The Ongoing IT Revolution and Security Implications for Pakistan

Looking at the replies, here it seems to me, Pakistanis are enjoying the vacation, while Indians are arguing. Look at the last few posts, it is all by Indians (Including this one).

sameerJB #230, crypto #249

` India went into siachen first etc etc ...`

A)

Obviously Sameer , crypto you need to brush up your military history a bit. Pakistan started sending military/civilian mountaineering expeditions into the Siachen area. This was a prelude to a Pakistani cartographic agression of the unmarked areas ahead of NJ 4982. Indians got wind of these expeditions and sent out a patrol to investigate. The patrol collected some vital info but persihed in the icy wastes. In 1983 Pakistan army (SSG company) came to a position called Bilafond La and occupied the position. It wanted to go further but becuase of approaching winter and logistic problems went no further. The operation to go ahead of Bilafond la was codenamed ` Taqbeer` or something similar sounding. The Pakistani army planned to go their in May 1984. The indian army as part of op `meghdoot` occupied Siachen in April 1984. Pakistan army took lot of casualties when they went to occupy the positions they thought were vacant but occupied by Indians. The present CEO of Pakistan was among some of the SSG who were part in these and other failed attempts.

Subsequent to 1984 Indians pushed Pakis to the Saltoro ridge. One of the most important posts to fall was the Pakistani `Quaid ` post. subedar Bana Singh of J&K LI got Param Vir chakra for the effort. benazir bhutto taunted Gen Zia for Pakistani rout at Siachen and its withdrawl ( lots of experience in withdrawls). So the current position is at saltoro and not Siachen. Howeber, the Pakistani governement made its citizens believE that the positions were at SiAchen. Pakistanis now dont own an inch of Siachen!!!!! However the name Siachen has stuck becuase the first round of fighting occured at Siachen.

For a better perspective

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/5040/map7.html

a very interesting map indeed. Some vital points

a) LAC - line of actual control ( this is the position today )

b) Since LOC was not defined ahead of NJ 4982, the map somehow shows a LOC ahead of NJ 4982!!!!????

c) From NJ4982 if one were to go in a NORTHERLY ( as suggested in Simla accord) direction , you certainly cant reach Karakoram pass!!!! for that you need to go EAST!!!!

B) How about the 1965 war? The common argument is Indians attacked Pakistan first in Punjab. But what was the provocation? Pakistani regulars dressed as freedom fighters ( a la Kargil) entered Kashmir to plunder, pillage and hopefully annex. What they did not bargain for was an Indian riposte in Punjab. ( how similar to Kargil, some people dont ever learn)

C) 71, the less said the better.

Yes, it was india that occupied the heights at Siachen first in 1984. Whether that was a preemptive move or otherwise is debatable. As somebody has pointed out, the LoC is delineated only until map point NJ 9842. ``thence north to the glaciers`` - is how ceasefire line was defined in 1949 indo-pak agreement. this is suffieciently vague enough for our strategists to latch on to their own interpretation. pakistan extrapolates LoC in a straight along north-east joining NJ9842 with the karakoram pass. india - needless to say - extrapolates to the north west direction along the soltoro range.

there are different opinions among the indian political establishment about the handling of siachen. some people favour a settlement with pakistan about mutual withdrawl from siachen, as the defense of siachen comes with a HUGE price tag for india. considering the extremely hostile and uninhabitable terrain, it is not worth the while to defend it at that cost. it is also true that unlike its policy on J&K, pakistan is quite flexible with siachen. (even as recent as 1992, both the countries came close to a settlement)

some others argue for holding siachen tight at any cost, since it is pakistans`s `bleeding ground`. pakistan also drains a lot of resources in siachen, and therefore withdrawing from there would release the pressure on pakistan.

But the indian army has the last say. the army`s position is that the holding on to siachen is vital to the defense of indian forces at Leh and kargil against a chinese and/or pakistani assault. siachen is the wedge between pakistan-kashmir and aksai-chin, and as such the presence of indian forces at siachen would enable india to monitor the karakoram highway and to prevent the aksaichin highway from being connected to karakoram pass.

who`s right, who`s wrong we might never be allowed to know. fact is, it IS india that holds the key to resolving siachen. india is in sitting tight on the commanding heights of the glacier, that directly dislodging them from that position by the relatively low-lying pakistanis would be next to impossible task. may be that`s why pakistan chose the low cost kargil route to cut-off indian supply lines. many pakistanis on chowk have already convinced us of this fact ;-).

That does not take away the foolishness of the move. everything about it was stupid except the purpose. and now you guys are paying it dear.

(i remember reading a article, of indo-pak combined authorship, that pakistan considers siachen as a local issue while the J&K as an international one. may be it is true. look at the scant attention siachen gets even in paki press compared to the prominence given for indian-JK affairs. WHY ???)

