.

Second, when you resort to personal abuse and insults (filled with typos), it's clear sign that you have already lost the argument.

October 4, 2009 at 5:11 PM

anoopsaid...

"It is shameful for Indians to claim victory over a much smaller neighbor who gave them a good thrashing repeatedly."

When is that? Are you talking about battles? Or war? Pakistan might have one a few battles but not war. I hope you understand the difference between a battle and war.

"India is not any more developed than Pakistan. India remains a poor, backward , third world country with the largest number of poor, malnourished and hungry people, according to all of the published indicators of well being."

True. But, that was 10 years ago. Maybe even 15. We were in the same boat then. Not anymore. Riaz, I advice you visit places like Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, Gurgaon and Pune to really understand how and why India is growing. You are generalizing everything about India. If there is a riot then you will say as if there were riots all over India. Have you any idea how big India is? How many different kind of people live here? If there are slums you make people believe that slums are all over India. There are pockets of wealth in India which are driving India's growth. Economically how can you ever compare the 2nd fastest growing economy in the world,2nd only to China and biggest begging bowl in the world? Do you realize that Pakistan has become the biggest beggar/aid-receiving country in the world? In that case the comparison between the neighbors is silly and laughable.You only see the slums of Mumbai but you dont see how many people are actually going out of these slums and settling in other areas. You dont see the kind of money Mumbai generates by its institutions. You are not to blame. Its the way you are programmed to look at India and its issues in your schools and newspapers and ego too plays a great part. India is in the league as China. Do you think China has eliminated poverty? China is like India but a little better in this department. But, India is what China will never be, a democracy. There we will have an edge forever.


Sidsaid...

Right! What a worthless article with incorrect propaganda. If pakistan dominated these wars so much then how on earth did they lose bangladesh? How is it that the pakistan regime was scared into calling for a ceasrfire each time? If the war's had gone on for a few more days, pakistan would have been bankrupt. At the time of the Kargil ceasefire, pakistan had just 6 days of supplies left.

I am sure the "blog author" will moderate true comments. Isn't that why it is enabled?

Pakistan is a beggar now. It's taking life support from the IMF and middle east. What does it have inhouse in the way of industry? The only way it can survive and keep it's dissently populace together is by using anti-india propaganda. Who rules Pakistan? The govenment, military or ISI?

There was an article that I remember reading. It goes something like this;

"why did it take pakistan 7 days to do their tests after india in 1999. ............... It is because all the manuals were in chinese!!

October 10, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Riaz Haqsaid...

Here are excerpts from "1965 War, the Inside Story" by R.D. Pradhan, that illustrates how the 1965 war unfolded:

In Chapter 8 titled "Of Cowardice and Panic", the author describes the cowardice of Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad, the Indian general commanding officer in Lahore sector. When the general was fired upon by Pakistani forces, he "ran away". "On learning that, Lt. Gen. Harbakash Singh and the corps commander drove in a Jonga to the battlefront. Army commander found that the enemy (PAF) air attack had created a havoc on G.T. Road. (Indian) Vehicles were burning and several vehicles of 15 Division abandoned on the road, the drivers having run away, leaving some of the engines still running. Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad was hiding in a recently irrigated sugar cane field. As described by Harabakash Singh: "He (Prasad) came out to receive us, with his boots covered with wet mud. He had no head cover, nor was he wearing any badges of his ranl. He had stubble on his face, not having shaved." Seeing him in such a stage, Harbakhash Singh asked him: "Whether he was the General Officer commanding a division or a coolie? Why had he removed badges of rank and not shaved? Niranjan Prasad had no answer."

Pradhan's book contains many different entries by Indian Defense Minister Y.B. Chavan. A Sept 9, 1965 entry reads: Had a very hard day on all fronts. Very fierce counter-attacks mounted and we are required to withdraw in Kasur area. COAS was somewhat uncertain of himself. I suggested to him that he should go in forward areas so that he will be in touch of realities. He said he would go next day.


Prabhakarsaid...

Mr Riaz, now that's another funny story of yours.

Here is the image you might like to have a look at:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg

The numbers looked something like this:

Branch Number of captured Pakistani POWsArmy 54,154Navy 1,381Air Force 833Paramilitary including police 22,000Civilian personnel 12,000Total: 90,368

Speaks something about who is concocting a myth.

November 21, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Riaz Haqsaid...

I found some interesting rankings of military strengths of various nations on globalfirepower.com.

Here are rankings:

1. USA2. China3. Russia4. India5. UK6. France7. Germany8. Brazil9. Japan10. Turkey11. Israel12. South Korea13. Italy14. Indonesia15. Pakistan16. Taiwan17. Egypt18. Iran19. Mexico20. North Korea

The site explains the rankings as follows:

Rank 1-10 Observations: The United States (GFP formula value of 0.184) remains the undisputed leader of our list thanks to their staying "active" in global hotspots, showcasing the world's largest navy and continuing to poor in gobs of money into defense. Our formula sees China edge out Russia but only by the slimmest of margins (0.238 versus 0.241 respectively) with an edge in available manpower and financial capital. France (0.636) and Germany (0.672) are relative equals for the most part but the GFP formula gives a slight edge to France thanks to an aircraft carrier and capable navy as well as a bump in defense spending. Brazil (0.756) is the most powerful South American country on the list thanks to available manpower and a capable navy. Japan (0.920) is a "sleeper" power that sneaks into the top ten with a good navy, strong logistical infrastructure and capital.

