Group Captain Cecil Chaudhry, SJ

This was not my only interview with a war hero.I interviewed Naseerullah Babar,Tajammul Hussain Malik, and some others who I do not recognise as war heroes like Shamim Manto,Ali Kuli Khan,Imtiaz Warraich,Syed Wajahat Hussain,Z.A Khan etc.

A wonderful interview with one of PAF`s best. Thank you, Gp. Capt. Chaudhry, for your honest appraisal of many things, not the least of which was your uninhibited account of Air Marshal Anwar Shamim`s and his wife`s damaging `contributions` to a solid institution. Even for Pakistan, they stuck out like a sore thumb. Even for a country where nepotism and sycophancy is the norm, they were head and shoulders above the rest. They were frightening.

Also, I get really frustrated when I see that so many articles on Chowk result in petty infighting among Indian and Pakistani readers (through their Interact posts). Pleeeeeeeeeease, let`s grow up.

Reply #: 326

Shah,

``You sir,have the luxury of pontification.Have you ever been oppressed,occupied,emasculated,violated,lost everything ,most of all your dignity,honour & selfrespect ,grew up in refugee camp like shabra shatilla,....?``.

Agreed, my friend. Still, violence is not justified. Violence begets violence. Everyone is hurt in the process. The original purpose, however genuine or justified,gets diluted. Need i repeat the eg of LTTE?

sridhar

Shah 326

[You sir,have the luxury of pontification.Have you ever been oppressed,occupied,emasculated,violated,lost everything ,most of all your dignity,honour & selfrespect ,grew up in refugee camp like shabra shatilla,....?]

I have seen Bihari Pakistanis left in Bangladeshi camps by Pakistan.

Re:Reply #: 286

Shah,

Human bombs are also a sign of desperation. I am surprised that educated people like you and some others in Chowk should support terrorism. Is it something in muslim psyche that they get attracted to terrorism.

I am strictly against any kind of terrorism however justified the cause may be. This includes terrorism as practised by Hamas, LTTE or Jehadists in Kashmir. States do not succumb to terrorism. Tell me one instance where terrorism has been successful in its objective. IRA in Ireland have not succeeded for many decades. LTTE has failed to win sympathies of the world even though their grievances are genuine. Assasination of Rajiv Gandhi brought only revulsion to Indians in general and Tamilians in particular, so much so that nobody speaks of supporting them in India (before this,some political parties use to openly associate with LTTE,not anymore).

Terrorism as a means of achieving political objective is a bad policy. Israel will use all its power to defeat the terrorists. Same goes for GOI. It will never succumb to Jehadists, however high the price may be.

Reply Bapu #318

Bapu

I have answered your posting on the ``Indian james Bond`` board where for some reason you also posted it.

Zafar

Bapu,

Please make note of the fact that I am not an Indian but a Pakistani.

-YLH

re soysauce

``You seem to be arguing for the sake of it. ``

And, I guess you`re arguing for the greater good of humanity.

``It is convenient to lump everything together so the other side is the one to blame always.``

Reading your posts, I agree 100 per cent.

``I think you are being more catholic than the pope in trying to defend israel.``

If you have followed Chowk for a while, you`ll surely know that I am a strong defender of the right of Israel to exist within safe and secure frontiers with Jerusalem as its capital. The proverb you mention aside, the Roman pontiff is actually quite friendly with Arafat.

But to your thrust of argument. ACtually the settlements never ceased because random terror (even before this latest surge of organized violence) never ceased. How could Barak convince his countrymen to give settlements to keep OSlo when Arafst could not keep his side of the bargain in reining in Hamas (jailing Sheikh Yasin in a villa doen`t count).

I mention the Arab countries only because those who routinely castigate Israeli abuse of Palestinians conveniently forget how the ARab bretheren treat the Palestinians. People tend to forget that the second genocide at Sabra and Shatila and Bruj al Brajneh was perpetrated by the Amal under guidance from the SYrians.

#317 sigalph

You seem to be arguing for the sake of it. The second intifada did not start until the israelis kept reneging on the settlement issue. It is convenient to lump everything together so the other side is the one to blame always. If you look at the chronology, the palestinians were griping about the israelis not sticking to the terms of the Oslo Accord (no violence yet) and the dispute Jerusalem let all hell break loose. I think you are being more catholic than the pope in trying to defend israel. There are many, many israelis (not the majority obviously) who objected to Barak`s footdragging on the peace process (he was hemmed in by the Right) and felt he should go further.

I myself mentioned that the rest of the arabs have abandoned the palestinians. What is the point of mentioning the syrians and jordanias in this context? Are you arguing that the palestinians can be abused by israelis so long as other arabs have abused them also? If so, you live in a very strange world.

#318 Bapu

Just another mean-spirited idiot who conveniently quotes Gandhiji.

Reply Bapu #318

Bapu

If you want to ask me a question, please ask and I will do my best to reply.

All I could tell from your posting was that you didn`t like what I said, and you didn`t like the way I said it, and this had something to do with Israel, and you did like Gandhi (of course - your name!), and you doubted if I was a good Muslim (?), and maybe (I`m not sure) you just didn`t like the present generation of Indians in general, and you didn`t like Hindutva also. Poor YLH also came into this somehow.

What is your question? Have I missed it?

Best wishes,

Zafar

PS You wrote ``Bande Matram`` - are you Bengali?

#: 311

Zafar Al-Talib

All you present generation Indians ,brought up on fortified hindutva diet of` Bande Matram`& selfishly basking in the international good will brought aboput by Gandhi`s Non violence,puritymjustice & saintliness,are now only paying lip service to him.

Gandhi ,your Father,whose inheritence you so proudly posess yet disobeid Gandhi`s opinion of Israel .Gandhi thaught down right unjust,barbaric & nepotism ,of Balfour declaration,to give someone elses land to third party israelis.

The present day Indians have been turned against Gandhi by the Sangh arivar,Hindu or Muslim.YLH,dont forget many muslims are Sanghi like Sikander Bakht,Naqvi & loks like some indian muslims on this board.By including Naqvi & Bakht ,Sanghi have not become less comunal but these muslims credentials are in doubt.

re soysauce

``You seem not to have kept abreast of the events in the middle east. In case you didn`t know Sharon is now the prime minister.``

I am quite aware of it. Please don`t consider yourself the CNN here. I mentioned `General` SHaron, because it is a mark of respect for someone who`s been in the services. Perhaps you`re unaware of polite protocol.

``The palestinians are supposed to have self rule in their territories after they signed the Oslo Accord. The Accord stipulated freezing and dismantling of jewish settlements from palestinian areas.``

Yes, provided that Palestinian self rule authorities took `full and concrete measures to stop terror directed against Israeli territory and citizens`. Obviously the Arafat clique have not assured that at all.

`` That did not happen.``

No, kidding.

`` Abu Nidal is long dead``

...bless his soul and that of the rest of his terror gang. May they get their just due for Rome and Vienna and Achille Lauro.

``... and Yasser Arafat has given up violence.``

Yeah, and the Pope is a Baptist.

``You can find all this just about anywhere you look. Even Arafat seems to agree that violence is a bad means for a good end but the israelis apparently haven`t got over their siege mentality. ``

I must need powerful eyeglasses because only thing I see is Arafat`s continued refusal to rein in his Tanzim and other terror outfits. Why should Isreael get over the seige mentality? Remember Syria and Lebanon, along with a majority of the Arab states are still technically at war with Israel, committed to driving the Jewish people to the sea. And that will be tough. In 1948, recalling the earlier part of the decade, the Jews pledged themselves and their posterity, `never again`.

#309 sigalph

You seem not to have kept abreast of the events in the middle east. In case you didn`t know Sharon is now the prime minister. The palestinians are supposed to have self rule in their territories after they signed the Oslo Accord. The Accord stipulated freezing and dismantling of jewish settlements from palestinian areas. That did not happen. Abu Nidal is long dead and Yasser Arafat has given up violence. You can find all this just about anywhere you look. Even Arafat seems to agree that violence is a bad means for a good end but the israelis apparently haven`t got over their siege mentality.

