President Pervez Musharaff’s Views

This is crazy::
#190 by sarwar on July 23, 2003 5:48pm PT
Jihad Industry Gathers Steam in Pakistan
Mon Jul 21, 8:26 AM ET Add World - OneWorld.net to My Yahoo!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&ncid=655&e=3&u=/oneworld/20030721/wl_oneworld/105021058792550
Pakistan needs to do something about these un-employed, un-educated youth in Pakistan who fall easy trap for these jihadi outfit managers with their un-audited charities. Next time you pay to them, be sure that the you have actually paid for a bullet of you local mafiaso who will use it against you someday.

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

Naqshbandi #187

`` alephnull/bbabu...thanks for correcting my mistakes..i am not too hot on military stuff at present! ``

I am not an expert on military stuff. A lot of your comments were based on popular misconceptions.

`` From what I have read the PAF badly needs to modernise and i personally think the Russian MiGs (25, 27, 29, 31) and Su-s (27, 30, 35) are our best option. I am sure we can buy them off Ukraine if not Russia itself--with the correct diplomacy. After all Russians need cash--if we can give them the billions of dollars as well as India why should they complain--this way they sell twice the weapons and get twice the revenue...``

Let us examine your last claim. Pakistan defence budget is 2.8 billion if you believe the likes of Romair, HisExcellency. The true figure is close to 4 billion dollars. The military procurement portion is $600 million. This is for all military equipment including spares and munitions. There is not a lot of money to be made selling weapons to Pakistan. India defence budget is $15 billion. Military purchases account for 3 billion dollars. I believe Russia gets 60% of all contracts.

I see no reason why the PAF would need the MiG-25 and MiG-27. Feel free to waste your money. If the MiG-31 exists it has not been offered to any country.

`` China also upgrades many of the RusAF`s best planes and makes them in China itself--eg j-10, j-11 etc. Can`t we get them off the Chinese if the Russians/Ukrainians refuse? ``

The jet engines and other critical parts are imported from Russia.

`` Then there are the latest French planes... Rafale and MiG 2000-5`s...``

Ever check the price tag

`` We also need a high quality interceptor and the MiG 25 is the best...it easily outperforms US planes..I have been researching it...though it is expensive to maintain due to v high fuel consumption... mach 2.83 is much faster than any equivalent US fighter...and it can still do 4.5g maneuvres...(India already has some!!) ``

IAF has 6-8 aircraft for reconnaissance. They are not equipped with air to air weapons.

`` Then I noticed a massive lack of a supersonic bomber in the PAF inventory..this also needs to be remedied...again some of the Russian stuff looks good especially the Tu-22M which India is leasing too... ``

If China was denied the Tu-22M the odds of Pakisttan getting it are zilch. As you noticed Russians would only lease it to India. IAF has 5-10 Tu-22M. I believe they wanted to purchase 100 Tu-22M bombers.

`` Add some AWACs too...

If pak doesn`t get at least SOME of these 4th/4.5th/5th gen planes soon we will be wasted by India...``

Is this some kind of weird wish list ?
The procurement cost of 3 AWACS + 10 Tu-22M + 100 Su-27 + 40 Mirage-2000-5 would be
8 billion dollars. The operational cost of these equipment will be hundreds of millions. With all these additions the PAF would at best be in a draw with the IAF. PAF bases has no defenses against Prithvi missiles which would force them to operate from airfields 200-300 km away from the border. It eliminates their effectiveness.

`` Also how is pakistan`s air defense capability? We need some SAM batteries...preferably American (Arrow/Patriot via the Israelis?--hence my post in unplugged about why we need to recognise israel.--) if not Russian...``

I would not know if the Arrow can be used as an anti-aircraft missile.

some interesting stuff on the MiG 25 Foxbat:

quote

MiG-25 Speed Limit -

...the Foxbat can carry its full weapons load to Mach 2.8, while a clean recon version can do Mach 3+. Actually, the recon versions have the same limit as the interceptors: Mach 2.83. This is not a thrust limit. You might note that the RB versions of the Foxbat can carry four bombs(!) to Mach 2.83. The Mach 2.83 is a theoretical stability limit on the airframe (which has been safely exceeded on numerous occasions by test pilots). At speeds greater than Mach 2.6 however, throttle control must be precise to keep the engines from overspeeding.

