India’s Potential Lose-Lose-Lose Scenario

Ref sigalph235 #: 220

[re harimau

``Yes. Someone named Hari Singh. He happened to be the ruler of the state and had the right to sign over the state to India. ``

Subject to the `ascertainment of the sentiments and wishes of the people of the state`. It never ceases to amaze me how Indians forget that part of the Independence Act when it comes to Kashmir but promptly remember it for Hyderabad, Junagadh, and a host of other little principalities. But we have exhausted that debate many times over so let us not. I mention it only because you were trying to pull a fast one there about the tyrant Hari Singh`s absolute right.]

Sometimes, it is better to do a 5-minute search on the Web to be sure of one`s facts.

May I humbly refer you to http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/101-125.html

There you will find the text of the Instrument of Accession. I would like you to tell me exactly where it refers to the `ascertainment of the sentiments and wishes of the people of the state`.

I would like you to refer to also Lord Mountbatten`s reply.

It says in its entirety:

{I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession. Dated this twenty seventh day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Mountbatten of Burma

Governor General of India.}

A second letter says:

{My dear Maharajah Sahib,

Your Highness`s letter, dated the 26th Octobers has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently with their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government`s wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State`s accession should be settled by a reference to the people. Meanwhile, in response to your Highness`s appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property and honour of your people.

My Government and I note with satisfaction that your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an Interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.

Yours sincerely,

(Sd/-) Mountbatten of Burma}

The specific part that is operational is: ``it is my Government`s wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State`s accession should be settled by a reference to the people``.

I believe certain parts of the original territory of Kashmir, namely ``Azad`` Kashmir and the Northern Areas, are still not cleared of the invaders.

Incidentally, the UN resolutions also call for the complete pullback of Pakistani troops and the state`s return to Indian administration before a plebiscite.

Let Pakistan and all admirers of stop Jinnah pulling fast ones on an unsuspecting public.

re:Reply #: 206

Layman,

I stopped responding to people like Romair long ago. These people have fixated ideas. As you said, 1 billion Indians will not allow Kashmir to go to Pakistan. Period.

In a worst case scenario, Kashmir will be trifurcated, Ladakh and Jammu forming seperate States or Union territorries. The fight will then be for the valley. Kashmiri Pundits will then have to be accomodated and given a share of that valley. After all they have lived there for centuries and have been forced out of their homes today. After all this is done, let us fight over what little is left of the valley! Not a pleasant thought, is it?

Sridhar

rsaxena,

{{...and why the hell is ISRO working on a mission to the moon...let`s first make the electricity grid work, then worry about going to the moon....}}

haha! Indians are the world`s biggest megalomaniacs...

fawad,

{{if most pakistanis dont care anymore what are the obstacles to negotitations ?????????}}

great question! Because ordinary Pakistanis DONT get a say in the govt; the military does!

Re: Romair

``...forget about human rights, morality etc. and just look at all military decisions in purely Machievillian strategically successful terms, i.e. a legitimate military decision is one that leads to victory, with or without human rights violations...``

Thanks for the confession (a very public one at that too). We suspected it all along, but now you yourself have admitted what the true rationale is for sending infiltrators.

Re: Romair

``...Some of the political goals that have been mentioned include winning the elections in UP, forcing Pakistan to hand over some individuals on a list, forcing Pakistan to stop the insurgencies across the LOC. These differences indicate a lack of cohesive political objective...``

The political objective was and is the cessation of the use of terror as an instrument of state policy. (UP elections and the list of 20 are what you think was the cause, but they weren`t). The results on infiltration have been mixed, and it is too soon to tell what will eventually happen -- hopefully saner minds will prevail on both sides. There is a great risk that Musharraf may be assassinated in pursuit of his crackdown on militants (apparently there have been 3 recent attempts, and only one has been reported in the press. 3 SSG commandos were killed in Islamabad in foiling one). (And despite your spin that the crackdown on jehadis happened because of US, not Indian pressure, it does not matter in the end. What matters is the result. Do you think that the Americans had raised this issue with Musharraf anytime before 9/11 or even until Dec. 6? What, in your opinion, was the deciding factor? Indian pressure in concert with the US?)

Fawad # 221,

Bose discovered/ postulated the class of particles called Bosons. These are force carriers as opposed to Fermions which are particles acted upn by some force. photon is a boson, so is a graviton (still eluding discovery). Protons, neutrons etc are called fermions.