Rank 11-20 Observations: Our formula provides for a good disparity between North and South Korea, placing South well-ahead of the North thanks to better infrastructure and capital. Mexico's placement this high on the list is interesting to note - it scored a good balance across the board in all major categories. Israel finally gets a proper placement on this year's list - just out of the top ten - sporting a strong land army with equally strong training, modern equipment and recent combat experience.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

December 2, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Riaz Haqsaid...

Here are some interesting arguments by Juan Cole about ranking militaries:

Figuring expenditures per GDP means that poor countries look more militaristic than they really are and rich countries look pacifist when they are anything but. The CIA listing of countries by military expenditure as a percentage of GDP puts powerhouses like Oman, Eritrea, Burundi, and the Maldives at the top of the world list. The US, which spends more on the military than the next 40 countries combined, comes in 27th on this list behind the countries just mentioned. Of what use is that? Doesn't it just tell us that many of the countries at the top of this list are poor and if they buy so much as a rusty artillery piece, it is a big part of their income? And by the way, if we figure it this way, Iran is 67 in the world. While the poster puts that between India and Vietnam, it is also between the Congo and Portugal. My original point, is that a country that spends $6 or $7 bn a year on military affairs doesn't amount to much of a military threat to the US, is not damaged by this rather silly argument.

http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/on-how-iran-is-military-nothing-despite.html


Riaz Haqsaid...

Here's an interesting report in India Today about Indian Army's war readiness:

The Indian Army, one of the world's largest, has admitted it is far from being battle-ready. The force is 50 per cent short of attaining full capability. The admission is part of the army's internal assessment report submitted to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence. Headlines Today has exclusive access to the report. The report says it will take around 20 years for the army to gain full defence preparedness. The infantry, artillery and the armoury would be fully ready for battle only by 2027. This means that in the event of a war in the next two decades, the country may prove to be a virtual sitting duck. Going by the report, the force seems most vulnerable as far as combat helicopters are concerned. The report says the army has attained an abysmal 17 per cent capability in combat choppers. Full combat capability by helicopters would not be possible before 2027. Another problem is the army's inability to develop a communication network. India will not have a real-time information sharing network before 2027. The current capability is just 24 per cent despite the country's stellar show in information technology. What's really shocking is the shortage in fighting arms. The artillery has just 52 per cent of the total capability required to defend the country. The country will near 97 per cent capability in artillery only by 2027. The infantry too is struggling at a 65 per cent capability. The infantry wants to replace its indigenous INSAS rifles, acquire night-fighting capabilities, new generation anti-tank missiles and rockets. Shields for nuclear, biological and chemical warfare too are not properly in place. The picture isn't rosy for the mechanised and special forces units either, which are way behind their required defence preparedness.

December 7, 2009 at 8:55 AM

anoopsaid...

Riaz,see you were saying Indian defense budget was bloated. We are way behind.


anoopsaid...

Riaz,see you were saying Indian defense budget was bloated. We are way behind.st


Riaz Haqsaid...

anoop: "see you were saying Indian defense budget was bloated."

Part of globalization in India is to emulate the US military-industrial complex to feed the war machine by crying foul all the time.


Riaz Haqsaid...

The Pakistani air force says it has acquired the first of four Awacs surveillance aircraft from Sweden to boost its air defenses.

An air force statement said the Swedish Saab-2000 Awacs aircraft landed at one of the main operating bases on Tuesday.

The acquisition of the Awacs comes after arch-rival India bought its own Awacs systems from Israel in June.

The BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad says the Saab-2000 aircraft will boost the Pakistani military's early warning capabilities in the event of hostilities with India.

The aircraft can be used to provide information on all three spheres of military conflict - aerial, naval and land based.

Earlier this year, Pakistanhad voiced concern over the acquisition of Airborne Warning And Control System (AWACS) aircraft by India and said it wouldcounter the threat by inducting 500 American Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles.

Claiming that induction of AWACS by India would trigger a new arms race in the subcontinent, Pakistan's Air chief Air Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman said Islamabad would match this capability by acquiring its own AWACS by September this year. The delivery of these AWACs systems has finally begun.

The BBC correspondent says the Awacs planes and advanced F-16 fighter-bombers soon to arrive from the US will provide a qualitative edge to the Pakistan air force against its numerically superior adversary.

Pakistani military officials say the planes also have a greater range than similar aircraft in the Indian military and can be used as airborne command centers in case of a possible nuclear conflict.


anoopsaid...

As usual Pakistan is buying toys that it cannot afford. Glad to know the KLB money is being to "good" use. Only if this could have been used to kill those who attack Pakistan everyday!


anoopsaid...