Western Fighter Comparisons -

Lest you think that I am implying that the Foxbat is not a capable aircraft, especially in performance, you might consider the abilities of Western fighters. The F-16 can just barely squeak past Mach 2.0 with a pair of tip `winders. The F-14 can only manage Mach 1.81. And the mighty Eagle is only good for Mach 1.78. The Foxbat can outclimb all of these fighters by a healthy margin, and has a mauch better supersonic endurance than the best Western fighter. Furthermore, the Foxbat has demonstrated the ability to outrun all U.S. frontline fighters at _low_ altitude. The Foxbat is hardly a dud.

Gulf War Experience -

Did you know that a MiG-25PD recorded the only Iraqi air-to-air kill of the Gulf War? It dropped an F-18C on the first night of the war--then went on to fire another missile at an A-6 and buzz an A-7, all while avoiding escorting F-14s and F-15s.
An isolated incident? How about the single Iraqi Foxbat-E that eluded eight sweeping F-15s then tangled with two EF-111As, firing three missiles at the Ravens and chasing them off station. Unfortunately, the Ravens were supporting an F-15E strike, and the EF-111`s retreat led to the loss of one of the Strike Eagles to a SAM. Oh BTW, the Foxbat easily avoided interception and returned safely to base.

There`s more. When F-15 pilots were fighting for the chance to fly sweeps east of Baghdad late in the war, itching for a chance to get a shot at an Iraqi running for Iran, they weren`t expecting the fight that a pair of Foxbats put up. Two Foxbats approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles before the Eagles could get off shots (the missiles were evaded by the Eagles), then outran those two Eagles, four Sparrows and two Sidewinders fired back at them. Two more Eagles maneuvered to cut the Foxbat`s off from their base (four more Eagles tried, but were unable to effect an intercept), and four more Sparrows were expended in vain trying to drop the Foxbats.

The Iraqis had a total of twelve MiG-25PDs at the beginning of the war, of which maybe half were operational at any given time. Imagine what trouble they would have caused if there had been more. The Foxbats, when well flown, proved capable of engaging allied fighters and avoiding them at will. Only the limitations of their weapons proved a problem.


endquote
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG-25.html

alephnull/bbabu...thanks for correcting my mistakes..i am not too hot on military stuff at present!

---

From what I have read the PAF badly needs to modernise and i personally think the Russian MiGs (25, 27, 29, 31) and Su-s (27, 30, 35) are our best option. I am sure we can buy them off Ukraine if not Russia itself--with the correct diplomacy. After all Russians need cash--if we can give them the billions of dollars as well as India why should they complain--this way they sell twice the weapons and get twice the revenue...
**

China also upgrades many of the RusAF`s best planes and makes them in China itself--eg j-10, j-11 etc. Can`t we get them off the Chinese if the Russians/Ukrainians refuse?

**

Then there are the latest French planes... Rafale and MiG 2000-5`s...

**

We also need a high quality interceptor and the MiG 25 is the best...it easily outperforms US planes..I have been researching it...though it is expensive to maintain due to v high fuel consumption... mach 2.83 is much faster than any equivalent US fighter...and it can still do 4.5g maneuvres...(India already has some!!)
**

Then I noticed a massive lack of a supersonic bomber in the PAF inventory..this also needs to be remedied...again some of the Russian stuff looks good especially the Tu-22M which India is leasing too...

***

Add some AWACs too...

**

If pak doesn`t get at least SOME of these 4th/4.5th/5th gen planes soon we will be wasted by India...

Also how is pakistan`s air defense capability? We need some SAM batteries...preferably American (Arrow/Patriot via the Israelis?--hence my post in unplugged about why we need to recognise israel.--) if not Russian...