Adios

Fawad # 221,

What Chandrashekhar discovered is called chandrashekhar limit. It is the state beyond which there can be no further compression of matter under the force of gravity. It occurs when the star ceases to produce energy by fusion, and thereby cannot counter the inner pulling force of gravity by explosive fusion reactive force (outward). Thus the star collpases under its own weight until it crushes all the orbits of electrons and forces prtons to combine with electrons making neutrons. The star now is called neutron star which is erady to implode depending upon its mass. It is called degenerate state of matter, beyond which there is no compression. If i remember exactly, neutron star stage is reached after crossing Chandrashekhar limit. Plese check.

Adios

Unfortunately, my reservoir of Ghalib`s poetry is limited to what I can recall of Naseer-ud-Din Shah uttering in Jagjit Singh`s voice. And I have exhausted this reservoir.

The purpose of this article was to present a solution to the biggest short-term problem Pakistan is currently facing, i.e. how to handle all the possible outcomes that could occur from India`s military threats and possible attacks, in a successful manner. It wouldn`t make any sense to present solutions which would result in a loss for Pakistan. They wouldn`t be very good solutions, would they? Hence the title. The word, ``potential`` indicated that the solutions presented may or may not work. Many of our Indian friends seem to have missed this word in the title.

The counter to this article should have been the presentation of a potential win-win-win scenario for India. The intention of the article was not to suggest that Pakistan should or could destroy India, etc. Unfortunately, most of the replies assumed this incorrect premise. Hence, it was better to just view them, without replying, in order to see what causes this knee-jerk reaction everytime articles related to Indo-Pak affairs are written.

* * * * * * *Badal kar faqiroon ka hum bhais Ghalib......Tamash-e-ahl-Karam deikhtay hein * * * * (I had one left in the reservoir)

So I will attempt to explain this article a bit furthur, and will attempt to answer some of the legitimate queries in one long reply, before it goes off the main page, rather than adding more of Ghalib`s verses.

Let`s, for the moment, forget about human rights, morality etc. and just look at all military decisions in purely Machievillian strategically successful terms, i.e. a legitimate military decision is one that leads to victory, with or without human rights violations. Based on this, I will explain why I think India overplayed its cards, this time, resulting as my basis for the potential lose-lose-lose scenario. There are a few rules of war that need to be understood.:

1. Offensive military actions should only be initiated if one is sure one will win.

2. All military actions have to be subordinate to clearly defined and achievable political goals, i.e. there is no point in losing ten people, and successfully, ``taking the hill,`` if it results in no political gain.

3. While an individual soldiers` bravery etc. is based on emotion, unit and national pride, religious motivations like Shahadat or re-incarnation, a desire to protect one`s country, etc. all strategic military decisions have to be based on 100% objective practicality, i.e don`t laucgh military offensives just because you think God ordered you to, or because you feel humiliated, or because you want to get more votes in the next election etc.

Pakistan`s traditional Strategic approaches:



If one keeps the above in mind, one can see that Pakistan has traditionally not followed the above rules. India is seven to eight times Pakistan`s size, with a military budget which has fluctuated between 3 to 4.5 times Pakistan military`s budget. The two countries have been roughly at the same level of economic development.

Considering the fact that it takes at least a 3:1 ratio to consider winning an all-out offensive battle, Pakistan should, under no circumstances, have launched any military offensive against India. Its military budget would have to be 13 times its current size to consider that. It doesn`t matter whether Pakistan`s stance is right or wrong, moral or immoral. Fighting offensive wars that you know you cannot win, is bad decision-making. It violates rule no. 1. At most, Pakistan can only use undercover operations, gurreilla ops, etc. But never an outright war. I cannot recall any country in history that won offensive wars against enemies eight times their size.

Let`s look at Pakistan`s decisions, one by one, from 1965, onwards:

-- Pakistan lauched an offensive in 1965 (though it was not across an international border). It violated rule 1, and from that point onwards, there is no way it could have won. Added to this, the political decisions were not inline with the military decisions. Bhutto initiated the plan, and his motivation was to discredit Ayub Khan`s regime, by deliberately putting Pakistan in a situation where it would lose. His converstation, declaring this to the book`s author, is mentioned in, ``The Clash of Fundametalisms`` (Tariq Ali). Added to this, were the emotion-based decisions by the Pakistani military leadership, assuming that one Pakistani was equal to ten Indians etc. (based on historical rule of Muslims in India). Not the most objective and practical decision making, in a time of war.