Here, is an article by Ahmad Rashid,one of the best brains on South-Asia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8369914.stm

He says,"Pakistan cannot tackle its real problems unless the country's leaders - military and civilian - first admit that much of the present crisis is a result of long-standing mistakes, the lack of democracy, the failure to strengthen civic institutions and the lack of investment in public services like education, even as there continues to be a massive investment in nuclear weapons and the military."

He aptly sums up Pakistan's situation when he notes nuclear weapons-a technology that Pakistan already possesses-gets more importance than the REAL issues. Remember, the Soviet Union was destroyed by spending more than it can afford on the Military. Pakistan is on the same track. It is currently held together by aid provided by the West,mainly the Americans,whom the average Pakistani is taught by the Military to hate. Isn't it ironic?A country whom Pakistan should worship is being seen as a villain.


Riaz Haqsaid...

anoop: You can quote Rashid and many other critics of Pakistan. However, an average Pakistani is still doing better than an average Indian on the basics of access to food, clothing and shelter, in spite of its current difficulties.

The latest Global Hunger rankings just released last month put India at #65 along with many sub Saharan African poor nations. Pakistan fares better at #58.

Last year, Indian Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed acknowledged that India is worse than Bangladesh and Pakistan when it comes to nourishment and is showing little improvement.

Speaking at a conference on "Malnutrition an emergency: what it costs the nation", she said even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during interactions with the Planning Commission has described malnourishment as the "blackest mark".

"I should not compare. But countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are better," she said. The conference was organized last year by the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Ministry of Development of Northeastern Region.

According to India's Family Health Survey, almost 46 percent of children under the age of three are undernourished - an improvement of just one percent in the last seven years. This is only a shade better than Sub-Saharan Africa where about 35 percent of children are malnourished.

India has recently been described as a "nutritional weakling" by a British report.


CoolALsaid...

Part-1RiazHaq - Take off your tinted lenses. Some Neutral assessments of the 65 war. Neutral assessmentsThere have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had a upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below: According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies: The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government. TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.The same article stated that -Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N. Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"- The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat. In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions", Gertjan Dijkink writes -The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts. An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India, summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows: In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin. In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", Jeremy Black mentions that "Pakistan gambled and lost heavily". He also writes about India's missed military opportunities-India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted. In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war. Although both sides lost heavily in men and materiel, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.


CoolAlsaid...

Part-2RiazHaq - Take off your tinted lenses. Some Neutral assessments of the 65 war. Neutral assessmentsAn excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"- A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war-The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate. Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"- Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.Riazzz note. I am posting dissenting opinion too ;-)Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold of the much larger Indian Army.-"By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."


anoopsaid...

People have been doing well in South Asia inspite of the Governmental institutions not because of it. India's record post 1991 is far better than it has been performing years before that. This growth is because of good policy by the govt in charge and stabilization of democracy and realization in the political circles that economic woes must be addressed to gain political power. Before 1991, I'd assume, the differences between India and Pakistan were bigger in terms of economic indicators. And, there would have been no competition when it comes to these indicators. The way things around me are evolving and improving around me suggests that things have improved at a better rate in India than in Pakistan. The reason for that is the practicing of stable,free-market oriented policies of governments at the center.There has been a shift in the way the Indian electorate looks at things and democracy in general in India and a natural transition to good economic policies. But, has Pakistan reached that stage. It has not even taken the 1st step towards democracy. The kind of disenchantment towards democracy in a country that has better indicators than a thriving democracy-India is quite alarming.India has a better curve at improving economic indicators than Pakistan which is increasingly unstable and a bad economy to match. The future economic health in Pakistan is pretty uncertain as the abysmal growth of 2% in the past year suggests at a time when worlds economies are expanding.


Riaz Haqsaid...

CoolAl:

The fact is that India was the first to accept the ceasefire in 1965, as spelled out clearly in Indian authr and Chavan's personal secretary Pradhan's 1965 War.

On page 100, the last paragraph says as follows:

"India had accepted the (ceasefire) resolution but Pakistan was refusing to do so. At this stage, the Secretary General (UN) suggested to India's representative G. Parthasarthy that India considers declaration of unilateral ceasefire..."

If Pak was in such dire straits, why didn't Ayub Khan jump at the first opportunity to accept the ceasfire?


anoopsaid...

As usual,Riaz,the language you speak is not at the same wavelength as the world's. You speak a different tone than the majority.Anyway, bottom line is Pakistan invaded India and backed off without meeting ANY of its stated objectives. So, in military terms the mission was a failure. The victim managed (barely,according to you) to hold off the aggressor. This means that India is the victor. I cannot simply that more. If 1965 had not happened maybe 1971 may not have had happened. Looking back, that misadventure has cost Pakistan half of its country. You cannot have a bigger defeat than that.


Riaz Haqsaid...

anoop: "You cannot have a bigger defeat than that."