***

AlephNull #184

`` The Tu-95 Bear, on the other hand, has had a long career – nearly 5 decades – in multiple variants. It is remarkable for being a turboprop capable of attaining speeds more commonly associated with jet aircraft. Originally developed as a bomber, it was adapted to the maritime reconnaissance and ASW role as the Tu-142 Bear-F. The Indian Navy operates 8 Tu-142s in precisely this role.
``
The Indian navy ordered 6 more in addition to the original 8. The Indian navy plans to equip them with anti-ship missiles that have powerful 1000 or 2000 pound warheads.

`` Neither the Blackjack nor the Bear is stealthy. The claim that they ‘outperform’ anything the US has is highly subjective at best – it would depend on the mission - and very questionable.``

They would be sitting ducks for USAF F-16, F-15, F-18 and F-14s. They would need escorts for long range bomber missions which is a problem because the escort fighter aircraft lack the range of the bombers.

`` The Su-37 features canard fore-planes and thrust-vectoring engines as specific innovations in configuration and propulsion over the baseline Su-27. These together with full-digital FBW account for its exceptional maneuverability.``

I believe Su-37 is vaporware or a cosmetic improvement over Su-27/Su-30 platform. Russians are hurting badly for $$$ to fund their advanced research. It is bad in the long run for India because it leaves them at the mercy of USA, France, UK, Israel for advanced technologies.

Naqshbandi #183

I regret that much of your information is antiquated or just plain incorrect.

{{For example it is commonly known that the Tupolev ``Blackjack`` and ``Bear`` are the largest and best bomber aircraft in the world--i seriously doubt the Russians would give these to anyone. They outperform anything even the USA has.}}

The swing-wing Tu-160 Blackjack is the largest bomber in the world and the heaviest combat aircraft ever constructed. It was not built in large numbers (about two dozen) and was never very serviceable. Not too many are reported to be flying in recent years.

The Tu-95 Bear, on the other hand, has had a long career – nearly 5 decades – in multiple variants. It is remarkable for being a turboprop capable of attaining speeds more commonly associated with jet aircraft. Originally developed as a bomber, it was adapted to the maritime reconnaissance and ASW role as the Tu-142 Bear-F. The Indian Navy operates 8 Tu-142s in precisely this role.

Neither the Blackjack nor the Bear is stealthy. The claim that they ‘outperform’ anything the US has is highly subjective at best – it would depend on the mission - and very questionable.

{{As for the Su-37 it exists…The engines, avionics and armaments are also improvements on those originally installed in the SU-27. The AL-37FU engines are configured for thrust vector control … The Su-37 is also equipped with a rearward facing radar in the tail stinger area of the fuselage. The Su-37 features fly-by-wire and relaxed static instability, which along with 3D thrust vectoring give the aircraft tremendous agility. ...}}

The Su-37 features canard fore-planes and thrust-vectoring engines as specific innovations in configuration and propulsion over the baseline Su-27. These together with full-digital FBW account for its exceptional maneuverability.

{{Russia`s Air Force has not ordered any Su-37s. Sukhoi is studying the possibility of developing a two-seat version of the Su-37 with enhanced strike capabilities.`` ... No mention of India!}}

Not so fast. Check out India’s Su-30 MKI, which was custom-ordered from Sukhoi in 1996 and is now arriving in batches about 10 a year to make up an initial set of 50 aircraft, with a further 140 to be built in India. It is a two-seat fighter-bomber which answers exactly to the description of the “enhanced two-seat version of the Su-37” above. It has canards, thrust-vectoring (pitch axis only) AL-31FP engines, a monster radar (Phazotron N-011M) which practically makes it a mini-AWACS, rearward-facing radar in the tail-sting, advanced cockpit displays, other advanced avionics (a mix of western, Israeli and Indian equipment), etc, etc. It is the most potent development of the Su-27 platform currently in service (the Chinese variant Su-30 MKK doesn’t come close in its capabilities - it lacks canards, thrust-vectoring, has a less powerful radar, etc.). Neighbour’s envy, owner’s pride!