Pakistani soldiers, pilots and sailors, as usual, fought extremely well, against a much larger adversary (very difficult to do), and the war resulted in a stalemate. Since the offensive was unsuccessful, in my opinion, Pakistan lost the war. Infact it had been lost the moment rule 1 was violated.

Conclusion/Lessons learnt: Pakistan should have never attacked, even if its stance in Kashmir is/was moral and correct (which it is).

--In 71, Pakistan launched an attack against the uprising in East Pakistan (at the moment, we are not looking at human rights). Once again it got into an offensive, it could not win. Rule no. 1 was vioalated, and Pakistan lost the moment that happened. Armies can rarely win civilian wars against large populations that have third country support, and have people who are willing to die for their cause (Vietnam, Kashmir, Afghanistan, East Pakistan, Algeria are good examples).

Added to this, was the fact that once again political direction was lacking. Bhutto had refused to recognize Awami League`s winning of elections, thereby getting Pakistan into another war (and personally benefiting from it again - the intellilgent opportunistic rascal that he was). And, as usual, strategic military leadership was extremely poor. Once again, the military leadership (and most of the civilian everyday Pakistanis, who are unwillingly to now take any part of the blame) assumed that Bengalis were, ``lower`` non-Martial people, and Pakistan would have the advantage.

So Pakistan lost that one also. Even, if we don`t think about human rights, Pakistan should have let Awami League into power. If it was unwilling to do that, then Pakistan should have negotiated a non-violent independence for Bangladesh. The moment rule 1 was vioalated, Pakistan had lost, as far as I am concerned, even before India was involved.

Conclusion/Lessons learnt (or should have been learnt): Same as the one for 65.

-- Now, lets look at Kargil: Once again, Pakistan violated rule 1. And thus the battle was lost, before it had begun. The Pakistani military operation, in this case, was extremely brialliantly carried out. It was, in my opinion, the most efficient military tactical operation in the history of Indo-Pak warfare. India had lost the military battle, the moment Pakistan soldiers occupied the very strategic Kargil heights, due to the lapse of Indian intelligence. My friends, who were actually in the combat, have mentioned that the Indian soldiers fought extremely bravely. But as anyone who has spent some time in the military will tell, it is impossible to fight someone while climbing steep hills, carrying heavy loads, with the enemy well-entrenched on the top of the hill. It is simple Physics.

Apart from violating rule no. 1, the political direction was missing from Pakistan`s side. Nawaz Sharif was not experienced enough to understand the complete political impact. The Generals didn`t look at this impact, since they felt the political leadership was going to do this. There are some rumours that indicate that the General`s forced NS hand also (the people I have talked to who were somewhat involved at decision making level, indicate that this is not true).

So regardless of the brilliance of the tactical war (which Pakistan won), it lost the overall political battle, and hence the war. In my opinion, since rule 1 was violated, and Pakistan had lost before the war had started.

Conclusion/Lessons learnt: Same as for 65 and 71.

-- From the above, we conclude that Pakistan should never initiate an offensive battle against India, since India is just too big. It should only fight if India attacks. It doesn`t matter whether Pakistan`s stance is moral or immoral. There is no point in getting into an offensive from which you cannot profit.

India`s traditional Strategic approaches:



India`s traditional strategic military decisions have been much better than Pakistan`s (till recently). Despite having much larger resources and forces (imagine how many times Pakistan would have attacked India, if Pakistan was seven times Indias` size), India has taken very well thought out offensives. It has never threatened all out offensive war against Pakistan (until the BJP die-hards arrived on the scene).

-- In 71, it waited and waited until the last moment, assisting in creating unrest conditions in East Pakistan, and only launched an offensive when there was 100% chance of success.

-- In Kargil, it did not extend an offensive war to the Sind/Punjab border, even though it had lost the intiative in the Kargil battle, itself. It kept fighiting the war in Kargil, lost the military battle, but won the political battle (which is the real battle).

-- In Siachen, it launched an offensive war. This is still going on after 18 years (I am amazed that the Indian press doesn`t talk about this - perhaps because India is the aggressor). If its aim was to lock Pakistan in a stalemate, thereby hurting Pakistan`s economy, then it has been a success.

Conclusion: India, traditionally did not violate the above-mentioned rules, and generally came out ahead. This was furthur assisted by Pakistan`s much smaller size.