PS: 97% of deaths on both sides in Siachen is caused by the harsh weather and living conditions and only 3% on combat.

shankar #243, ``I guess if there were more women leaders in this world, we wouldnt be in this sorry state.``

I once read an interesting joke:

A woman once asked God why he created man first.

God replied, ``I had to make a rough draft before making the final copy.`` ;)

Perhaps these male leaders are rough drafts of the final copies yet to come.

Once, I came across a bumper sticker that read ,

``God bless President Clinton and her husband Bill.``

scout

RE: shankar

``I guess if there were more women leaders in this world, we wouldnt be in this sorry state.``

Are you related to Barbara Streisand or Sally Struthers?

Pakistan should stop copying India if ever wants to come out ot Indian shadow. What is good for India is not necesssarily good for Pakistan. Instead of wasting precious resources in trying to find a niche in an already crowded field of IT, Pakistan should concentrate building on its areas of strength. Pakistan has advantages in textile and agriculture. World needs clothes and food more than IT. World textile market is worth 1 trillion dollars and if Pakistan can tap even 5% of world textile market, its foreign currency problems can be resolved. These sectors are man-power intensive and can provide millions of jobs. Unfortunatley Pakistan sell only raw cotton and low margin items like T-shirts and beddings. There is no effort in tapping high value market with newer designs. Pakistan can also develop its fashion industry beyond salwar-kameez era. Imagine if Pakistan had peace, multinational companies will start moving shops to Pakistan, a country with plenty of cotton/textiles and talented work force in that field.

IT is not panacea for Pakistan or even for India but India is much better placed because it has strong foundation and had a head start. I hope my comments are not construed as discouraging Pakistani efforts in IT field but in my opinion IT sector is not the right course for Pakistan`s economy. IT will benefit only few thousand but other sectors can benefit millions.

Pakistan should stop fantasising about taking advantage about strategic location. I have yet to hear about a country which is not strategically located. American spin bowlers use this term to pump up their lackeys in various parts of the world. No country prospers just on the basis of their location. Rule of law, hard work and peace within its borders is must for any development.

Just my two anna thoughts...

Re: vsn

``But dont you discriminate against dumb people, arrogant people, irresponsible people, obnoxious people,..etc in one way or the other?``

Good point you raise. I wonder what people think of firms throwing out resumes from students who don`t come from Ivy League or other top-10 schools. Is that a type of unfair discrimination?

RSaxena,

Hehehe

You cretin, I KNEW you could`nt resist swallowing my bait.

Baaaa

What a b-a-k-r-a!

Scout,

{{Hey, what about Slink and Sadhna and Jawahara and Zahra and Zehra and Fozia and Frog-goddess and Sobia and Lubna and Anamika and many many other women without whom Chowk lacks flavor and female worldliness.}}

Sorry about that:) When youre right youre right!

Aapeki maufi chaahata haun.

There are too many names (yours especially) that I included in the category of ``many, many others``.

I guess if there were more women leaders in this world, we wouldnt be in this sorry state. After all, think about what Benazir could have done for Pakistan, if it had`nt been for her idiot ``Mr 10% husband`` !

Re: shankar

``For eg, if you follow RSaxena`s posts carefully, he lashes out at India vociferously (when his guard is down).``

You sneaky little leftist...thought you`d get away with this didn`t you? Just wait and see what comes your way next...

VijayAmrit #227

I can tell you why a person reading history cannot criticize four wives.

The commandment for (a maiximum of) four wives came after Ghazwah Uhad (battle of Uhad) in which a large number of Muslims were killed. And there was a problem of widows. In Islam extramarital sex is not allowed, and that was the solution.

That is why most Muslims, particularly practicing Muslims engage in monogamous relationship, and polygamy is an exception, rather than a rule.

As far as Arab Sheikhs, their oil wealth has made their behaviour similar to their western counterparts with wealth, the difference is this that one gives it a cover of liberalism and other twists Islam.

shankar #235, ``Chowk has given me a new found

respect for Pakistanis like yourself, Bilal, tahmed, Sameer,Feroze & many many others.``

Hey, what about Slink and Sadhna and Jawahara and Zahra and Zehra and Fozia and Frog-goddess and Sobia and Lubna and Anamika and many many other women without whom Chowk lacks flavor and female worldliness.

Some men are such MCP`s.

scout

Urstruly,

Bus, sirf ``tsk,tsk,tsk`` ?!

Kuch to kaho ji

Aandey aur tamatar phekna hai to pheklijiye

I can duck:)

RE: Shankar #237

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

Mere pyaare Chowkwalloh,

Please forgive my numerous postings. My wife & teenage daughter are trying to drag me to the mall for shopping on this fine Labor Day weekend. I`m trying to tell them I have more important things to do. My wife accuses me of engaging in verbal masturbation about Indo-Pak relations.