There is no question that Pakistan was defeated in 1971, losing a part of it that preferred separation after Pakistani politicians' monumental failures and India's covert intervention followed by overt invasion of a region completely surrounded by India, cut off from the rest of the country by a thousand miles.

But don't get your hopes up for another round. The fundamentals have changed dramatically since 1971. Any miscalculation and misadventure by India will be extremely costly to India and the rest of South Asia. The likes of Pradhan or Prasds will not live to tell the story, as they did in 1965 or 1971.


anoopsaid...

Riaz,I've clearly upset you. In a sense,it just indicates the correctness of my arguments. I've never called for invading Pakistan. Why should we? What objectives will we be pursuing? Are there any resources in Pakistan that we covet? Is there anything in Pakistan that we crave for? ANYTHING?Pakistan was inevitable,according to me. It was just a socialogical experiment with results I dont want to dwell upon.The basic ideology of Pakistan collapsed when certain people belonging to a certain identity started killing their own people,when it was in their name the country was created. We do not have any designs on capturing any territory of any country. We are a status-quo country and we proved that when we withdrew out of Bangladesh very soon and gave complete control back to the Bengalis. We gave up all the territories captured in the 1965 and 1971 wars.Infact, we are more concerned about safeguarding those borders that divide us and we cannot do that if we want to change them as you suggest. We want to make sure that the mayhem that is going on in Pakistan doesn't affect us one bit.Even the creation of Bangladesh was inevitable. The only thing that could have prevented Bengalis from going their own way was pure,unadulterated Democracy. But, that can never happen in Pakistan,can it? Unless, a miracle happens and a "Manmohan Singh" type becomes the Army Chief. Army will never relinquish its hold over the country. As Ardeshir Cowasjee says in today's piece,"As for this present regime, it is not repressive, it is not a dictatorship, it is not a democracy. Well, what is it? A hotchpotch concocted out of a wickedly mutilated and ravaged constitution of which few can make sense."http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/our-haunting-demons-329I see a country that is under going hell all because of its eternal fear of its neighbour and to counter that perceived threat it has created proxies around and inside its territory. Those proxies have come down to hunt them. As the saying goes,"Chicken have come home to roost". You should not be worrying about India. You should be worrying about the paranoia that affects the one and only institution,that is holding Pakistan together and can hold it together in future,about the perceived threat from India that is clearly a figment of its imagination.


Riaz Haqsaid...

anoop: "I see a country that is under going hell ...."

Unlike China and Pakistan, India's embrace of capitalism in the name of "reform" has created an economically resurgent India with widespread grinding poverty that has earned it the reputation as home to more than a third of the world's poorest people. The abject poverty poverty and hunger in India is comparable to Haiti and sub-Saharan Africa. Based on ample data from various world bodies like FAO,UNESCAP, etc., Indians have fared worse than their neighbors on basic social indicators of access to food, clothing, healthcare, sanitation and shelter.

The growing rich-poor gap has also caused a rash of farmer suicides ( about 200,000 since 1997, according to LA Times) and intensified the Maoist insurgency that has forced India to deploy 100,000 troops to battle the rebels who control large swaths of land in central and southern states. The only reason why the Indian media and the urban middle class have not taken notice of the violent Maoist insurgency is because it has been confined to the rural landscape, and not targeted cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bangalore.

And the problems are likely to get worse, with widespread crop failures and increasing farmer suicides. India has long been plagued by unscrupulous moneylenders who exploit impoverished farmers. But with crops failing more frequently, farmers are left even more desperate and vulnerable, according to a recent LA Times report.

The same LA Times report also talks about several cases of women and children sold by farmers to pay off debts.

I am quite used to the fact that "patriotic" Indians question anything that makes India look worse than Pakistan, here's a report in the Indian media with Indian officials admitting the facts:

New Delhi, July 2 (IANS) India is worse than Bangladesh and Pakistan when it comes to nourishment and is showing little improvement in the area despite big money being spent on it, says Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed.

'There has been an enormous infusion of funds. But the National Family Health Survey gives a different story on malnourishment in the country. We don't know, something is just not clicking,' Hameed said.

Speaking at a conference on 'Malnutrition an emergency: what it costs the nation', she said even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during interactions with the Planning Commission has described malnourishment as the 'blackest mark'.

"I should not compare. But countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are better," she said. The conference was organised Monday by the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Ministry of Development of Northeastern Region.

According to India's Family Health Survey, almost 46 percent of children under the age of three are undernourished - an improvement of just one percent in the last seven years. This is only a shade better than Sub-Saharan Africa where about 35 percent of children are malnourished.

Hameed said the government's Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) programme, which is a flagship programme to improve the health of women and children, had not shown results despite a lot of money being spent on it in the past few years.

Source: http://newshopper.sulekha.com/india-worse-than-pakistan-bangladesh-on-nourishmen t_news_927008.htm

Here's a quote from a recent New York Times story appropriately titled "India's Malnutrition Dilemma":

India is often compared and often compares itself with China, but the fact is that as China became an economic powerhouse it greatly reduced malnutrition. In an all-fronts effort, China cut child malnutrition by two-thirds between 1990 and 2002. Today only 7 percent of Chinese children under age 5 are underweight, whereas the figure for India is 43 percent. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, which most people assume to have the direst poverty statistics, the average child-malnutrition rate is 28 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11FOB-Rieff-t.html?_r=1


Riaz Haqsaid...