Anyway, the report today is that the US has agreed with the other G8 nations that outside observers are necessary and the Mitchell Plan must be implemented for there to be peace. This is the only silver lining in the horizon for the palestinians.

Re: Romair`s phony concerns for Indian Muslims

In case you didn`t read it, let me repost what Zafar (an Indian Muslim) has said about India purchasing weapons from Israel:

``As for how Indian Muslim feel about India buying Israeli arms - probably not thrilled, but not heart broken either. If India needs them, and Israel is selling them, well...Who should India have bought them from, Afghanistan?``

Now if I were you I would either just keep my trap shut or admit a mistake and move on. This is like that TiE thing you got caught with and never bothered responding to.

Upman,

Never have I met a person more taken by bigoted Doordarshan propaganda than you...I know you being

self delusional think I am intellectually lacking, but it wont hurt to read this post.

`..here is how Indian muslims are important to the Kashmir debate...since the BASIC INTELLECTUAL PRINCIPLE for kashmir acceding to pakistan is TNT (``unfinished agenda of partition`` et al), the presence in India of a greater number of muslims than pakistan, as also the breakup of unified pakistan, have all demolished that half-baked concept. Its gone kaput, you cant milk it no more.`

1) No the Intellectual principle for Kashmir going either way is not TNT or lack there of, but the `Right of self determination` as given Pres Woodrow Wilson. The territory of Kashmir never signed a permanent document of accession but a temporary one. Surely you know better than that, after all you read `Freedom at Midnight` which to you is the most important book on Partition (Crowd laughter). And then Mr Upman speaks of Intellectual mediocrity.

2) There are not a greater number of Muslims in India. 150 million Muslims in Pakistan. 130 Million in India.

3) Pakistan and Bangladesh together make up 340 Million Muslims.

4) At partition it was decided that Hindus and Muslims of Pakistan will be Pakistanis and Hindus and Muslims of India will be Indians.

5)Lahore Resolution which is true basis of Pakistan, speaks of Muslim Majority Provinces as Pakistan, and hence is the true basis of Pakistan.

TNT is not the basis of Pakistan, it was the basis of AIML`s India wide support. Like Dr Ayesha Jalal put it so well, TNT could only exist in an all India framework.

6)TNT in itself did not talk of seperate states. TNT is a valid political science theory and a dormant nationalism which was awakened by popular discontent. As long as Muslims in India will be discriminated against, and as long as they keep grouping themselves as a Minority group fighting for their rights in India (India without Kashmir ofcourse) TNT will be valid.

7) The breakup of Pakistan undid the TNT- agreed!

It proved what I call the MNT, MultiNational theory... it also proved basic Political science definition right : A national group can be formed on the basis of Language, common religious customs and common education, and the national group which will have all three is the strongest national group of them all. Kindly tell me where India fits on this definition of nation?

8) Break up of Pakistan ratified the creation of Pakistan. Combining theory of Political science with History gives us the following conclusion. Popular discontent leads to rise of nationalism. Popular Discontent in India led to the rise of Indo-Muslim Nationalism, which ultimately led to the creation of Pakistan. Popular discontent in Pakistan led to the rise of a narrower Bengali Nationalism which led to the creation of Bangladesh.... so you see, it was Indira Gandhi who was mediocre, and it was she who created this myth that the basis for Pakistan is undone. Indeed, by helping the creation of Bangladesh, India justified the creation of Pakistan.

9) Historians and Intellectuals like Beverley Nichols (Verdict on India), HV Hodson (The Great Divide), and recently Henry Kissinger (Does America need a foreign policy pages 155-157)and Salman Rushdie (Imaginery Homelands) are of the view that it was the British who brought about the Unity of India as Nation-state on the basis of the Western concept of nationhood. India was more like a continent. Ch Rahmat Ali was of the same view. Jinnah ofcourse being a Bombay Politician and an Indian Nationalist was opposed to this view, but then he was converted to this view by 1940.

10) The Original Pakistan demand and the Lahore Resolution had espoused the idea of a Muslim Majority state(Later named Pakistan), and a Hindu Majority state(Later named Hindustan) to be created within or without, the United Federation of India. These two states or federal units will then convene at parity in the center or in the case of the latter will have a defence treaty. The Cabinet Mission Plan as we all know accepted this and AIML accepted this. Congress did not. Hence Partition.

Re: Romairr #303

(Best of all is for India and Pakistan to completely disband their offensive capabilities, and rely only defence)

``This is exactly what Pakistan has been doing.``

Let us be honest here (and not incredibly naive while making statements like that) -- the missiles (Ghauri et al) are not defensive weapons. Of course, the same applies to India. Also, the grotesque public celebration of offensive capabilities (ie. plexiglass models of missiles, Chagai models in traffic circles) is anything but demonstrative of a restrained defensive posture. Neither is the export of jehad nor Kargil are `defensive` operations. It is not as if India walks on water, but kindly do not insult my intelligence by a selective culling of the facts. I am amongst those Indians on Chowk who desire friendly stable relations with Pakistan (thus my suggestion to India to help Pak write off foreign debt in exchange for mutual threat reduction), but you seem to be having a difficult time in persuading even me.

Romair,

{{{But my guess is that when a country pays billions (yes billions, not millions) of dollars to buy these airplanes, they usually buy them because they want to attack someone. This is dangerous enough if the country buying the planes is rich. It is even more dangerous, if the country buying the planes is poor. Since the later shows even a heightened desire to attack someone. Wouldn`t you agree?}}}

I`ve ALWAYS maintained Indian leaders are stupid megalomaniacs who would rather have a huge military than concentrate on reducing poverty.

However; please understand my ``spin`` as perceived by the ``Advani`` types on the Indian side. Alas, there are too many. Pakistan doesnt have a shortage of hawks either. As far as most Indians are concerned, the entire Pak military apparatus is the biggest hawk.

They believe Pakistan is hell bent on wresting Kashmir from India, by any means--fair or foul. They DONT trust Musharraf or the Pak military. To them, Kargil was a duplicious ``stab in the back`` after the Lahore declaration. Thats why they are very paranoid about wording of any ``declaration``.

Siachen? BS--if Siachen was such an issue--resolve it in continuing negotiations. The way the world responded to Kargil (including your all-weather friend China) was vindication of their views of Pakistani duplicity. ``Spin`` it any way you want--doesnt make a difference.

Pakistan, by itself, is small potatoes. But in an all out combat scenario, Pakistan has the luxury of dipping into their master`s (Saudis) bottomless pockets & China`s generosity, not to mention military support from other Islamic nations.

So, the best policy is to hedge your bets. Continue to talk, but carry a big stick. That will make Pakistan realise they cant dictate the agenda of summits, with the implied threat that if Indians dont comply, then they will have to deal with a ``world famous`` military`s stick. They feel India`s military buildup is what made Musharraf concede that the Kashmir problem cant be solved militarily.

Here`s a point of irreconcilable difference. Pakistan isnt arming right now because they cant AFFORD to arm--not because they dont want to. If India is faring better economically, this is the BEST time to invest in a strong military (acc to Indian hawks). Pakistan has ALWAYS been hostile to India. Pakistan is obssessed with Kashmir. If they get half a chance of scoring points with a limited war, they`ll do it. If Pakistan gets a gusher of oil tomorrow, the first thing they`ll do is buy weapons. Never EVER give Pakistan an opportunity to come to a summit in a position of strenght. A strong offense is the best defense.

Just as Pakistan thinks they have the ``moral high ground`` in regards to Kashmir; India thinks it holds the SAME moral highground. There`s NO point in debating that. Its an IRRECONCILABLE difference.

Look at it from the standpoint of ``realpolitick``--if Pakistan is SO morally justified; why has`nt a SINGLE country in the world backed Pakistan vociferously?! Why doesnt Indian ``genocide`` in Kashmir raise ANY hackles in Islamic countries ?(pl dont tell me about OIC ``resolutions``). This is a question I`ve raised repeatedly on Chowk; but NO Pakistani has been able to give me a good answer.