I`m telling her if we cant have sex this fine afternoon, I might as well masterbate (er, verbally, ofcourse). It sure beats the heck out of going shopping. O my fellow menfolk of Indo-Pak, please support me on this point at least!

Let me bring up the issue of Kargil. Pakistanis are irritated why Indians are beating this horse to death, especially when Pakistanis on Chowk have criticised Kargil. Not to mention that we Indians are so convieniently downplaying Siachen & sweeping our other demons under the carpet.

First of all, I`m not asking Pakistanis to judge us differently. That privilege is yours & yours only. I want Pakistanis to put their personal biases aside & try to empathise where Indians are coming from. Why are we squaking so much about Kargil? that some have gone to the extent of boycotting Pakistanis & their products; especially when there is plenty of hypocracy within us.

The Lahore Peace process was not any ordinary deal for us; it was a HUGE deal.In fact it was the biggest deal in our sorry Indo-Pak relations. This was the first time EVER that an Indian Prime Minister stepped foot on Pakistani soil. Vajpayee defied the radical elements in his party & went to Pakistan. The partition generation of India (which is still in power today) has struggled to reconcile with the two nation theory. This visit was a big deal because it symbolised their emotional acceptance that Pakistan was a separate distinct country with which we have to do business with. Even though the meeting didnt produce any great results, that fact that it even happened was a major triumph that there are people on both sides who are willing to put our grudges (real or imagined) aside & talk. It set the ball rolling in the right direction.

If the Government of Pakistan was angry about Siachen & Kargil was a justifiable military strategy, then for God`s sake DONT invite Vajpayee. If you`ve taken the responsibility of being a gracious host, then you`ve taken the responsibility of being sincere about it. Either cancel the Kargil plan or cancel the invitation. You cant have it both ways. What does it say about the famous Pakistani hospitality, when you plan & execute Kargil while you are entertaining our Prime Minister?

I think what Vajpayee was most pissed about was the radical Indian fundos started squaking ``WE TOLD YOU SO!!!``

As far as Indians were concerned, it is the epitomy of the proverb ``bhagal mein churi---`` The fact that this was the first war on tv, galvanised most Indians-even those who had no interest in politics. Indian muslims were just as outraged as hindus. Few events in recent history have brought Indians behind one banner as this one. So, as much as you justify Kargil with Siachen, it doesnt mean a whole lot to us--right,wrong or indifferent. The issue of Siachen should have been dealt with in diplomacy rather than military tactics.

How did the rest of the world see it? They all sided with India. Even the ``all weather friend`` China told Pakistan to cut the crap--politely, of course. To make matters worse, Nawaz Shariff & Musharaff publicly contradicted each other. When Pakistan blames India for trying to isolate it internationally, its a joke. Indian diplomacy, govermental or NGO has`nt been effective. Its not that they havent tried, its just that they arent as successful as many think they are. Pakistan has done a great job digging its own grave.

OK, so our stalwart Pakistani brothers have been very critical of that mistake. But thats a moot point. The very honorable Musharraf STILL insists that the Pakistani military was not invovled. He STILL insists that Pakistan is only giving ``moral & political`` aid to the jehadis. He said that with a straight face when he spoke to Clinton! Do you really think Clinton bought his line? Heck he did`nt even publicly shake his hand! If the rest of the world doesnt buy it, how in the hell do you expect Indians to buy it?!

Right,wrong or indifferent, to Indians, Musharraf is the diabolical villain in this plot. He was the evil genious who refused to obey NS & refused to be present at the Lahore peace process. He was the main guy behind the betrayal of Kargil. They see him showing absolutely no remorse for his actions. They dont believe that he is giving only moral & political support to the jehadi/(terrorists in their eyes). He continues to go on the stump & rouses Pakistanis to fervor on the Kashmir issue. Then he publicly wonders why India refuses to talk to him. The Indian response is ``Mushy, youre so full of sh *t, that youre eyes have turned brown!!``

Personally, I`m in favor of talks because that is the only hope our countries have for survival. Our responsibility for the commitment to peace is something we have to undertake, for the sake of our children. Mushy or no Mushy, we have to get along ,we have no choice but let go of our grudges. Besides, who among us has`nt made mistakes or has`nt sinned?

vsn #116 I am surprised at the arrogance and exaggerated sense of self importance displayed by you and some other Indians posters. As krashid says, God finds a living for everyone. There is a lot more to the IT revolution than what you and your felllow Indian chauvinists will ever know.

sadna# 177 So we Pakistanis do not have a monopoly on bigots!