In another recent World Economic Forum report on gender inequality, India came in dead last at #134 on a list 134 nations for its women's health.

The latest Global Hunger Index 2009 released last month reports that hunger in India is comparable or worse than countries in sub-Saharan Africa. On a list of 84 countries, Pakistan ranked 58 while India ranked worse at 65.

According to a UNICEF report, "India might be an emerging economic power, but it is way behind Pakistan, Bangladesh and even Afghanistan in providing basic sanitation facilities, a key reason behind the death of 2.1 million children under five in the country.Lizette Burgers, chief water and environment sanitation of the Unicef, said India is making progress in providing sanitation but it lags behind most of the other countries in South Asia.

AS one of Chowk.com writers Dost Mittar recently wrote on Chowk:

"Anyone who has seen the blockbuster film Slumdog Millionaire would remember one scene above all others. I am referring, of course, to the potty scene where the young Jamal is shown relieving himself in an open pit. The scene caused a lot of adverse reaction in India as unrepresentative of true India. But according to a joint study conducted by the World Health Organization and UNICEF, 665 million Indians, or nearly two-thirds of them defecate in the open. I am not sure if these 665 included people using indoor toilets without plumbing; if it did not, then the number of Indians defecating in an unhygienic manner is even greater."

I know it's asking a lot, but I'd like the angry mob of Indians to reflect on the following:

1. Do you disagree with UNDP HDI report that shows Pakistanis having an almost three year edge (66 vs 63 yrs) on life expectancy? Are you then questioning the validity of a report that ranks India ahead of Pakistan, which you gladly quoted? And where did the CIA Fact book got its figures for 2009 for life expectancy, which is still not over? Did they make up the figures well ahead of time? Or have someone dream it up for publication? Usually, it takes a year or two to compile such detailed figures before they are published.

2. Do you also disagree with a member of India's planning commission, Syeda Hamid, who has access to a lot more data than you and I, and says India is doing worse than Pakistan on nutrition?

3. Do you disagree with UNICEF that India is way behind Pakistan and Bangladesh, even Afghanistan, in access to proper sanitation?

4. Do you think poor nutrition and lack of sanitation impact overall health and life expectancy figures in India, which is doing worse than Pakistan on both counts?

5. Do you reject overwhelming evidence presented in multiple reports by UN bodies, international NGOs and responsible Indian government officials which show Pakistan is doing better than India in terms of food, clothing and shelter?

In a post on "Hunger and Undernutrition Blog", blogger Nabeeha Kazi Hutchins wrote recently, "I've seen first hand the inability of India's political leaders to fully recognize malnutrition as a crisis. The first step to begin to turn the tide on India's malnutrition dilemma is for Indian officials to declare malnutrition an emergency."

I agree with Ms. Hutchins entirely. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for many Indians to deny the problems of hunger, poverty and lack of sanitation and sometimes resort to attacking those who bring focus on these problem. Such reactions were typified by anger in India at the showing of extreme poverty and lack of sanitation in "Slumdog Millionaire".The movie was decried by many in India as "racist poverty porn" and condemned by Bollywood superstar Amitabh Bachan in his blog for showing India as "a third world dirty under belly developing nation (sic)", the movie Slumdog Millionaire has been greeted by howls of protests in India.


anoopsaid...

I thought the question was who won the 1965 war and about the security situation in general. Anyway, I should not ignore your comments. I am a citizen of India and I've complete confidence in my country and the present system. It has evolved over the years and has increased in efficiency. Democracy is after all self-healing. I know the pluses and minuses of India. I want to market the pluses to reduce the minuses. I know the fact that India is home to the biggest population of poor in the world. But, the way out is through economic expansion, creation of jobs, simultaneous,co-ordinated rural and urban development. This is all happening but not at a pace at which China was able to achieve. One of the pluses of having nobody to answer to.The image of India is changing and changing for the better. The list of facts you have at your disposal is also available to every single person in the world with an access to the internet. Still, the world looks up to India,the largest democratic country in asia surrounded by failures. This is not by accident or misinformation but by hope and knowledge. The world knows we are destined to change for the better and have not missed the train and have an appointment with success.I am not at all comparing India with China. We cannot emulate growth of China but we can catch upto it with steady,all-round development. I envy China but we cannot be under a authoritarian regime like China has been.


anoopsaid...

Riaz,I am not denying any of the statistics you have put up. I am only saying we are taking care of it. Have you compared and contrasted the figures before 1991 and after to suggest that India's wealth distribution is uneven? You say growth is not reaching the masses. But, have you ever got statistics from the 80's and compare with today's statistics? Things were a lot worse then. But, they have improved tremendously. And, the curve is on the up. That is my point. The Future doesn't look bleak.I am conceding that Pakistan has had better health and nourishment indices than India over the past 60 years. But, not for long.