{{So Pak should try to get some of the Su-30s and the Su 27 and MiG 29 and Mig 31 if we can}}

You are by no means the first Pakistani to have thought along those lines. Check out this plaintive lament by Air Marshal (Retd) Ayaz Ahmed Khan:

http://www.piads.com.pk/users/piads/ayaz1.html

{ … The Russian refusal to sell combat aircraft to Pakistan amounts to a failure of Pakistani diplomacy.…. The Su-27 has already been evaluated by the PAF fighter pilots, who are duly impressed by its high performance. Renewed efforts are required at PAF and government levels to procure the Su-27 from Russia. The deal should be on the pattern of the one struck between Moscow and New Delhi. At least 50 Su-27s, modified to PAF requirements, should be ordered to balance out the air power gap with India.}

Unfortunately for Pakistan, India has undoubtedly made its massive arms purchases from Russia conditional on advanced Russian armaments not being sold to Pakistan. So unless you can outspend the baniyas, there will be no Russian Sukhois or MiGs for you.

Naqshbandi #183

``bbabu--some of your `facts` on military aircraft are not correct. Go to www.fas.org and you can see what I mean. For example it is commonly known that the Tupolev ``Blackjack`` and ``Bear`` are the largest and best bomber aircraft in the world--i seriously doubt the Russians would give these to anyone. They outperform anything even the USA has.``

The largest bomber aircraft are not the best necessarily. USAF B-52 are effective because USAF establishes complete dominance of the skies. No one would not lose any sleep if the PAF gets 100 B-52s because PAF could never achieve complete dominance. IAF would have a hard time getting that kind of air supremacy versus Pakistan.

The Bear is a turbo-prop aircraft that can be easily shot down by a vintage fighter aircraft. Indian navy has 14 Bears which can be used to hit countries as far as South Africa.
The Blackjack claims are questionable on two grounds. Russians have not mass produced them and have not sold it to foreign states.

The Backfire is the best choice for India, China, Pakistan and even Russia. It is a compromise between speed and payload. India has leased 5-10 of those aircraft.

`` As for the Su-37 it exists..``

It exists on the drawing board. I doubt the prototype described has the full functionality.

`` No mention of India!``

Click on the Su-30. They mention the sale to India.

``So Pak should try to get some of the Su-30s and the Su 27 and MiG 29 and Mig 31 if we can...``

30-40 million a pop if you can convince the Ruskies to ignore India and sell to Pakistan.
India retrofitted Su-30 with Israeli avionics which are a lot superior to Russian avionics.

bbabu--some of your `facts` on military aircraft are not correct. Go to www.fas.org and you can see what I mean. For example it is commonly known that the Tupolev ``Blackjack`` and ``Bear`` are the largest and best bomber aircraft in the world--i seriously doubt the Russians would give these to anyone. They outperform anything even the USA has.

As for the Su-37 it exists..
``The Su-37 is a super-maneuverable thrust vectoring fighter derived from an Su-35 prototype. The Su-37 represents a new level of capability compared with the Su-27 and Su-35. The Su-37 test aircraft made its maiden flight in April 1996 from the Zhukovsky flight testing center near Moscow. This impressive single-seat all-weather counter-air fighter and ground attack aircraft, derived from the SU-27, has an updated airframe containing a high proportion of carbon-fibre and Al-Li alloy. The engines, avionics and armaments are also improvements on those originally installed in the SU-27. The AL-37FU engines are configured for thrust vector control, with the axisymmetric steerable thrust vector control nozzle is fixed on a circular turning unit. The steel nozzle in the experimental engines is replaced in production engines by titanium units to reduce the weight of the nozzle. The nozzle only moves in the pitch axis, and the nozzles on the two engines can deflect together or differentially to achieve the desired thrust vector for a particular maneuver.
The Su-37 has a variety of other innovative equipment such as a radar configured for simultaneous surveillance of airspace and the ground and a high-precision laser-inertial/satellite navigation system. The all-weather digital multi-mode phased array radar operates in either air and ground surveillance modes or in both modes simultaneously. Ground surveillance modes include mapping (with Doppler beam sharpening), search-and-track of moving targets, synthetic aperature radar and terrain avoidance. The Su-37 is also equipped with a rearward facing radar in the tail stinger area of the fuselage. The Su-37 features fly-by-wire and relaxed static instability, which along with 3D thrust vectoring give the aircraft tremendous agility. It incorporates state of the art ECM in wing-tip pods, allowing improved survivability in electronic warfare environments. The Su-37 can carry air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons on 12 stations. The number of missiles and bombs carried can be increased to 14 with the use of multi-payload racks.