Now lets look at two areas where India did violate the above-mentioned rules, and is paying the price:

-- The first is India`s military offensive in Kashmir, agains the civilian population. It has violated rule 1, and has thus not been able to win. The Kashmiri uprising has a large population up in arms, with people willing to die for their cause, and a third country`s support. India has used more soldiers against Kashmiris, than it has ever used against Pakistan, in any war, yet has not been able to crush the uprising. So much so, that it has been forced to open up fronts on Punjab and Sind against Pakistan, because it knows it cannot win in Kashmir. In addition, Pakistan has been able to get nearly half of India`s overall Army and Security forces, ``locked`` in Kashmir, away from Sind and Punjab, at very very minor costs to Pakistan. Infact, Indian Generals themselves have stated that their is no military solution for India in Kashmir.

Added to this, is the fact that India has made political decisions in the Kashmiri offensives, not on practicality, but on ego and emotion. Not negotiating on Kashmir has become a matter of pride for India, even if such decision making results in harmful military after-effects for India. Not a practical way to make strategic decisions.

-- The second scenario where India has made an error, in my humble (and perhaps a bit rusty) opinion, is the current build-up against Pakistan. It has lauched the largest buildup of military troops on one border since WWII. It is the biggest in the history of the areas that now constitute India and Pakistan. The nuclear aspect added to it, may make it perhaps the most dangerous against any one country, ever (I am surprised most Pakistanis have been able to accept it, and handle it so casually).

However, this is an unwinnable offensive for India. A nuclear power has never been defeated in an all out military offensive war, launched against it. A nuclear deterent, is thus, an impregnable deterent, i.e. from this point onwards, India can destroy Pakistan, but Pakistan can destroy India also, hence they will never win an offensive war against each other. India has thus violated rule no. 1, by initiating the offensive.

India also did not have a clear political objective, for this offensive. Some of the political goals that have been mentioned include winning the elections in UP, forcing Pakistan to hand over some individuals on a list, forcing Pakistan to stop the insurgencies across the LOC. These differences indicate a lack of cohesive political objective.

In the end the ruling party lost the elections in UP. It was unable to get anyone back whose name was on the list. And Pakistan did not stop the insurgencies under an Indian threat. Yet, India still did not carry out its threats and attack, i.e. Pakistan`s called India`s bluff, due to its nuclear deterent.

The whole issue did become internationalised. And as a consequence, Pakistan did end up stopping the insurgencies due to international pressures under the post-Sep 11 scenario (while giving a clear indication that it was not done due to Indian pressures). However, it also resulted in the US Secretary of State openly claiming Kashmir to be an international issue, and putting pressure on India to solve this problem. This is not what India would have wanted to happen through an offensive it initiated itself.

As a sidenote, it also resulted in Pakistan`s policy on Kashmir falling into a line, with the APHC as the leader, where it should have been to begin with, i.e. it curbed Pakistan`s tendencies for launching offensives, which it cannot win. In essence, in a round about manner, India has forced Pakistan to start following rule no. 1, by violating this rule itself, i.e. Pakistan will now make fewer wrong offensive decisions (touch wood). This is not good for India, since it would want Pakistan to make poor decisions.

Added to this is the fact that there seems to be an element of religion and Hinduvta etc. in India`s strategic decisions. This used to be non-existent. And this violates rule no. 3.

So, India traditionally made good strategic decisions, but now, due to over-confidence and religious persuations, seems to be letting emotion getting the best of it. Pakistan traditionally made poor strategic decisions, but now due to circumstances, or through the school of hard knocks, or international pressure, has handled the current Indo-Pak standoff well within the three rules, i.e. it is fighting a purely defensive war, its political and military strategy is on one line, and it is being very practical in retreating on issues where it knows it cannot currently win.

This is the basis of the lose-lose-lose scenario, I came up with. The consequences for India for making incorrect offensive decisions will not be as grand as those for Pakistan for making similar mistakes, i.e. the country splitting up, being forced into a retreat etc. Primarily due to the large size advantage India enjoys. But it has initiated an offensive, which in the long run, will not meet its objectives. It has (perhaps) won the military battle, by reducing the unrest in Kashmir, but it has been put on the back foot in the political battle, due to the reasons mentioned above, and in the article itself. There is far less military pressure on India in Kashmir now, but far more political pressure (due to the poor Indian decision making in initiating this offensive) to give up on the atut-ang stance.