Mayrajsaid...

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4156The Dark Side of the Moon: The Downside to India's Economic Rise

http://urbanhealthupdates.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/india-number-of-urban-poor-to-rise-by-11-in-maharashtra/India Number of urban poor to rise by 11% in Maharashtrahttp://www.indianexpress.com/news/steep-rise-in-below-poverty-line-numbers-in/262202/Steep rise in below poverty line numbers in J-Khttp://arthedains.com/indiaunplugged/2008/12/22/the-bjp-wakes-up-to-indias-poverty/ http://www.tgfworld.org/critical-Rural%20Poverty%20on%20the%20Rise.htmRural Poverty on the Risehttp://money.cnn.com/2007/02/08/news/international/pluggedin_murphy_india.fortune/index.htmIndia the Superpower? Think againIndia should put aside pride about its growing economy and concentrate on improving the lives of average citizens, argues Fortune's Cait Murphy.


Anonymoussaid...

Do you know that a fully armed and loaded Gnat fighter jet surrendered to a PAF jet in 1965...and landed in the town of Pasrur...I've seen it myself, capable, beautiful and shiny, still parked in the PAF museum, almost still the way it was in 1965 when its pilot surrendered meekly after having consumed too much veggies probably...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLwQPKHqfYQ


anoopsaid...

I think many Pakistanis have taken this martial race thing too seriously. They are obsessed about a war fought 50 years ago which evidence suggests was a failed military mission by the Pakistani army resulting in a loss for Pakistan. Grow up guys. The only martial race is the race with the superior technology in this world. The technology comes from an efficient system and smart brains. Now is the time for brain not brawn.


Riaz Haqsaid...

Here's a report from India Today on India army-air force debate over cold start:

The army and air force are battling it out over how to beat Pakistan in a flash war if and when that happens.

The Indian Air Force is not convinced about its role in the army's "cold start doctrine" for a future Indo-Pak war.

The strategy envisages the air force providing "close air support", which calls for aerial bombing of ground targets to augment the fire power of the advancing troops.

The growing tension between the two services is evident in a statement of air vice-marshal (retd) Kapil Kak, deputy director of the air force's own Centre for Air Power Studies.

"There is no question of the air force fitting itself into a doctrine propounded by the army. That is a concept dead at inception," Kak said.

A senior army officer disputes the notion of a conceptual difference between the two services. "The air force is supposed to launch an offensive under the doctrine by hitting targets deep inside enemy territory," he said. But he admitted the air force was hesitant about 'close air support'. 'Cold Start' is a post-nuclearised doctrine that envisages a "limited war" in which the army intends to inflict substantial damage on Pakistan's armed forces without letting it cross the threshold where it could think of pressing the nuclear button.

The doctrine intends to accomplish the task before the international community led by the US and China could intercede to end hostilities. Kak said, "The air force has the primary task of achieving 'air dominance' by which Pakistan's air force is put out of action allowing the army to act at will."

But he sees little necessity for the air force to divert frontline fighter aircraft for augmenting the army's fire power, a task that, in his opinion, can be achieved by the army's own attack helicopters and multiple rocket launchers that now have a 100-km range.

But he agrees the two services should work according to a joint plan. It means the air force would launch 'battlefield air strikes' to neutralise threats on the ground based on an existing plan. But that would be different from an army commander calling for air support on the basis of a developing war scenario.

That is not the only problem facing the doctrine. In the past few weeks, many have expressed doubts about the army's ability to launch operations on the basis of the new doctrine.

There are also apprehensions about the army's incomplete deployment of forces, lack of mobility and unattended infrastructure development.

But senior officers say the army has identified the units, which would constitute the eight division-strong independent battle groups out of its three strike corps. These battle groups would comprise mechanised infantry, artillery and armour.

"The forces have exercised as constituted battle groups at least six times since 2004. Each of the identified unit knows where they will be deployed," a senior General said.

According to him, the time for deployment has been cut down to "days". "No longer will the movement of troops require three months like it did when Operation Parakram was launched after the attack on Parliament in 2001," he said.

The army also debunks the idea that the troops lack mobility. Some armed forces observers have said only 35 per cent of the army is mobile inside the country.

They have, thus, concluded that even less numbers would be mobile inside the enemy territory.

The army officials, however, pooh pooh the criticism claiming 100 per cent of the Indian troops are mobile.


Riaz Haqsaid...

Let me share some more facts on 1965 war, as stated in Pradhan's book in Chapter 12 titled "Retreat to Beas".

"Briefly the origins of the controversy lay in the strategy discussion after the 1962 India-China conflict. Pakistan's acquisition of modern weapons from US had tilted the military balance in favor of Pakistan. There were two schools of thought for framing India's defence strategy in the Punjab. One school favored defending the border, while the second advocated a defence line along the Beas river (well inside Indian territory). Taking into account Pakistan's superiority in armor and firepower, the former felt that a major battle in the west of Beas would end in destruction of the Indian army and thereafter allow the enemy (Pakistani) forces to push to the gates of Delhi without much resistance. They believed that the defence potential of the Beas should be utilized to hold any Pakistani onslaught. It seems that (COAS) General Chaudhry was also inclined towards this view."