I`m eager to hear your spin on that:)

When it comes to self interest, countries generally put politics on the back burner.

India actually had dealings with the Israeli Govt. BEFORE we established diplomatic relations with them - specifically getting Israeli training for bodyguards of VIPs. (We have a dismal record here.)

And...so did Jordan.

And, in fact, Iran still doesn`t have diplomatic relations with the Zionist Entity, but guess who facilitated the Iran-Contra arms deal? That`s right...the Israeli Govt.

As for how Indian Muslim feel about India buying Israeli arms - probably not thrilled, but not heart broken either. If India needs them, and Israel is selling them, well...Who should India have bought them from, Afghanistan?

Shammi #276: ``God bless Chowk for sparing us a 15,000 word long article on strategic analysis.``

I am surprised you read all my replies and actually count the words. Just ignore them, if you don`t like them. That is another way to spare yourself. However, if you are going to read them, then you have only yourself to blame, and you should not complain.

``If you buttress air defences with expensive aircraft, India will factor that in and use 100 (or the appropriate number to ensure mission success) aircraft instead of 30.``

This is an interesting take on the problem, i.e. Pakistan should not enhance its defensive aircraft, becuase India will then furthur enhance its offensive capabilities. What should Pakistan do if India enhances its offensive capabilities first (which is generally what happens)? Just sit there and do nothing. Don`t you think the country that is enhancing its offensive capabilities is at fault, and not the country that is enhancing its defensive capabilities to counter those offensive capabilities.

Pakistan`s defence capabilities are always in response to the offensive increases made by India. Never the other way around. For example, India buys the latest series of attack aircraft, then Pakistan buys cheaper versions of defensive aircraft to protect itself. You argument seems to state that Pakistan should not even buy the defensive aircraft, because India will then buy twice as many offensive aircraft. Wouldn`t a better argument be that India should not buy the offensive aircraft in the first place?

``It is therefore best to ensure that the cost of victory is higher than any perceived gains (a la Tahmed321 or Fuzair) rather than spend to ensure a leakproof defence.``

If you are stating that Pakistan should go with a nuclear defence as its first line of defence, then I think that would be too dangerous. There will be a nuclear war at the first provocation. Nuclear defense should be the last line of defence, never the first.

``Best of all is for India and Pakistan to completely disband their offensive capabilities, and rely only defence``

This is exactly what Pakistan has been doing. Nearly every single aircraft in the PAF is designed for point defence and close air support. The PAF doesn`t have a single bomber, or even a plane designed solely for deep interdiction. The only attack aircraft it has is the outdated A-5. And that too is only used for ground attacks on bridges etc. to provide support to the ground troops.

When I state that Pakistan should buy aircraft, I mean only defensive aircraft, like the F-7. This is all Paksitan buys anyways. It does not buy strategic bombers or strike planes. Defensive aircraft are the best way to defend against attacking aircraft. SAMs can never stop all attacking aircraft.

Pakistan has pretty much been relying on a defensive war, for quite a while. It has a completely defensive military. Infact, apart from 2 Army strike corps, it really has not strategic offensive capabilities. The Air Force, as I stated, consists of F-7s, Mirage III, Mirage IV, F-6, A-5 and a few F-16s. None of these is by design offensive.

Now if India would start relying on defence only also (something I have been stating for ages), South Asia would be a better place. However, just in the past two years India has bought T-90 tanks, Mirage-2000s, Su-27, a $1 billion deal with Britain, $2 billion dollar deal with Israel, a $3 billion deal with the USSR, its own LCA program, ICBMs, working on putting nuclear missiles on subs, a tri-platform nuclear strategy, coming out of the nuclear closet, increasing its military budget by 14% and around 23% in successive years etc. All of this, when it already had a military four times the size of the Pakistan military.

If you forget for a moment that you are Indian, and look at this objectively, who do you think is feuling the arms race? Can you name one major weapons system Pakistan has bought during this whole stage that India has been on a shopping spree? Infact, Pakistan froze its military budget last year, and has actually decreased it this year; while India has made record increases.

I am hoping you have the capability to criticize your own govt., and not to view every comment passed by a Pakistani as an attack. If there are factual errors in my statistics, please point them out. Otherwise, I think you are making a mistake by blaming the arms race equally on both India and Pakistan.

India needs to stop its arms purchases, and bring its defence budget to at most twice that of Pakistan`s. Until that time, the least Pakistan can do is to buy defensive aircraft to protect itself.

jay,

So you were at HAL. I guess we are birds of the same feather. I was at ISRO for some time. Studied at IIT-M. Did you by chance know Prof. Balaraman? He was employed at HAL for a while, before joining academics.

regards,

re romair

I was not being self-righteous, just facetious. It is incredible to see so many would-be air marshals toiling away their time on keyboards with painstaking details of obsolete aircraft and imaginary superiority/inferiority complexes. Kind of like a midtown bar on Monday nights during football season.

re soysauce

``The only explanation i have is that he is a racist and hates the palestinians intensely. I don`t see what options palestinians really have. They have all but been abandoned by the other arabs and the suicide bombs are acts of extreme desperation. I have been to israel and collaborate with israeli scientists and the racism of the israeli state even they`d acknowledge.``

Because we can`t beat him and he`s tweaked the tail of every adversary doesn`t mean he is racist. Palestinians had had a lot of options but as a great man once said, ``Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity``. Gandhiji said it well that good ends ought to be achieved by good means: suicide bombs aren`t exactly those good means. If Israelis are racist, trust me they are no more so than most of the Arabs who despise their own `ummah` bretheren as `miskeen` and prostrate themselves at the mention of the European or North American. Ariel SHaron is a blunt soldier and not a member of Amnesty International. But he is no more brutal than Yasir Arafat, Abu Nidal, and the rest of the crowd who get political orgasms by blowing up women and children at airports. In fact, Gen Sharon is quite more lenient with the PLO/Hamas terrorists than either Hafez Assad or King Hussein(the Arab rulers simply liquidated them en masse) had been. THe difference, my friend, is a rudimentary and grudging nod towards this thing called public opinion.

A humble note to all the `experts` on aviation technology here:

Poverty and hunger remain the biggest challenge

Vajpayee and Musharraf might be better advised to focus on the twin issues of poverty and hunger plaguing both countries as more often than not, these are the ones to trigger off despair and militancy, says Devinder Sharma

http://www.tehelka.com/aspsite/rightstory.asp?id1=commentary&id2=politics&id3=HEADLINES&id4=20000624584&fname=com071801poverty1.htm

Romair # 293:

``I am unable to understand such an argument.``

..you are able only to understand arguments which conform to pakistan`s POV..anything making that POV uncomfortable is of course not understandeable, and usually ignored...

..here is how Indian muslims are important to the Kashmir debate...since the BASIC INTELLECTUAL PRINCIPLE for kashmir acceding to pakistan is TNT (``unfinished agenda of partition`` et al), the presence in India of a greater number of muslims than pakistan, as also the breakup of unified pakistan, have all demolished that half-baked concept. Its gone kaput, you cant milk it no more.

..now the intelligent guy you are you will use other tracks:

1/ the UN resolutions:

there are several hundred UN resolutions that have not been acted upon....infact more UN resolutions have not been acted upon than otherwise...btw you may also know that the whole UN thing started because India took it to the UN, and it was Nehru who voluntarily proposed plebiscite...also that the UN resolutions have 3 parts- the first of which is that pakistan vacate the part of kashmir it illegally occupies and return custody to Indian forces, which never happened...had the plebiscite happened then, india would have overwhelmingly won!...and now, after so many internationally recognized elections in kashmir if you wake up and decide to ask for UN resolutions, its a bit too late...

..its not a legally binding argument at all - as pakistani columnists will have us believe, and no less a person than the UN Secretary General has said that IN pakistan.