Sukhoi used payments earned in the sale of an Su-27 license to China to finance the Su-37 development. Russia`s Air Force has not ordered any Su-37s. Sukhoi is studying the possibility of developing a two-seat version of the Su-37 with enhanced strike capabilities.``

No mention of India!

So Pak should try to get some of the Su-30s and the Su 27 and MiG 29 and Mig 31 if we can...

I read a few days back the Pak Military demanded 70,000 acres plus from Punjab govt and received half the land in Punjab for the purpose of donating the land to Kargil military participants. Besides the point that Pakistan is admitting active military involvement in Kargil my question is this:

What happens when there is no more land to give away to the military in Pakistan. At the rate officers/generals and their families are getting the land, even the feudals may not have any more land.

Aren`t the people getting sick & tired? Besides, Kargil ``heros``!
What heros?

arjun_m #180

I see the link. But the university has no record of any professor - full time or adjunct.

http://www.gwumc.edu/edu/medicine/Edtrain/card.htm

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

arjun_m #178

`` chalk up another victory for mushy...first the kargil victory and now this...maybe mushy should stick to collecting rent from farmers..i`m sure he`ll prevail over the farmers.``

you get a lot of $$$ collecting rent

`` A package of $3 billion spread over 5 years, in real terms, comes to less than $600 million per year; the economic content will be less than $350 million/year. In May this year Centcom estimated that Pakistani economy suffered a loss of more than $10 billion since 9/11,as a direct result of US lead operations in Afghanistan. ``In view of this, the package is economically insignificant,`` says Pirzada also a member of the Institute of Strategic Studies in London.``

I seriously question Centcom`s economic analysis. Pakistani exports have not fallen despite a global recession. USA cannot be held responsible for the internal security in Pakistan.

`` The Indian caucus on Capitol Hill has won the day, observes Dr Mubashir Choudry, professor of cardiology in George Washington University, who left Pakistan in 1984 and is currently president of APPNA (Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America) Washington chapter.``

I went to George Washington University cardiology department. No mention of a professor by that name.

``The aid package is so insignificant that it`s not even worth discussing,`` says Washington`s leading cardiologist and senior White House Advisor on Drug Control. Choudry blames America for buckling under Indian pressure. ``Apart from giving this paltry sum, Indians pressured the US to deny Pakistan the F-16s.``

If it is a paltry sum please return the $$$. US taxpayers could use some of it.

`` Moeed Pirzada goes a step further, saying, ``Humbling Musharraf on the question of F-16s, and signalling Israel to sell anti-missile systems to India are deeply disturbing symptoms of US priorities in South Asia. At this moment it will be preposterous to comment as to what kind of defence components will be allowed. If it turns out that Pakistan is persuaded to buy pieces like attack helicopters, and transport planes then a question arises: are we seeing a qualitative change in terms of US desire to turn Pakistan Army into a police force equipped for fighting Islamic radicals rather than a force capable of defending its national frontiers?``

Pakistani army might have to fight Islamic radicals first before they take on India.

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

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

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

I reckon that Soma must be some sort of an influential person or an academician to have got an audience with President Pervez Mussharaf on his just concluded tour to USA.I would like to put the history staight and the issue of Kashmir in its correct perspective.

I agree with the President that all Indo Pakistan conflicts have taken place in the context of Kashmir. According to the partition plan, the people of Kashmir had to exercise the right of vote which was reiterated in the UN Security Council Resolution. Much before the partition, Nehru had drawn a strategy to annex Kashmir in which he had the support of Lord Mounty. Hence the lopsided award of Radcliffe. Then there was also the Raja of Bikaner who had declared that he would accede to the country that controlled the irrigation system of East Punjab. So if the Radcliffe award was fair, Bikaner would have become part of Pakistan. So the award gave India control of Rivers as well as secure a life line to Kashmir which was also Nehru`s ancesterol bias.