In chapter 10, titled "The Stupid Incident", it talks about how Lt. Col. Anant Singh and 126 of his men were taken prisoner, twenty were killed:

"Next morning when 2 Mahar troops approached the Khem Kharan distributary (taken by Pakistanis earlier), they were attacked by the PAF repeatedly. 2 Mahar fell back after suffering heavy casualties. Despite subsequent efforts, theit attacks toward Khem Kharan failed. They lost 11 tanks, 4 JCOs and 83 jawans were wounded. Later, Brig Sidhu was brought down in rank for the failure of the attack."


Riaz Haqsaid...

What happened in East Pakistan in 1971 was absolutely tragic and unforgivable, and Pakistani military is responsible for major atrocities. The politicians, particularly Bhutto, Mujib and Indira are also partly responsible for the massacre that occurred.

Let's not believe everything we read and hear about what happened. A lot of it has been agenda-driven to create a certain narrative that is not entirely accurate.

For example, let's examine the truth about the Jessore massacre, as reported by Sharmila Bose of Telegraph newspaper in India.

"The massacre may have been genocide, but it wasnt committed by the Pakistan army. The dead men were non-Bengali residents of Jessore, butchered in broad daylight by Bengali nationalists, reports Sarmila Bose

The bodies lie strewn on the ground. All are adult men, in civilian clothes. A uniformed man with a rifle slung on his back is seen on the right. A smattering of onlookers stand around, a few appear to be working, perhaps to remove the bodies.

The caption of the photo is just as grim as its content: April 2, 1971: Genocide by the Pakistan Occupation Force at Jessore. It is in a book printed by Bangladeshis trying to commemorate the victims of their liberation war.

It is a familiar scene. There are many grisly photographs of dead bodies from 1971, published in books, newspapers and websites.

Reading another book on the 1971 war, there was that photograph again ? taken from a slightly different angle, but the bodies and the scene of the massacre were the same. But wait a minute! The caption here reads: The bodies of businessmen murdered by rebels in Jessore city.

The alternative caption is in The East Pakistan Tragedy, by L.F. Rushbrook Williams, written in 1971 before the independence of Bangladesh. Rushbrook Williams is strongly in favour of the Pakistan government and highly critical of the Awami League. However, he was a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, had served in academia and government in India, and with the BBC and The Times. There was no reason to think he would willfully mislabel a photo of a massacre.

And so, in a bitter war where so many bodies had remained unclaimed, here is a set of murdered men whose bodies are claimed by both sides of the conflict! Who were these men? And who killed them?

It turns out that the massacre in Jessore may have been genocide, but it wasnt committed by the Pakistan army. The dead men were non-Bengali residents of Jessore, butchered in broad daylight by Bengali nationalists.

It is but one incident, but illustrative of the emerging reality that the conflict in 1971 in East Pakistan was a lot messier than most have been led to believe. Pakistans military regime did try to crush the Bengali rebellion by force, and many Bengalis did die for the cause of Bangladeshs independence. Yet, not every allegation hurled against the Pakistan army was true, while many crimes committed in the name of Bengali nationalism remain concealed.

Once one took a second look, some of the Jessore bodies are dressed in salwar kameez ? an indication that they were either West Pakistanis or Biharis, the non-Bengali East Pakistanis who had migrated from northern India.

As accounts from the involved parties ? Pakistan, Bangladesh and India ? tend to be highly partisan, it was best to search for foreign eye witnesses, if any. My search took me to newspaper archives from 35 years ago. The New York Times carried the photo on April 3, 1971, captioned: East Pakistani civilians, said to have been slain by government soldiers, lie in Jessore square before burial. The Washington Post carried it too, right under its masthead: The bodies of civilians who East Pakistani sources said were massacred by the Pakistani army lie in the streets of Jessore. East Pakistani sources said, and without further investigation, these august newspapers printed the photo.


Riaz Haqsaid...

More on Jessore massacre, as reported by Sharmila Bose of Telegraph newspaper in India.

In fact, if the Americans had read The Times of London of April 2 and Sunday Times of April 4 or talked to their British colleagues, they would have had a better idea of what was happening in Jessore. In a front-page lead article on April 2 entitled Mass Slaughter of Punjabis in East Bengal, The Times war correspondent Nicholas Tomalin wrote an eye-witness account of how he and a team from the BBC programme Panorama saw Bengali troops and civilians march 11 Punjabi civilians to the market place in Jessore where they were then massacred. Before we were forced to leave by threatening supporters of Shaikh Mujib, wrote Tomalin, we saw another 40 Punjabi spies being taken towards the killing ground?