2/ ``according to the Kashmiri people`s wishes``-

this, now that legal and intellectual arguments are over, is the moral argument usually put forward...i have touched on this earlier and if you require it, i can type a whole page again...the bottomline is that everytime a population is discontented you cannot have redrawing of national boundaries...and just because blackmail is attempted through the spread of terror masterminded by Pakistan, it does not lend any further credibility to it...

3/ india is not secular:

...maybe you wouldnt say that..because you`d yourself mentioned that India is legally and constitutionally secular..

..the other mischief that occasionally happens is a pure law and order problem..

..now let me tell you how the whole problem will be solved- you stop all those terrorist training camps on your side of the border, or we will fry all those paki-afghan-sudanese anyway- similar to what happened in punjab, which is to be followed by a full-scale election...then see who remembers the `problem`...you may not agreeto this, but once upon a time Punjab looked much worse- and today the whole Punjab has forgotten that as a nightmare..

..wait and see,here too pakistan will be left twiddling its thumbs....

Regarding Palestine:

...for a long time, india was one of the most powerful supporters of Palestine and PLO...and Arafat knew that the credibility India lent to their cause as a secular democracy was much more than all arab/islamic autocracies-dictatorships-theocracies put together...infact India persistently rejected all israeli and US (and Zubin Mehta`s) pressure to recognize the state of israel till ?1994...that was a time india had started re-evaluating everything in terms of its self-interest and realized that we could not carry on all socialistic battles of the world...this is a fact realized by all thinking indians, including muslims...meantime we had also started to understand better how foreign-sponsored terrorism can affect a democracy...

...we still officially support the PLO viewpoint, although its intensity has diminished since the recognition of Israel...

...if you had just droned about religious jehad against infidel atrocities, i would have let it pass...but you have this irritating habit of couching your rants in humanitarian jargon and thinking evrybody is impressed...

...now go ahead, ignore this post...

Re: Romair #293

``I am surprised at the support of large defence purchases amongst Indians.``

If you had read my post #252 carefully, and read the ending you would have found that I wrote, ``India should have negotiated with Pakistan to settle differences and reduce tensions in exchange for retiring the large Pakistani external debt, instead of feeding the military-industrial complexes in far-off Israel. Surely, that money is better spend in S. Asia rather than in far-off locales.`` I was suggesting that India use that money to GIVE it to Pakistan instead. Please read carefully, take a few deep breaths before firing off a response.

``Do you think the Indian Muslims, as a community, support India purchasing arms from Israel? A simple, ``yes`` or ``no`` would suffice.``

Do you think that all Chowk posters are fanatics, reasonable, or fundamentalists? A simple ``yes`` or ``no`` would suffice. It is precisely because such answers are difficult to solicit that you have institutions like Parliament. Why is this even an issue (Israel). Does Turkey not have extensive defence ties with Israel? Did you question that?

``I was never averse to this (soliciting the opinions of India`s Muslims regarding Kashmir)``.

Yes, you were. The point that I was making is that you want Indian Muslims to give their opinion to you in simple ``yes`` or ``no`` terms selectively when YOU deem it necessary. E.g. you want to know how they feel regarding the Israel deal, but NOT regarding Kashmir.

Shammi

Pakistan is completely capable of defending itself, but I doubt that we have any offensive capability, nor are we interested in such. We are not the nation in the Subcontinent which harbors expansionist designs.

As for your joint command proposal

1) Cabinet Mission Plan was rejected by the Congress Party.

2) Jinnah`s proposal for Joint defence commitee was rejected by the Indian Govt.

3) Pakistan is a sovereign state.

4) Unlike you and I, the rest of the world watches Pakistan and India as deadly enemies and eternal rivals.

-YLH

Ali dear boy,

I believe if Indians say 4, and Pakistanis say 6, the truth has to be in the middle... 5!



:)

-YLH

PS Romair, Maybe you can also shed some light for our friend Manoj, armed with Bharat Rhakshak figures, the PAF`s role in the Afghan war at the same time.

Re: Romair #301

But can aircraft really be used with any degree of effectiveness at those altitudes? While the main battleground is lower, some of the posts are at about 19,000 feet or so.

Regards.

Manoj #281: The PAF is not involved in Siachen, and for good reason. When the Indian forces occupied Siachen, Pakistan had three choices (I am guessing): 1) Raise it to a full-fledged war, like Kargil 2) Don`t do anything 3) Create a ground stalemate.

Pakistan decided to go with 3. Going with 2 could have resulted in India, ``ending up in Sakardu`` soon. Pakistan did not want to go with 1, because it was fighting battles in Afghanistan with the USSR, and could not afford another open front. When the Soviets left Afghanistan, Pakistan could have gone with 1, but that would have fed right into the Indian plans. India wants to use Siachen to bleed Pakistan. Hence it is happy with a stalemate there. If Pakistan was to up the ante by bringing in aircraft, it would just become a stalemate involving aircraft, i.e. a more expensive stalemate, thus fitting in better with the overall Indian plan.

So a ground-based stalemate is where everything is at. If air power were used, Siachen would make Kargil look like a minor conflict. Imagine aircraft attacking ground troops on top of a glacier.

anarayan #279: For some strange reason you are attempting to prove that the Mig-21 BIS is superior to the F-7, regardless of the weapon systems it may carry. That doesn`t make sense to me, since they are essentially the same design. That is why I stated in my original reply:

``If the Indian Mig-21 has not been upgraded with NATO systems, then it is probably quite inferior to the F-7. If it has been upgraded, then it would be in the same league.``

So if the IAF Mig-21 has been enhanced to the same level or superior levels to the F-7, then it is the same or better, respectively; otherwise it is not (since they are inherently the same design),i.e. if one puts the Magic II missile on the BIS, alongwith the latest avionics, it becomes to superior to an F-7. If the Magic II is on the F-7, with the latest avionics, the F-7 will be better. If you want to claim that the BIS is superior to the F-7, regardless of the type of weapons systems (just because it has the Indian flag painted on it), then I am afraid nothing I will say will convince you, otherwise. Whichever aircraft out of two identical designs with better avionics and better missiles will be the better aircraft. What in this argument do you not understand?

``The refutation of this line of thinking is exactly why the Mig designers created BIS.``

If the Soviets and you are convinced that missiles are not the prefered method of air combat, then good luck to both of you. I think Soviet designs do consider missiles to be the prefered form of air combat. What is the point of getting into close combat if you can shoot someone down with a missile, from a distance?

``Several IAF planes are flying low and shooting up the airport or buildings near civilian areas in pakistan. Passive homing or even active homing will not work well with all the ground clutter. Also you don`t want to miss and hit your own civilians.``

You have presented one very small little scenario. What happens during the remaining 90% of the time. Added to this is the fact that the Mig-21 is not designed for ground attack, so it will not be attacking Pakistani cities. Also, in such a scenario, the airplanes will be targeted by surface to air missiles, not air to air missiles. Air-to-air combat doesn`t occur when aircraft are bombing airports. It occurs before or after this.

``Also the attackers might be turbo-prop bombers (I did say hypothetical) or say one of these new planes with significantly reduced tailpipe IR signature. In these cases you have to engage the enemy at close quarters.``

Heat-seeking missiles are not the only type of missiles. Can you name any turbo-prop bombers that are currenly flying? A bomber, by itself, of any variety, is a sitting duck in front of a fighter, at any altitude. Why would a fighter want to get in close range to it?

``Off course, quite different roles; different like in `AMERICAN Interceptor` and `SOVIET Interceptor`, DUH!``

I fail to see your point. Just because an aircraft has an F in its designation, doesn`t mean it has an identical same role. Please discuss this with pilots who have flown both F-104s and Mig-21s. I believe Pakistan is the only country with pilots who have flown both in active combat.

I would be interested in finding out where your received your fighter training. Do you have any experience in what you are discussing? Either everything I have learnt about flying is wrong, or you have no idea what you are talking about, and are just prolonging a useless argument.

shammi #276 ``Best of all is for India and Pakistan to completely disband their offensive capabilities, and rely only defence...``

Agreed

``...or put their militaries under some sort of joint command.``

Not a good idea - Indian generals might pick up some bad habits of Pakistani generals (like sacking the boss when the boss messes with their airline flights).

shammi #256: I am surprised at the support of large defence purchases amongst Indians.