We also have to go back to the days of Hind- Chini Bhai Bhai. It is now a fact of history that Nehru palacated Tibet to India in return for her occupation of Kashmir. What has happened now during the recnt visit of Vajpaee to China over Tibet and Sikkim is a mere continuation of the same policy. Tibetians and the Dlai Lama have been given a very long and cantekerous joyride by the Indian policy.

Now come to think of Nehru`s initial declaration that he would allow a plebescite in Kashmir and his famous words ``you go your way and we go ours``. Why did he rescind on his commitment on the plebescite? Well Nehru`s ersthwhile opinion was that Pakistan would not survive beyond the fiftees and by logic not only Kashmir but all of Pakistan would also be theirs. When he reaised that Pakistan would survive, he ate back his words.

In the 70s his daughter saw a chance. The entire international perception was rallied against Pakistan. White house years by Henry Kessinger explain why West Pakistan could not be cut across.

Vajpaee`s Yatra to Lahore moreso to Minar-ePakistan was an indication that India no more covetd Pakistan. It was also a message that if Pakistan compromised on Kashmir, there would be no further exploitations of instabilities within Pakistan.

The litmus test of India`s flexibility on Kashmir will be her willingness to amnd the constitutional status of IHK and allow negotiations on it. Till such time this basic point is not addressed no conclusive diplomacy on Kashmir is possible. So Kashmir diplomacy remains akin to looking for a needle in a haystack with no magnets.

In the ultimate analysis no diplomacy on Pakistan`s side would succeed. It is the Kashmiri people who have to set the candlke of freedom alight. Sooon they will also be joined by the Buddists who have been let down due to India`s recognition of Tibet. So the stage is set for graeter Russo-sino-Indo collaboration on the blue print of the Shanghai-5 but also put Pakistan`s relations with China in sharp focus. Truly, India`s foreign policy experts have made the move in great Kautylian fashion.

re: Looters and plunderers of Pakistan
Further to my post # 169 (in reply to post # 153), here is an article from SAtribune:
http://www.satribune.com/archives/jul06_12_03/opinion_amin.htm

1. ``A dispassionate glance at Pakistan’s history proves that this country has been looted or plundered by both soldiers and civilians. It is another thing that soldiers got away with the crime because they had guns in hand while politicians were penalized because they did not have coercive military power or because they committed the crime of appointing army chiefs who overthrew them.``

2. ``The vast bulk of corruption in this country was committed in the Ayub and Zia eras because it was in these two periods when phenomenal doses of foreign aid came to this country. Thus the 21 families of the Ayub era. This is a reference to the families who, thanks to President Ayub’s patronage, rose from little or nothing to become among the richest in Pakistan. These included sons and grandsons of Risaldar Majors of Hodsons Horse and sons and grandsons of Assistant Political Agents (In both cases, the ranks are humble). I know many sons and grandsons of Risaldar Majors but none became a billionaire unless he was one part of the Ayub regime.``
Read about other scams that bedevil Pakistan.
Sridhar

Naqshbandi #172

`` I am glad that the PAF procurement guys have finally decided to shop around and not just pine after US F-16s (which are 20 years old technology anyway) -- pakistan should get the weapons it requires for its defence from wherever it can. And given the pre-eminence of air power in any conflict nowadays having an air force with modern planes is vitally important. The nukes are meant as a deterrent and not really to be used except in exceptional circumstances I`d imagine...``

F-16 is still a potent fighter aircraft. The PAF does not have the latest avionics, guided weapons, AWACS and electronic warfare equipment the USAF normally has. F-16 costs $30 million an aircraft which is a bargain compared to what France charges.

`` Therefore whether they get Swedish, French or Russian (etc) planes it doesn`t matter. I don`t know too much about military aircraft but I have heard the Su-37 (?) is an excellent 5th gen fighter and so is the Griffen and also the French Raphaele...``

Swedish aircraft is based on US jet engines. USA would deny Pakistan the jet engines. It is not a given Sweden would sell Pakistan the combat aircraft these days. Maybe 10 years ago. Russia is not going to sell Su-30 or Su-37 aircraft to Pakistan maybe Su-27. Su-37 does not even exist. India and Russia are supposed to work on it. France has denied India Rafale. The odds are slim for Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan have been negotiating with France for close to 10 years for Mirage-2000-5 strike aircraft. It costs 50-80 million a plane. The French do not seem to be in a mood to reduce prices !!!