Tomalin followed up on April 4 in Sunday Times with a detailed description of the mid-day murder of Punjabis by Bengalis, along with two photos ? one of the Punjabi civilians with their hands bound at the Jessore headquarters of the East Pakistan Rifles (a Bengal formation which had mutinied and was fighting on the side of the rebels), and another of their dead bodies lying in the square. He wrote how the Bengali perpetrators tried to deceive them and threatened them, forcing them to leave. As other accounts also testify, the Bengali irregulars were the only ones in central Jessore that day, as the Pakistan government forces had retired to their cantonment.

Though the military action had started in Dhaka on March 25 night, most of East Pakistan was still out of the governments control. Like many other places, local followers of Sheikh Mujib were in control in Jessore at that time. Many foreign media reported the killings and counter-killings unleashed by the bloody civil war, in which the army tried to crush the Bengali rebels and Bengali nationalists murdered non-Bengali civilians.

Tomalin records the local Bengalis claim that the government soldiers had been shooting earlier and he was shown other bodies of people allegedly killed by army firing. But the massacre of the Punjabi civilians by Bengalis was an event he witnessed himself. Tomalin was killed while covering the Yom Kippur war of 1973, but his eye-witness accounts solve the mystery of the bodies of Jessore.


anoopsaid...

"The politicians, particularly Bhutto, Mujib and Indira are also partly responsible for the massacre that occurred."

WRONG. India or Indira didnt have any part in any massacre related to pre-1971. It was a civil war between Bengali nationalists and Pakistan army. Bengalis did try violent rebellion but Pakistan army response was far greater. I am sure the text books of Pakistan would not show the brutalities of Pakistan army and even news media would concentrate on the violence of the Bengali nationalists and would make it appear as if Pakistan army was acting in self-defense. The number of violent acts by the Pakistan state which is entrusted with the task of protecting the commoners is much graver than the act of violence perpetrated by a mob.


Riaz Haqsaid...

anoop: "WRONG. India or Indira didnt have any part in any massacre related to pre-1971. It was a civil war between Bengali nationalists and Pakistan army. Bengalis did try violent rebellion but Pakistan..."

You are simply repeating yet another myth promoted by Indian govt, media and their supporters. Indian intelligence RAW was heavily involved in East Pakistan well before the 1971 war in sowing discord, arming and training Mukti Bahni and finally invading E Pak to ensure Pakistan's breakup.

There were atrocities by Pak military, but these are highly exaggerated to fit the false narrative. Most eyewitness estimates by fairly objective and independent people put the number at no more than 100,000 killed by all sides, mostly by India-backed Mukti Bahini.

The Telegraph story I shared here is indicative of how the tragedy has been exploited by people with an ax to grind.


anoopsaid...

Riaz,Whatever the arguments the fact remains that Pakistan lost Bangladesh more than we won it for them(Bengalis). Pakistan army went on rampage there and targeted civilians and even Hindus,who had no part in the revolution,mind you. They targeted Lecturers,Musicians and intellectuals in general. What do those people have to do with Revolutionaries? They are just like you and me. Pakistan lost Bengalis by these brutal acts. Have a look at the Hamoodar Rehman commission reports.http://www.bangla2000.com/Bangladesh/Independence-War/Report-Hamoodur-Rahman/default.shtm

http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/?page_id=2

http://www.liberationwarmuseum.org/liberationwar.html

http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html

Want more?? Its a mistake to give the power to the soldier. Proper power should never be in a soldier's hand. Soldiers are good at fighting and taking orders. If the roles are reversed you get a country like Pakistan. Martial race or no martial race, this rule is universal.Democracy and Civilian supremacy is the only solution to everything. Stop supporting your army and think. Who has done more harm to Pakistan? Your army or India?


Riaz Haqsaid...

Paul Brass, a US scholar and researcher, has published descriptions of regular pogroms and production of violence and terror against Indian minorities, and subsequent denials in India, including by some social scientists and scholars.

There are also lots of distortions and lies about minority population in Pakistan, propagated by hostile Indian and foreigners. In the western part of Pakistan, the minorities never exceeded single digits even at the time of partition when there was mass migration in both directions.

There have been many instances of violence against minorities in Pakistan. But, unlike India, there is no history of organized, state-sponsored pogroms against minorities in Pakistan. What happened in East Pakistan was a civil war inspired by RAW and its agents, and there were unscrupulous killers on all sides, including atrocities and massacres by some Pakistani soldiers.

Large numbers of non-Bengali civilians and military personnel were slaughtered by Indian-sponsored Mukti Bahini, as reported in Jessore massacre by Sarmila Bose in India's Telegraph newspaper when the pictures of the Punjabis killed by Mukti Bahini were mislabeled and misused as false propaganda against the Pakistani military.


anoopsaid...

Riaz,"What happened in East Pakistan was a civil war inspired by RAW and its agents"

Only Pakistanis believe that and clearly you all are in denial. I am sure the Bangladeshis who have lost their sons and daughters to Pakistani army's brutality will beg to differ. I wanted to show you vi

Documents

Haq's Musings: Demolishing Indian War Myths about Pakistan Indian War Myths about Pakistan ... In his book "War ... The movie was decried by many in India as "racist poverty porn"