Also, Pakistan has called India`s bluff, and there is now an acceptance that India cannot threaten all-out war again and again, without actually attacking. India has thus accepted Pakistan`s deterence, which it never did before, i.e. everytime India threatened to attack traditionally, it actually went ahead with it.

Conclusion: Pakistan and India have both on different occassions violated the above three rules. Pakistan, despite its much smaller size, traditionally far more than India. This has resulted in Pakistan getting into one problem after another, in many cases pursuing correct moral stances (like Kashmir) through unwinnable means.

But now India seems to be catching up in these rules violations. India`s violations have resulted in India still being mentioned in the same breath militarily as a much much smaller Pakistan, and not in the same breath as China (which is of comparable ratios to India).

Both countries need to now understand that, due to Mutually Assured Destruction, all-out military threats and offensives will result in rule no. 1 being violated from either side, and will have a doomsday result.

* * * *Kalaam-e-Meer samjhey aur Zubban-e-Meerza samjhey.......Magar inka kaha ye aap samjhey ya Khuda samjhey * * * * * *

chandrashekar.....discovered a constant i recall sort of a critical mass right before a star implodles and becomes a neutron yes or no????? was he the one at cambridge?

bose he worked on what is called the bose-einstein condensate its like a state of matter that only exists for like a fraction of time right ?????

its been a while i think i read this when i was a boy ... i think in a stephen hawking book........

re harimau

``Yes. Someone named Hari Singh. He happened to be the ruler of the state and had the right to sign over the state to India. ``

Subject to the `ascertainment of the sentiments and wishes of the people of the state`. It never ceases to amaze me how Indians forget that part of the Independence Act when it comes to Kashmir but promptly remember it for Hyderabad, Junagadh, and a host of other little principalities. But we have exhausted that debate many times over so let us not. I mention it only because you were trying to pull a fast one there about the tyrant Hari Singh`s absolute right.

re urstruly 197

Insofar as my list is concerned, it was meant as a response to your post about how there is no genocide going on in Muslim countries at this time. I am not sure where Naipaul came into all this.

Re genocide in India, I cannot explain that nor do I intend to. That theme of apologia I leave to my Indian friends. If you`re talking about the carnage in Gujarat (or even in Kashmir), I will draw a distinction between the repercussion between those and the the list that I (and Shammi) have provided: almost none of the countries mentioned in our lists were/are representative democracies. No, before you jump to the pet response, it does not make it any better or worse. Whatt does change is the repercussion: In India`s case, India`s internal social and political fissures, and judicial oversight, will claim fall guys for what has happened in Gujarat. At the very least, you won`t see Shri Narendra Modi getting a Padma Bhushan anytime soon, unlike the goons from Halajaba who were decorated as `Heroes of the Republic` by Saddam.

Re: Rsaxena

``... but who here thinks the indian govt. should allow corporate funding of research programs at the IITs...``

That is already happening. IITD has a center established by Intel. Many profs are already allowed to consult and pocket most of the revenue. The money issue is not the biggest problem for IITs (even though IITD`s budget is of the order of about Rs. 60 crore/yr only). A typical IITD prof does fine with the salary, free accomodation, and consulting revenue on the side thrown in. The biggest problem is recruiting excellent faculty (India does not produce enough quality Ph.D.s to staff an IIT). IIT Bombay alone needs about 20 new faculty every year. This was what was stated by the academic dean of IIT Bombay a few months ago at a talk that I attended.

Regarding sending rockets to the moon -- I have no problem. New technology is produced only by solving big problems, not little ones. The Internet was originally invented to provide a communications network that would survive a nuclear attack -- not to allow Chowkies to debate online.

re: shammi

{you are right. Let us talk number theory again. Alephnull? Pankaj? anyone there?}

..i don`t know more about number theory than already stated, but who here thinks the indian govt. should allow corporate funding of research programs at the IITs...what is wrong if companies use IITs for commercial research...bell labs operates like that....

...and why the hell is ISRO working on a mission to the moon...let`s first make the electricity grid work, then worry about going to the moon....

Shammi,Saxena

Well, I read the title of the article, the author and then quickly glanced at the article in one minute. I knew that it was not worth discussing. I thought you guys know Romair very well by now! at least Saxena does. So I refrained from any discussion on this topic. For me, diversion was more interesting than the topic itself.

fawad

``this mushy is a jehadi bjp is bad is getting to be boring

``

I dont know if mushy is a jihadi but bjp is indeed bad.