Eqbal Ahmad: Post - Pokhran Days

Reply #: 17

Fuzair

I have heard something similar too. However, what I heard was that Pakistan was going to launch a massive preemptive attack on Kashmir, that India was not ready to retaliate and hence it did something to buy it some time.

That talk about preemptive strikes on Paksitani nuclear installations, began after India did its tests, and before Pakistan initiated its own tests.

I must admit, that these are based heresay, and I am not sure how accurate they are.

AD

Reply #: 23

Fuzair

YOU WROTE:

``

So why the initial hesitation on our part? Pakistan`s nuclear weapons research program has been at a fairly advanced stage for a long time but there was still some doubt as to whether or not we could (a) carry out a test, or (b) had enough fissile material for more than one or at the most two bombs.

``

From what I know, Pakistan was already perparing to conduct these tests, with or without india, doing so first. The only thing INdia`s test did were to prepone the testing date.

Pakistan does not have the ability to simulate nuclear devices on computers, for lack of data and for lack of super computers. It needed to do at least one of the 2, if it had any hope of developing its nuclear capability. Keep in mind that USA was putting a lot of pressure on Pakistan to sign the CTBT, and Pakistan needed to get the data before it signed the treaty.

AD

In response to AD (Reply # 30)

Dear AD:

I know as much as you do. Of course, the Pakistani official version of Kargil would be different from the Indian official version. What Pakistan calls freedom fighters are called terrorists by India. I suspect, the freedom fighters (Pakistani perspective) did not act alone and they were supported by various public and private agencies/organizations in Pakistan. Having said this, I must reiterate that I believe in the right of self-determination of “all” people of Jammu and Kashmir. Unfortunately, the trouble in Kashmir, particularly during the past eleven year or so, has been escalated by the actions of Indian security forces. Both India and Pakistan must pledge for a peaceful and honorable resolution of the Kashmir problem.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

AD:#30

I appreciate your desire to find out the `truth`.

Today on the net one can get `fed` or choose the `food` one wants.It might benefit you to read major newspapers/magazines from both sides & form your own opinion.

But you`ll never `win`.The reason is that NO source in the world is un-biased or completely pressure-free.Thank God! that it is so.Otherwise journalists & the book-worm kind would be called most `knowledgeable`.Besides,the dynamics & `fluxability` of the situations alters the mind which was already mulling the `truth`.

May I suggest that you get some inter-acters from the both sides of the Kashmiri border & have them interact on chowk.Have you ever wondered why we do not hear anybody who is residing in Indian Occupied Kashmir.Is there an Indian method to it.Please send us some cut & pastes from Kashmiri muslims if available from the Indian boards.Also,I wish more inter-acters with Singh backgrounds are ssen on chowk.They seem very conspicuous by their absence.



I am perhaps the least qualified person to give you the answers in a very specific manner.I have a very biased & determined mindset as far as Kashmir & its muslim population(or for that matter muslims of India are concerned).My heart beats in unison with theirs & like the needles magnetised we all bow in one direction at the appointed hours.No feeling of nationhood(Ummah) is greater than that in the world.

Like a dynamo,this harnessed magnetic power is just waiting to be primed & generated.

``Nava Para ho ai bulbul,kay ho teray tarranum say

kabootar kay tun e naazuk mein shaheen ka jigar paida``

A L L A M A Iqbal.

tr: O nightingale(poet) sing!! sing so that your melody may make heart of a pigeon(oppressed muslim) as daring as that of an eagle.

___________________________________________________wassalam

So Prof. Hoodbhoy wants nuclear disarmament. Leave it to a Tamil Brahmin to put the matter in perspective. K. Subrahmanyam, a strategic analyst, is reported to have said, ``What the world needs is for blacks in America to become 51% of the population. Then you will get rid of your nuclear weapons the next day, as South Africa has prepared to do.`` (Reported by George Perkovich in his book ``India`s Nuclear Bomb.``)

Re: AD #35

Ha ha ha! Thats a good one. Pakistan launch a massive preemptive attack on India! Now, don`t get me wrong. We would like nothing better than to launch a massive attack on the Indians but Pakistan has been on the strategic defensive since 1965 for the simple reason that we know we would lose any war we ever fought with India. (No, we didn`t start the 1971 War; Indian and Pakistani troops had been fighting brigade strength actions in E. Pakistan since early November when the Indians started massively supporting Mukhti Bahini insurgents launching cross-border raids; the premptive Pakistani airstrikes on Dec 3rd were a pathetic attempt to try to remedy a disastrous strategic situation and they worked beautifully--for the Indians.)