`` Personally I think we should have a joint defence pact with the Saudis as they have got all the latest weapons and we have excellent soldiers/pilots etc so it will be a perfect match...``

Saudis buy weapons to prop up US defense industry. I doubt they let anyone use their equipment.

`` I wonder if we could buy some Blackjack (?) bombers of the Russians? ;-) and throw in a Typhoon Class sub too!! (if only!!)``

The best bomber in the Russian air force is Tu-22M Backfire four of which has been leased to India. China has been denied the aircraft. Odds of Pakistan getting it are zero.

Why would Pakistan want a nuclear powered submarine ? They cost too much to even operate.

sridar,

I am glad that the PAF procurement guys have finally decided to shop around and not just pine after US F-16s (which are 20 years old technology anyway) -- pakistan should get the weapons it requires for its defence from wherever it can. And given the pre-eminence of air power in any conflict nowadays having an air force with modern planes is vitally important. The nukes are meant as a deterrent and not really to be used except in exceptional circumstances I`d imagine...

Therefore whether they get Swedish, French or Russian (etc) planes it doesn`t matter. I don`t know too much about military aircraft but I have heard the Su-37 (?) is an excellent 5th gen fighter and so is the Griffen and also the French Raphaele...

**

Personally I think we should have a joint defence pact with the Saudis as they have got all the latest weapons and we have excellent soldiers/pilots etc so it will be a perfect match...

**

I wonder if we could buy some Blackjack (?) bombers of the Russians? ;-) and throw in a Typhoon Class sub too!! (if only!!)

To all Pakis:

All talks about Gujarat by pakis claiming high moral ground has been invalidated by the recent suicide bombing in Pak itself. Who did it? The same jihad which they claim to free them are now being used by themselves, on themselves and what will be the result?. Isnt this enough to shut your loud mouths and do some rehabilitation to Islam. Nobody, i emphasis, nobody should justify their acts as a response to acts by other communities.
I say both India and pak forget about kashmir and consentrate on rehabilitation. No other alternative other than to accept the loc as border, atleast temporarily, and do good to themselves.

re: Pak`s drive towards bankrupcy
India is setting up Pak for a ``soviet-style`` bankrupcy. It has increased its own military expenditure but its expenses are well within its budget and commensurate with its size and security threats. But Pak seems to be following the classic pattern of rivalry which lead Soviet union, a closed economy with limited resources at the time, towards bankrupcy. Read the following Url:
http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13187938&vsv=94

``With all hopes of netting F-16`s from the US having dissipated into thin air, Pakistan is reportedly urgently looking for alternatives from Britain, France and Russia.
According to sources, the government plans to spend anything between 12 and 15 billion dollars over the next five years to modernise the PAF, perceived by the defence authorities as a neglected sector.``
Where is the money ($ 12-15 billion in the next 5 years) to come from? No doubt from foreign aid and foreign exchange. Precious money meant for development will be diverted towards purchase of military hardware. All in the name of security threat from India. So, what happened to the much touted military doctrine that Pak does not have to compete with India since it has nuclear weapons as a deterrant. Either Pak rulers do not consider nuclear weapons as deterrant or they are on an ego-trip. Or, worse still, Pak`s nuclear capabilites may have been neutralised by USA.
Military expenditure is what economists call as ``locked up capital``. It is not economically viable for Pak to try to compete with India. But who can argue with megalomaniacal military rulers.
Sridhar

re:#153 by HisExcellency
I am only amazed when you guys keep defending dictators. Yes, Ayub era brought prosperity but much of it is borrowed ``prosperity``. It was not as if Pak suddenly became a manufacturing giant. Read the following Url to know what the Ayub era really meant:
http://www.dawn.com/2002/08/26/ebr6.htm

1. ``The fact is, it was the era of dole not gold. It was the era during which we became addicted to foreign aid and destroyed our agriculture and also allowed our pretentious security needs to dictate our economic policies rather than making policies aimed at reducing our dependence on dole.