``Their will on revenues and expenditure is expressed through elected representatives in the Lok Sabha (Parliament). I am sure that you are not foolish enough to suggest a referendum on every inane item of govt. expenditure in a $100 bn budget.``

You have a habit of turning simple questions into legalistic complex arguments. The question was as follows: Do you think the Indian Muslims, as a community, support India purchasing arms from Israel? A simple, ``yes`` or ``no`` would suffice. Whether their will on revenues is expressed through Lok Sabha or through an invisible vote, is a constitutional debate.

It doesn`t effect me either way. I don`t live in India. I am just curious in finding out what the Indian Muslims, as a community, think about India sending all this money to Israel. If no one wants to disclose that information, that is fine, as well. But I despise legalistic arguments to simple questions. So is it yes or is it no. One word, please.

``if I recall correctly, you were very averse to soliciting the opinions of India`s Muslims regarding the negative fallout of Kashmir on their plight.``

I was never averse to this. Infact, I hope India does not take out its anger in Kashmir on the Indian Muslims. That would be terrible. It`s bad enough that the Muslims in Kashmir are suffering due to the actions of the Indian govt. What would India gain from taking it out on the Indian Muslims, as well.

This of course, does not deter from the fact, that the Kashmiris do deserve self-determination (like you and I got), even if the Indian govt. and people start harming Indian Muslims, in retaliation. That is blackmail, by the way, i.e if you don`t stop your freedom struggle, we will start killing people with the same religion in other places, as well. Kashmiris should decide their own future. Indian Muslims should decide their own. My guess would be that Kashmiris will want to separate from India, and the Indian Muslims would want to remain with India.

If there is a negative fallout from the Kashmiri struggle on the Indian Muslims, then it is the people who are carrying out the negative fallout who should be blamed. You seem to be attempting to justify the negative plight, by blaming the Kashmiris. I am unable to understand such an argument.

sigalph235: #278: Are you suggesting that you are the only humanitarian in the house? Or am I missing the point? Or are you being self-righteous?

A partial humanitarian is someone who criticizes others for their aggressions, but does not defend the people being attacked. A true humanitarian is someone who has the courage to actually defend those being attacked. In my opinion, the true humanitarians, at least in Pakistan, are the ones who are willing to risk their lives, to protect the other humanitarians, who are only willing to criticize.

Both these humanitarians are assets. However, I have never quite been able to figure out why the former are always bent upon criticizing the later, while the later never criticize the former.

RSexana #257: There is nothing more refreshing than waking up, turning on my computer, and seeing your enlightening comments :-) Any Indian who still hasn`t been able to figure out why Pakistan needed to be created, just needs to be pointed to your replies. If they still cannot figure it out, then I am afraid, they will never be able to figure it out. My admiration for Jinnah continues to increase, each time I read your musings.

``India has bigger problems to worry about than Pakistan.``

Could you let me know what those bigger problems are in the defence field? Is it Bangladesh? Or Nepal, or Bhutan? Or is India planning to attack China? Or is it the gigantic military power known as Sri Lanka, which needs to be wiped out? Or perhaps it is the Maldive islands, and their secret nuclear test sites? And I forgot about Tibet.

So you still did not answer my question: Do you feel that India is feuling the arms race in South Asia? If India has bigger defence problems than Pakistan, then why does it buy equipment that can only be used against Pakistan? A country can legally buy whatever military equipment it wants. However, it should then have the courage to state truthfully that it is feuling the arms race. One cannot have it both ways.

``Maybe they were, maybe they were not. I don`t know. But I do know that all Indian Muslims(different from ``Muslims in India`` like FZ), like all Indians, want what is best to protect our country.``

I am sure all Indian Muslims want to protect India. However, I had asked you how many of them would support India sending billions to Israel. If the Indian Muslims weren`t consulted, then don`t you think they should have been? Also, could you explain the difference between, ``Muslims in India`` and, ``Indian Muslims?`` Is an Indian Muslim someone who doesn`t mind not being consulted when India sends his money to Israel, and a Muslim in India someone who does mind it? It is not clear from your previous reply.

Here is what The Milli Gazette, the Indian Muslim newspaper states,

``Rally to protest against Israel atrocities on Palestinians

By Aftab Kola, Bhatkal

Coming on close heels over a resolution on condemnation of Israel for unleashing on Palestinians a spate of virulent attacks by the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board at its 14th Session at Bangalore on Oct 29 the Muslims of Bhatkal (India) went a step further by holding a mammoth protest rally. Bhatkal, today witnessed a massive public rally held to register their protest against the violence perpetrated by Israel on the Palestinians. The silent procession, comprising around 10,000 people, traversed through the main arteries of this predominant Muslim coastal town and culminated at the Anjuman Boys` high school ground. Later speaking on the occasion Maulana Abdul Bari, imam of Bhatkal`s main Jamia mosque asserted that Israel never existed before and thus it should return the land it has grabbed to the Palestinians. Maulana, condemning the unashamed show of high-tech attacks by Israel on Palestinians, appealed to the Muslims all over the world to stand solidly behind Palestine and show their solidarity with its people in their darkest hour.

Mr Zubair Musba, vice-president, Majlise-Islah-wa Tanzeem, Bhatkal under whose auspices the rally was, appealed to the Indian Prime Minister to openly condemn the atrocities and cruelty perpetrated on the unarmed Palestinians and to stop the bloodbath right away. He further urged the Prime Minister to apply full pressure on Israel through the nations of the world and the UN that it gives up its claim on Palestine for ever. Mr Hanif Shabab, general secretary of Tanzeem called upon the Indian Govt to break all ties with Israel and not to enter any covert or overt pact with them. A memorandum addressed to the Indian Prime Minister was submitted to the local assistant commissioner, Mr Javeed Batin compared the proceedings . (www.milligazette.com)

Are all the people mentioned in this article, ``Indian Muslims`` or ``Muslims in India.`` Please keep in mind these are the newspapers` words, and not mine. And every article in this newspaper (and other Muslim publications) seems to indicate that Indian Muslims (or perhaps Muslims in India) do not support India`s ties with Israel.

You seem to be supporting two contradictions, i.e. Indian Muslims (or Muslims in India) wishes are taken into account in India, however not when it involves Israel. And India is not responsible for the arms race in South Asia, but it is justified in buying billions of dollars of weapons, far beyond what it needs. These two arguments are illogical.

Another good article AH Amin

http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/may/indo-pak-wars.htm

Questions for PAF experts:

M.M. Alam is credited with 4 kills by the Indians and for 6 kills by PAF. Which is correct? He himself claims 10 I think?

I heard he took early retirement after a spat with Mrs. Anwar Shamim. True?

Anarayan, Manoj

I am impressed with the depth of knowledge you guys have displayed about aircrafts and their roles in the battle on this board. I guess this board served as an educational tool for several people.

Manoj dear

YLH is not strangely silent. YLH is unable to figure out what you are trying to do with this one article and this one question that you repeatedly pose : What did PAF do in Siachen?

Honestly, I am not a military Historian and I am far too busy to become one for you. Just because I cant present you the facts and figures of Siachen doesnt mean that PAF didnt do anything in Siachen.

Are you trying to reverse the decision rendered by

Yeager (ok so he was PAF payroll), Randy (he really wasnt), and Gen Chuck Horner who said about PAF in the 1990s, `PAF is the worst nightmare for Indian war planners.`

Surely you cant be serious when you suggest that your verdict on PAF (you being associated with IAF by relation) is the accurate version? Tell us why should we take the word of Bharat Rhakshak, or one army officer over the word of World renowned pilots and generals?

Next time you go on to self gratifying statements like `YLH is strangely silent`, consider that probably YLH doesnot consider you worthy enough to go through your long elusive and inconsequential posts, which really dont prove anything.

So you see YLH is not silent!

Fuzair, Romair, etc as seniors in War and Military History, kindly illuminate this individual on either how PAF was involved in Siachen or what tactical reasons it was not involved there!