We are not likely to repeat the mistake of 1965 when we thought we could keep a ``limited`` war confined to ``disputed`` Kashmir. The simple fact of the matter is that you only launch a premptive strike if you think that, with the element of surprise and a lot of luck, you can win a decisive victory. The chances of the Pakistani Army trying to do a coup de main in Kashmir are minimal because we know we would lose. Conventional military wisdom holds that you have to outnumber the enemy 3:1 before you have a reasonable chance of victory. I don`t think we outnumber the Indians three to one in Kashmir.

The Pakistani general officers are not all military idiots and some have even studied the 1965 and 1971 Wars--not enough though since, as far as I know no systematic attempt has ever been made within the Army to analyze the wars and figure out a way to improve the Army`s performance.

I seriously think that was Indian propaganda you heard. The idea of a massive strike in Kashmir is ridiculous in the extreme.

Rumours are flying today that either Pakistan
or India or both, are planning more nuclear
tests very soon.

Ras

temporal: Believe me I read the entire article, you pasted, by Asghar Ali Engineer. I wish that all the authors who write so eloquently about Islam, must answer ``yes`` or ``no`` upfront to the following two questions.

1) Do you believe that an imlementation of ``real Islam`` definitely means a healthy, prosperous and tranquil society?

2) Do you believe that most of Islamic teachings we beleive in, were responsible for coalescing of feuding Arab tribes leading to magnificient Islamic empires or most of Islamic teachings we believe in were not the by-product of Islamic empire building efforts?

If the answer to both of these question is ``yes``, then it is basically a waste of time to read such articles any further. Unfortunately, most of the Islamic authors would answer ``yes``. Once they make constants out of two variables and simplify the equation to, ``true Islam is directly proportional to benevolence or improvement of the society. Using freshmen mathematics, ``true Islam is equal to a constant times benevolence``. What if the value of the constant is very large? The benovolence would be negligible. Same equation can be rearranged to, ``true Islam divided by benevolence equals to a constant``. For most, due to the divine nature or revealed truth of true Islam, it is also a constant. This makes it a static exercise in a dynamic world. No wonder most ardent Islamic societies are also most static.

It is desired for true Islam to be a variable, a constantly changing, according to the conditions of the nations, ethnicities, neighborhoods, families all the way to each individual. If reinterpretation is the key, and the magnificient and advanced Islamic empires of 1000 years ago proved the benefits of the evolution of Islamic thoughts, then all of Islamic teachings could not be revelations or divine. They mostly developed out of the need of Islamic empires. Now read the question number 2 again. The answer to question 2 should be ``no`` or ``most of Islamic teachings we believe in, were the by-product of Islamic empire building efforts``, before any meaningful arguement in defense of true Islam could be made.

Fuzair re:40

And, in fact, India was planning to launch airstrikes in West Pakistan on Dec 6th. Our own strikes proved a marvelous propaganda coup (despite the fact, as you mentioned, that Indian troops were already in East Pakistani territory). (as an aside to Sigalph: I refer to Bangladesh as East Pakistan in all it`s pre-Independence timing.. not because I`m hiding my head in the sand, but merely for accuracy - or would that be anal-retentiveness?).

And remember, documents were found in the bunkers of Kargil illustrating the bold Pakistani plan to sweep down into the Indian plains from the `beach-head` established there!.. sorry, can`t remember the Indian paper that reported that. Wouldn`t that be a cause to worry?

AD: ``Because unlike India, Pakistan refuses to sign a NO-First Use treaty. That means India must be able to withstand a first strike and then be able to retaliate. Simple answer to a simple question.``

AD could you explain your understanding of the concept of India`s tri-platform strategy? Are you familiar with the counter measures that are necessary to create a deterence against first strike? Do you know what the first target is during a first strike? How can a country that has fewer nuclear warheads than its opposition launch a first strike? What would it gain from that? I am not quite sure whether you understand the strategic aspects of the subject you are commenting on. That is quite scary, since nuclear issues should not be decided by emotions. I will however give you the benefit of the doubt until you explain your understanding of nuclear related concepts and strategies. Perhaps I am not seeing the picture correctly.