PAF`s greatness is manifest in the fact that like RAF of the second world war it can hold at bay an Air Force many times its size.

Long Live Pakistan

East or West PAF is the BEST.

-YLH

RSaxena, Shah:

Israel has been duplicitous in its dealings with the palestinians. The promised halt to the construction and the dismantling of some settlements never happened. Palestinians simply could not trust israel. Sharon is perpetuating the misery of the palestinians for the sake of land for some new york jews with dual citizenship. The only explanation i have is that he is a racist and hates the palestinians intensely. I don`t see what options palestinians really have. They have all but been abandoned by the other arabs and the suicide bombs are acts of extreme desperation. I have been to israel and collaborate with israeli scientists and the racism of the israeli state even they`d acknowledge.

That said, Shah here crowing about the ``valor`` of the suicide bombers is quite pathetic. You are nothing more than a cheerleader in a gladiatorial combat. The lion will surely get the gladiator. Why don`t you do something tangible instead of keyboard warrioring?

Re: Shah

``I would consider the human bomb carrying hamas ,much more a soldier & bolder than all Moshe dayan ,rats combined.``

Why don`t you go join the hamas then? Strap a bomb to your chest and go do the needful to become a ``bold soldier.`` Hasta la vista, rat.

anarayan,

You mentioned HAL, Koraput and I could not resisit telling a little bit. Once up on a time, being involved with aero engine design at HAL bangalore, we designed the catytic ignition system for the reheat of mig 21 engines, and I am talking more than a quarter century ago. Orignally, I forgot the engine, had a can type ignition system, that is using an electric igniter, a torch is created to ignite the main reheat. But it has been known for some time that platinum lowers the ignition tempratures, and the exhaust gas temperature of nearly 300 degrees is adequate to ignite the fuel with platinum catalyst. So we made a system making use of this principle.

I always held out koraput as a shining example of indian idea of rural development, imphesis on social justice at the cost of economic rationalism. Koraput was in the middle of nowhere, inaccessible, surrounded by tribals. There a 8000 men high tech centre was established and that has acted as a catalyst for further development.

regards

jay.

Re: Manoj #281

Oops, sorry. I misread your post. As far as I know, there is no PAF role in Siachen as helicopters fall under Army Aviation not Air Force (in India I think helicopters belong to the Air Force, correct?). In any case, the altitudes are too high for most helicopters to operate although the French one, Lama? (not sure of the name or spelling), has limited operational use there. I remember reading somewhere that the ceiling of the Lama had been greatly extended thanks to some modification designed by EME-Aviation engineers and that this modification had been licensed to the French and thus to the Indians as well! Any input on this?

Of course the USAF and other NATO Air Forces were pounding ground targets in Desert Storm and Serbia, what else was there for them to do? All I am saying is that supporting ground operations is always at the bottom of their priorities. When there is nothing else for them to do (as in Kosovo/Serbia and Desert Storm), they will assist the Army. If you read through the USAF history and the huge fights between it and the Army, you will realize this. For instance, the Army was actually going to recreate its own fixed wing, ground attack squadrons because the USAF had made it absolutely clear that it was NOT going to do this job for the Army (it was focussed on its strategic role in the Cold War and how to deal with the Soviet Air Force in Europe). This is when the decision was made to allow the Army to build its own air power by allocating helicopters to it and reserving fixed wing aircraft for the USAF.

Regards.

romair,

you really shouldn`t admit in a public forum that you don`t pay taxes to uncle sam.

Shushma Swaraj upset the mood of the talk by floating disinformation.From then on it was just downhill with no hope of agreement in this ummit.Better luck without too many advisers that india has since long Bhutto had complained about India .India has 10 advisers per person ,he said ``aise karo ge to yeh hoga ,woh bolo ge to yeh hoga .Haan isse hoshyar rehna ,usse se mat darna ?````

Musharraf calls off Ajmer visit

The general decided to fly back home after the summit after his meetings

with Prime Minister Vajpayee went on well beyond the scheduled time.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/16inpak20.htm

another gem

``Try and recapture the elan he would instil in the sub-units of 45 Punjab and 46 Baluch as they fanned out left and right of us, “Good hunting, tell the Indians Taj is here”. Quite dramatic, unabashed showmanship perhaps, but invaluable in raising the morale of troops on the receiving end of continuous Indian air attacks``

Where was PAF & Chuck yeager??

other gems from the article

``I took an instant decision and moved my battalion during daylight despite air superiority of the enemy. 44 Punjab moved forward despite continuous air attacks on the single road upto Umarkot and then from Umarkot towards Chor``

....

Lt Col Taj was CO 44 Punjab (now 4 Sindh) during the 1971 war. Just consider only the events leading upto battle. As my company gave a canopy of machine gun fire over a train burning from end to end carrying Guides Cav tanks at Daharki Railway Station on 10 December 1971, he stood defiantly on the road only 200 yards away, arms akimbo flatly refusing to take cover till the Indian aircraft had been driven away and the cavalrymen ran to their tanks shackled on the MBFRs and started the engines, making a sharp right swivel to break the chains, letting the tanks fall sideways down the dusty embankment and putting out the fire. Now that I call courage! “Don’t be late” Taj growled with pride at the bravery of Guides Cavalry, “Tell Ayub (the Guides Cav CO) we have an appointment with the Indians you better not miss!”

....

Where was PAF & Chuck yeager???

Fuzair

I was enquiring about the role of PAF at Siachen.

Why did not PAF intervene at Siachen when they found that Indians had intruded unlike the IAF which flew extensively at Kargil.

I dont agree that western airforces consider supporting ground forces demeaning. If you see the air campaigns in Desert Storm or Yugoslavia the whole emphasis has been on ground attack more so since there was hardly a credible air threat from Iraqi or Serbian air forces.

YLH is strangely silent :-)

RE: Shah

Thanks for exposing yet another example of Islamic terrorism. Shame on you for taking joy in watching innocent Israelis die. Shame on you.

Romair,

(1)

``In close dogfights, it is not the speed, but the agility and thrust to weight ratio that matters.``

Well, you have finally seen the light. Ok, now listen carefully. For all practical purposes, the F-7 and BIS have same control surfaces, drag profile and weight. But the BIS has 1.5 times the Thrust/Weight ratio of the F-7. Therefore, in a close dogfight the F-7 is no match for the BIS. (Q.E.D)

(2)

The second point is your second point:

``The second point is that missiles are now the prefered way of shooting down airplanes.``

The refutation of this line of thinking is exactly why the Mig designers created BIS. Hypothetical scenario: Several IAF planes are flying low and shooting up the airport or buildings near civilian areas in pakistan. Passive homing or even active homing will not work well with all the ground clutter. Also you don`t want to miss and hit your own civilians. Also the attackers might be turbo-prop bombers (I did say hypothetical) or say one of these new planes with significantly reduced tailpipe IR signature. In these cases you have to engage the enemy at close quarters.

(3)

``I don`t remember the statistics, but I think the F-104 has a larger diameter for its engine than the Mig-21. You are comparing two aircraft with two different roles.``

Off course, quite different roles; different like in `AMERICAN Interceptor` and `SOVIET Interceptor`, DUH!

(4)

``Just buy a Russian TV and a Japanese or American TV, and you will get the answer.``

Believe it or not - we had a russian TV once. It was pretty good, compared to a BPL. Had to scrap it when some thing burned out inside - no spare parts.



Jay,

Your good knowledge about Gas Turbines tells me you must have been associated with them in some way.

``For example the compressor cases are welded after assembly, this reduces the weight...``

This Sir, is quite an `inside` knowledge! I`m impressed, to say the least.

``Only in recent times have been an effort to introduce vectored thrust from the engines to increase maneuverability.``

Yes, I read some articles in Aviation Week a few years ago. The projected increase in maneuvrability was `jaw-dropping`.

regards,

As an avowed humanitarian, I feel terrible that all you folks are wringing hands on your keyboards as opposed to working on various air staffs and air war college faculties. Pity, what a waste of human talent. May God give you the opportunity to live your Baron von Richthofen dreams in the hereafter/next life.

sarwari # 255

...let me answer some of your Qs:

a/ if saying India is secular is `self-righteous fanaticism` (whatever that is), there are several s.r.f. here including pakistanis, capt. cecil choudhury included, and a lot of people around the world who do not have any bias towards india...

b/ i consider any state policy that gives preference to one religion over another OFFICIALLY -which will inevitably result in bias against the excluded faiths- to be out of sync with attitudes of the modern, multicultural world. No amount of convenient quotes from such religious texts about how it respects plurality etc. will change this fact....the religion concerned is irrelevant- islam, catholicism or hinduism- such a policy is inferior, if you have to use this word, to a secular polity.

c/ tell me what you assume

d/ your juvenility shows, again

``..it would be even more touching if you, instead of borrowing form our Founder`s Ideals, took inspiration form your own reality.``

..if it is your Founder`s Ideals (whats it with these guys about caps!) how come Pakistan is not a secular state?..ok, it must be secular within Islam...so what about Sharia courts, intentional and UNintentional blasphemy punishments, etc?... all Zia`s faults, i know....so how come, if only 1 or 2% of paksitanis are supporting these, paksitanis DONT CHANGE SUCH PRIMITIVE LAWS?

...see, our reality is much better than your founder`s ideals...that poor caricature of a founder, rebel without a cause -who took up the first available cause having absolutely no faith in it...

``You see I don`t think India is all that. I mean it is an ok country..``

..you see, i dont think paksitan is even an OK country..i wish, like you will accuse, this is pure hate..unfortunately for you, it is not..and your latest action hero- Musharaff gives me an idea of how your country will do for the rest of his lifetime...

..you think he`s a great guy?...that precisely is the problem..

..the taleban, and the countries which support it- saudia and Yours- are destined to remain on the periphery of world consciousness, attended only to when it creates sufficient nuisance, to be promptly forgotten again...atleast the saudis have oil-money..

..so rather than tilting at www windmills,get back to your country and do something about it...never has another country more needed some sense drilled into it....

Re: Romair #264

``I had typed up a detailed analysis, but it didn`t make it thru``

God bless Chowk for sparing us a 15,000 word long article on strategic analysis.

Regarding your hypothetical Indian attack scenario with 30 aircraft, Tahmed321`s advice is still sound. If you buttress air defences with expensive aircraft, India will factor that in and use 100 (or the appropriate number to ensure mission success) aircraft instead of 30. Thus, your logic will quickly collapse. It is therefore best to ensure that the cost of victory is higher than any perceived gains (a la Tahmed321 or Fuzair) rather than spend to ensure a leakproof defence. Best of all is for India and Pakistan to completely disband their offensive capabilities, and rely only defence, or put their militaries under some sort of joint command.

tahmad: I have read your nukes first strategy with interest. I had typed up a detailed analysis, but it didn`t make it thru.

I have always stated that nukes should now become Pakistan`s main deterent. However, they should be the last line of defence and not the first line of defence. Otherwise, Pakistan and India will end up in a nuclear war, even at the smallest provocation. And the nukes need to be supported by a potent air force. Pakistan already has, to the best of my knowledge, quite a potent SAM, missile, and radar defence system. However, that alone is not enough.

Let me give you a scenario: Suppose India launches an attack consisting of 30 Mirage-2000s and Su-27s etc. Pakistani radars detect them, and Pakistan SAMs knowck out fifteen of them (probably an extremely optimistic number). So fifteen make it thru. Each one of these could pummel a Pakistani city, even without using nukes. Their first target would be Pakistan`s Command, Control and Communicaitons center. Second targets would be Kahuta and wherever else Pakistan keeps its missiles. After this, Pakistan would have lost its nuke strike capability.

Also, Pakistan (and India) do not keep there nukes pre-assembled in silos, ready to launch, like the US and Russia. By the time, Pakistan would get these nukes to lauch time, the above mentioned aircraft would have knocked out the deployment systems, if not the nukes, as well.

So how would you suggest Pakistan counter that, without strong air cover. And F-7s alone cannot take out Mirage-2000s in bulk, even if Chuck Yeager was flying the F-7s.

INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY OF INDIA.



The following is a list- still not comprehensive- of incidents of vilence reported against the Christian community in India. All care has been taken to ensure the authenticity of the data. Wherever possible, the actual FIRs and complaints and reports of the National Minorities Commission and othere government organizations have been used in this list.

1. 1999 Number of cases of violence against Christians:60

2. 1964-1996 Number of cases of violence against Christians: 38

3. 1997 Number of cases of violence against Christians:15

4. 1998 Number of cases of violence against Christians:136

Number of cases in Gujarat in 1998: 84

Numberof Nuns Raped: 5

Number of Nuns Killed: 9

Number of Nuns Manhandled: 25

Number of Priests/Pastors killed: 16

Number of Churches/Chapel destroyed/burned: 11

Rsaxena, #: 255

You say,

``India does not need to use anyone to prove its religious diversity. It is a fact; it`s there for everyone to see. That`s the difference between a secular country like India and an Islamic state like Pakistan.``

Why: -

a. Are you being a self-righteous fanatic?

b. Are you concluding that the Islamic state Ideal has got to be inferior to what India is now?

c. Are you assuming India is secular?

d. Don`t you understand that when 1 billion people lie loud and long enough it is everywhere, but it is not necessarily true.

I am touched that you are such a believer in humanity that you propagate each individual being true to their country regardless of religion caste or creed, but it would be even more touching if you, instead of borrowing form our Founder`s Ideals, took inspiration form your own reality.

You see I don`t think India is all that. I mean it is an ok country, but it has its rot, and you should smell the putrid sting instead of trying to highlight the problems in Pakistan. And while you are at it teach a thing or two to your home minister.

PS Refer to India`s failure resource I compiled for those of you who are to obsesses with us. I have six words for you, ``home needs repair, leave neighbor`s alone``



Aisha

Romairr #256

``Or was their (Indian Muslims`) tax money sent to Israel, without their permission? ``

Their will on revenues and expenditure is expressed through elected representatives in the Lok Sabha (Parliament). I am sure that you are not foolish enough to suggest a referendum on every inane item of govt. expenditure in a $100 bn budget. Also, if I recall correctly, you were very averse to soliciting the opinions of India`s Muslims regarding the negative fallout of Kashmir on their plight. Is this turn-around simply to make cheap shots at the expense of Indian Muslims?

``Don`t you feel a bit odd that a giant country like India, with a huge defence budget, actually has to purchase weapons from tiny Israel?``

Actually, China (an even bigger country with an even bigger defense budget) wanted to buy the Phalcons from Israel, before US pressure turned that deal down. You are confusing quantity with quality.

Having made the minor points above, India should have negotiated with Pakistan to settle differences and reduce tensions in exchange for retiring the large Pakistani external debt, instead of feeding the military-industrial complexes in far-off Israel. Surely, that money is better spend in S. Asia rather than in far-off locales.

I still dont understand what harm you see in keeping 33 frontline F 16s, (if you consider F 16 A/B frontline).... We need atleast two squadrons of capable interceptor fighters... and when we ground the F 16s ... we need to replace them with two squadrons of other frontline air crafts.

I agree with the rest, but PAF is far effective a force to be done away with in the favor of the Nukes... I think the Tanks and a huge army should be the first one to be replaced.

-YLH

tahmad: I have read your nukes first strategy with interest. I had typed up a detailed analysis, but it didn`t make it thru.

I have always stated that nukes should now become Pakistan`s main deterent. However, they should be the last line of defence and not the first line of defence. Otherwise, Pakistan and India will end up in a nuclear war, even at the smallest provocation. And the nukes need to be supported by a potent air force. Pakistan already has, to the best of my knowledge, quite a potent SAM, missile, and radar defence system. However, that alone is not enough.