Pakistan has been trying since the past decade to declare South Asia a nuclear free zone. Pakistan has repeatedly requested India to mutually scale down nuclear programs completely. India has never agreed. Why not just get rid of nuclear weapons all together in South Asia?

India is interested in a first no-use because it has has a much larger conventional military than Pakistan. Also, because India has now realized that it made a huge strategic mistake vis-a-vis Pakistan by turning South Asia nuclear. India has been trying to get Pakistan into stalemate situations militarily, everywhere it can. This is why India is not agreeing to bilateral withdrawls from Siachen. That is also why India wanted Pakistan to explode a nuclear device. It made a gamble that Pakistan would not be able to withstand the corresponding economic sanctions, and implode. However that has yet to happen.

India also wants to continue the arms race in South Asia for the same reason. However, now with a nuclear umbrella, Pakistan does not need to match the conventional military budget increases of India. The current decision by Pakistan not to raise its military budget, even though India raised its military budget, was historic. It indicates that Pakistan is now completely relying on a nuclear deterence, as its first line of defence. India`s increases in conventional budget do not make too much difference anymore. This goes against India`s strategy of getting Pakistan`s into a budgetary arms race (much like the US successfully did with the USSR). So, I have yet to see what India has gained from the nuclear blasts internationally, or with respect to Pakistan. On the whole, it has made Pakistan`s job of defending itself strategically quite a bit easier. In a nuclear conflict, the superiority in tanks, soldiers, and ships the opposing country enjoys, become immaterial. Just like Siachen (and Kargil), the turning of South Asia into a nuclear zone was a useless excercise. What did India gain?

``Correct me if I am wrong, but was Zia a moderate ?

(And i mean it seriously, I am not sure if he was or was not a moderate person, but i have seen someone refer to him as a person responsible for the Jehadisation of Pakistan) ?``

Some answers to your questions. Zia was not a moderate religously or politically. But neither is Vajpayee or the BJP. They are quite a bit more extremist than Zia ever was (at least according to the BJP manifesto and philosophy). Since Zia is no longer alive, and the BJP is running India, who do you think is more dangerous?

The second point to note is that Zia was professionally a general. So he did understand the strategic aspects of nuclear warfare. He could have ordered the explosion of a nuclear device; but he did not. We cannot say the same for Vajpayee, since he made it a point to explode a nuclear device. In Pakistan, religous extremist parties have never even come close to getting power. In India they are running the country, and thus have their finger on the nuclear button. Once again, who is more dangerous in a nuclear scenario; the unelectable Paksitani religious extremist who only has a street level nuisanse value, or the elected Indian religous nationalist party, which has its finger on the nuclear trigger? I am surprise you continue to worry about religous extremism in Pakistan, without looking at what is happening in India.

``From what I hear, one of the core commanders under General Musharraf is considered to be an extremist, and even the general has trouble controlling him.``

This one actually doesn`t deserve a reply. It sounds like a dialogue from the newest set of Indian movies. If by core commander, you mean corps commander, then please point out the name of the general and the corps he is commanding. And why would a COAS, who happens to be running the country as well, have trouble controlling a corps commander. All he has to do is sign the guy`s resignation letter. It only takes five minutes.

correction to #44: Last line: ``All he has to do is sign the guy`s resignation letter. It only takes five minutes.``

should read, All he has to do is sign the guy`s dismissal letter. It only takes five minutes.

Reply #: 44

Umairr

YOU WROTE:

``AD could you explain your understanding of the concept of India`s tri-platform strategy? Are you familiar with the counter measures that are necessary to create a deterence against first strike? Do you know what the first target is during a first strike? How can a country that has fewer nuclear warheads than its opposition launch a first strike? What would it gain from that? I am not quite sure whether you understand the strategic aspects of the subject you are commenting on.``

Well I think I know what I am talking about, though I am always willing to learn new things.

First strike is initiated, to incapicitate the enemy so badly that he is unable to recover. Newspaper ariticles talked about the fact that New Delhi was under the nuclear range of Pakistani missiles and if a first strike was to be initiated by Pakistan, then the legislative, administrative and judicial bodies could be incapicitated instantly, leaving INdia, with no visible leadership.

You mentioned that Pakistan has fewer war heads than India. But, that does not make any difference, if you cut off the enemy`s head, right.