Let me give you a scenario: Suppose India launches an attack consisting of 30 Mirage-2000s and Su-27s etc. Pakistani radars detect them, and Pakistan SAMs knowck out fifteen of them (probably an extremely optimistic number). So fifteen make it thru. Each one of these could pummel a Pakistani city, even without using nukes. Their first target would be Pakistan`s Command, Control and Communicaitons center. Second targets would be Kahuta and wherever else Pakistan keeps its missiles. After this, Pakistan would have lost its nuke strike capability.

Also, Pakistan (and India) do not keep there nukes pre-assembled in silos, ready to launch, like the US and Russia. By the time, Pakistan would get these nukes to lauch time, the above mentioned aircraft would have knocked out the deployment systems, if not the nukes, as well.

So how would you suggest Pakistan counter that, without strong air cover. And F-7s alone cannot take out Mirage-2000s in bulk, even if Chuck Yeager was flying the F-7s.

INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY OF INDIA.



The following is a list- still not comprehensive- of incidents of vilence reported against the Christian community in India. All care has been taken to ensure the authenticity of the data. Wherever possible, the actual FIRs and complaints and reports of the National Minorities Commission and othere government organizations have been used in this list.

1. 1999 Number of cases of violence against Christians:60

2. 1964-1996 Number of cases of violence against Christians: 38

3. 1997 Number of cases of violence against Christians:15

4. 1998 Number of cases of violence against Christians:136

Number of cases in Gujarat in 1998: 84

Numberof Nuns Raped: 5

Number of Nuns Killed: 9

Number of Nuns Manhandled: 25

Number of Priests/Pastors killed: 16

Number of Churches/Chapel destroyed/burned: 11

Rsaxena, #: 255

You say,

``India does not need to use anyone to prove its religious diversity. It is a fact; it`s there for everyone to see. That`s the difference between a secular country like India and an Islamic state like Pakistan.``

Why: -

a. Are you being a self-righteous fanatic?

b. Are you concluding that the Islamic state Ideal has got to be inferior to what India is now?

c. Are you assuming India is secular?

d. Don`t you understand that when 1 billion people lie loud and long enough it is everywhere, but it is not necessarily true.

I am touched that you are such a believer in humanity that you propagate each individual being true to their country regardless of religion caste or creed, but it would be even more touching if you, instead of borrowing form our Founder`s Ideals, took inspiration form your own reality.

You see I don`t think India is all that. I mean it is an ok country, but it has its rot, and you should smell the putrid sting instead of trying to highlight the problems in Pakistan. And while you are at it teach a thing or two to your home minister.

PS Refer to India`s failure resource I compiled for those of you who are to obsesses with us. I have six words for you, ``home needs repair, leave neighbor`s alone``



Aisha

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romairr #256

``Or was their (Indian Muslims`) tax money sent to Israel, without their permission? ``

Their will on revenues and expenditure is expressed through elected representatives in the Lok Sabha (Parliament). I am sure that you are not foolish enough to suggest a referendum on every inane item of govt. expenditure in a $100 bn budget. Also, if I recall correctly, you were very averse to soliciting the opinions of India`s Muslims regarding the negative fallout of Kashmir on their plight. Is this turn-around simply to make cheap shots at the expense of Indian Muslims?

``Don`t you feel a bit odd that a giant country like India, with a huge defence budget, actually has to purchase weapons from tiny Israel?``

Actually, China (an even bigger country with an even bigger defense budget) wanted to buy the Phalcons from Israel, before US pressure turned that deal down. You are confusing quantity with quality.

Having made the minor points above, India should have negotiated with Pakistan to settle differences and reduce tensions in exchange for retiring the large Pakistani external debt, instead of feeding the military-industrial complexes in far-off Israel. Surely, that money is better spend in S. Asia rather than in far-off locales.

I still dont understand what harm you see in keeping 33 frontline F 16s, (if you consider F 16 A/B frontline).... We need atleast two squadrons of capable interceptor fighters... and when we ground the F 16s ... we need to replace them with two squadrons of other frontline air crafts.

I agree with the rest, but PAF is far effective a force to be done away with in the favor of the Nukes... I think the Tanks and a huge army should be the first one to be replaced.

-YLH

Further to Fuzair`s note #259, (a) in my note #260 should read ``nukes and low-cost conventional defense`` (latter being SAMs and citizen army). I forgot the conventional part that I did mention in earlier post (oooops). Thanks, Fuzair.

And ylh (assuming you agree with the approach), I expect to have a fully costed strategy document from you on my desk on the dot at 0800 hours tomorrow morning. Got it!!!

ylh #258 I believe the plan I present is cost effective. There are, as you may recall, three components to that plan:

(a) Nukes: Incremental cost - low: we already have the nukes, and demonstrated capacity to build more if necessary - incremental cost is for maintenance only.

(b) Butter: Incremental cost - negative: Incremental cost is that of investments in children`s education, strengthening law and order, making the country attractive to vast global funds now available (think trillions of dollars floating around looking for a good place to rest). Incremental value in terms of people`s welfare is by definition greater than incremental costs. So net incremental cost is zero.

(c) Peace: Incremental cost - negative: Cost is that of paying for dignitaries from both countries to dine (not wine, sorry we are muslims) at taxpayer expense. Value is in terms of richer lives. Everyone and his mother has been to Murree - think spending the night on a boat on the lake in Srinagar. Think Rajasthan palaces (sorry, only rich folks only). Think Taj Mahal to get female companion in right mood. Value is in terms of strengthening freedom and democracy - no military, no military coups.

Bottom line: We achieve the goal of defending Pakistan more surely than anything we can accomplish even if we increased our military budget a hundred fold (which we cant anyway, unless money grew on trees). And while doing so we GAIN rather than losing wealth.

Please advise if you spot a flaw in my calculations, and I will be much obliged.

...and feel free to agree too if you see my point.

Re: YLH #258

I think that Tahmed`s point is that we need to choose the lowest-cost possible effective deterrent and not the ones we chose. Basically, I would think that he would be advocating scrapping F-16s or other expensive toys for the Air Marshalls (and tanks for the Generals) in favor of massive numbers of SAMs (and ATMs). Similarly, restructure the Army by bringing in conscription and scrapping the strike corp (by definition mechanized) and concentrating on a completely defensive posture. By this I mean that the casualties inflicted on any invader will be so high that, while they would certainly win, the cost would not be worth it. Thus we buy our security from attack (a Swiss strategy).

By no stretch of the imagination can one argue that Tahmed is a defeatist or a pacifist or in favor of unilateral disarmament. Sorry Shammi but we Punjabis tend to be too bloodthirsty to make good peaceniks, ;-).

Incidentally, the S. Koreans used military conscription very intelligently to not only provide educated manpower (urban conscriptees) for their mechanized militay formations but also, in the initial years, to impart literacy to their rural ones. Later on, they used conscription in conjunction with their labour force planning to enusre that there were minimal structural bottlenecks in their economic development plans (at least as far as trained manpower was concerned). Conscription has been informally discussed in the Army for a while and always turned down, although for a while doctors were conscripted for two years.

tahmed,

You logic did not make sense to me.

Consider the following facts:

1) PAF is small, and is a defensive force!

2) PAF is not going to increase its size anytime soon.

3) The only way PAF is going to increase its strength is by creating indigenous Weapons industry, making Super 7s and K8s, which are going to create more jobs.

4) Nuclear Programmes, and Air to Air Missiles etc also cost the Nation dearly, so I dont understand what your point is.

5) How are making weapons of mass destruction any better than buying or making Fighter interceptors

whose role is to seek and destroy enemy intruders,

and not kill enemy civillians.

6) What do you suggest? We disband the Air force, which is the only service which has done its job properly in the war..

RE: Romair

``I am glad Pakistan is actually lowering its defence budget. This should prove who is actually feuling the arms race in South Asia. Would you agree it is India?``

India has bigger problems to worry about than Pakistan. If you guys are so damn paranoid that you keep thinking that India needs any more than what it has to deal with Pakistan, that`s your problem.

``Also, I thought India took pride in having a huge Muslim population (larger than that of Pakistan, as pointed out by many India