India`s tri-platform strategy, was based on the fact that even if our land based missile delivery systems were to be incapacitated, we could still launch the same by submarine/ship and areial avenues. The commanders of the nuclear carrying devices, are to act independently, at the first sign of communication break down, ie they have to assume, that New Delhi is down, and hence communication/orders are not going to be recieved.

PLease excuse my spelling, I really messed up the ``corps`` / ``core`` thing :-). But I read that article in Dawn, where a reporter asked for clarification from Mr. Musharraf, on his differences with one of his subordinates.

Since I do not have enough info, about this one, I will not indulge in further discussion. Although one thing you might want to consider, is that during Zia`s time, the military was ``Islamized``. A lot of officers who at one time when to study in the top military colleges in UK and USA, were being eased out and were replaced by fundamentalists. This I read in one of Mr. Cowasjees artilces, from Dawn.

Anyway, I am looking forward to your comments, on my insufficent knowlegde about nuclear strike protocols.

AD

The notion that nuclear weapons will act as a deterrent to war is a myth. A full-scale conventional war may go on for months without using nukes. A limited scale war is always in progress between Pakistan and India. Capturing enemy territory is no more an objective of the war. The principle objective is to inflict as much ``collateral damage`` on the enemy as possible. A war is an expensive affair and may cause an economy to collapse. The limited-scale border wars between India and Pakistan are fought, principally, keeping this objective in mind. Sometimes, the objective is to provide cover to cross-border terrorists (from both sides) to infiltrate into the enemy territory. The cross-border terrorism is another form of warfare. Pakistan supports Kashmiri insurgents and provides training whereas Indians mastermind the ethnic and religious violence inside Pakistani territory. It is impossible to seal the borders since authorities are fully involved in cross-border smuggling on both sides.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of this insanity. The world powers and multinational corporations have vested interests with this situation. It not only helps sell weapons and even food but also keeps subcontinent from becoming a self-sustaining economic entity(ies). As long as the last objective is being achieved the powers that be wont let us turn each other into wastelands. I think, we should not worry about getting vaporized, instead we should keep our focus on producing generation after generation of short-sighted masses, as we are presently doing. Someone has to keep the hamster wheel running.

Re: AD #44

Was Zia a moderate? As a matter of fact, yes, he was. Don`t forget, Kargil was planned under Zia (not by him, there is a difference) and was apparently shelved by him when Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, then FM, pointed out that no ``limited`` war would be possible and we should only go ahead with it if we were willing to fight an all out war with India. The story goes that it took Zia about 5 seconds to say no to the operation. Also, don`t forget the Cricket Diplomacy episode (the exact details of which escape me: Gymnosophist to the rescue?).

Zia, despite all of his many faults, was a professional soldier and an excellent staff officer. He was very concerned about the professional competence of the Army and under him attention was paid to serious training of junior and middle ranking officers. Its an other matter that a large chunk of this training was Islamic-focussed.

In this week`s The Friday Times, the news item ``Professor Nayyar of QAU speaks out in his defence`` carries this statement: ``Linking the state of collective paranoia with nuclear weapons, I quoted a serving Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee telling my friend Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy some years ago that he would not mind if Indians in retaliation to a Pakistani use of nuclear weapon destroyed all the Pakistani cities and killed millions, as long as Pakistan could harm India in some manner.``

Would it be possible for Prof. Hoodbhoy to confirm this?

Even more important, this shows that the Pak Army is trying to articulate policy. For a statement such as suggesting the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, Gen. Douglas MacArthur was fired by President Truman. So, even if this particular statement was not policy but one man`s opinion, the fact remains that in any other society this would have earned the general early retirement from the Army.

No Indian Army officer would even suggest something similar with respect to China.

Please do not call the general`s statement MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD ensures both sides will pull back from the brink. This is madness because the general recognized that India cannot be destroyed totally with the limited number of nuclear weapons in Pakistan`s hands.

Fuzair, Umairr

``Was Zia a moderate?`` Well sir(s),as the Prime

Militaryshariff (credit acknowledged to RAS or t(?))would say, it all depends on how

you define `moderate`.Over here in the land of the

purest of the pures, we take Oxford or Webster`s

give it a little Arabian spin, turn into an oppositus, a shed antagonistic, and a somewhat diametric dimensional view. So, to get back to the

yawning question, Yes, the answer is YES! Oh, that

blasted (sorry for the usage) C-130!!!!!!