Here are some details of the era. US economic aid to Pakistan in the shape of technical assistance and PL480 had begun in 1952. But a strategic meaning to this relationship was accorded by the Mutual Defence Agreement signed between the two countries in 1954. This opened the way for large-scale military and economic assistance. During the first three years, (1955-58), economic assistance had totalled $500 million or 2.8 per cent of GDP. The real value of the US military assistance in the late 1950s probably approached that of the economic assistance, which greatly relieved the pressure on Pakistan`s own fiscal resources.``

2. ``In the second half of the 1950s, the bulk of imports of food grains were financed by the concessional PL480 assistance from the United States. This reduced the urgency of increasing domestic food grain production and compounded the neglect of agriculture. And it was between 1958 and 1965 that the country experienced what in the words of USAID were, its `takeoff`` years but which actually was the time when Pakistan truly became addicted to external aid. A USAID document making an assessment of these years had tried to explain this away in this manner:

``The size of the programme, its administrative instability, the paucity of US knowledge about Pakistan and about the role of foreign aid in development, the equivocating and uncertain commitment within the US to foreign aid programme, in combination with political instability and the lack of an orderly approach to development within Pakistan, all worked to minimize the effectiveness of aid utilization.``

Anyway, if Pakis think they make great economic progress during Ayub era, so be it. It is true that GDP grew impressively but much of that growth was secondary to massive inflow of aid from USA.
Ayub Khan also was instrumental in tying Pak`s future with US assistance. Militarily, Pak became a US ally. I have read many articles from Pak newspapers as to how unreliable US military assistance has been for Pak. Today it is unable to get F16 from US while during Ayub era Pak was flooded with military hardware. What is different between then and now? The cold war. It is over today and Pak is not needed as a miltary ally anymore. It is however needed for a different role, to flush out the terrorists from its own country. What a climb down!
If Ayub`s achievements were permanent, Pak would have been Singapore of South Asia today. But his achievements, being dependent on foreign loan, was not sustainable. He did not build any institutions in Pak while during much of 50s and 60s, India was busy building and nourishing such institutions as IITs, IIS, BARC etc all of which proved to be immensely helpful much later. Much of the IT boom in India today has to do with the success of IITans in US silicon valley.
Need i recount the constitutional amendments brought about by him that eventually lead to alienation of Bengalis in East Pak? His Operational Gibraltor was a fiasco and lead to 1965 war and eventually set the stage for 1971 war and secession of East Pak as Bangladesh.
The less said about Zia the better. This guy islamised the Pak society as nobody else. The results are for all to see.
As far as ideologies go, you seem to forget that China has indeed shed it communist ideology in a big way when it went for free market economy 20 years ago. Free market is a capitalistic concept and yet China was the first communist country to embrace it. It has however retained strict control over its citizens and allows little freedom. Labor laws, freedom of dissent etc are unknown. It will have to slowly usher in these changes. Its continued economic success will depend on if the fruits of economic miracle can permeate to all sections of the society. Yet, by giving its citizenry a share in the economic pie, it has avoided taking the path of Soviet Union.
You are right to say that China does not consider India a threat (at least officially but it is a little different after India became an overt nuclear power). But India definitely considers China a threat. Yet, India has recently signed a number of trade agreements and signalled to China that it is ready to do business. China, in its turn, has signalled its readiness to eventually address the border problems but for now trade is big on the agenda. India has much to gain from trade with China.
Pak has not shed its ideology. You say that it need not shed it. Ponder for a moment. Has islamic extremism, jehad in Kashmir (to name a few) done any good for Pak? Would you say that military rule has been good for Pak? If you say so, then you have to explain why Pak is in such a mess today. May be you will even deny it is in any mess at all! Then there is no argument.
Taiwan does not send terrorists inside mainland china to destabilse it even though there is a political and ideological difference between the two. But Pak`s rulers have continued to harm India by various means. That is why it is not possible for India to do business with Pak unless Pakis throw away their generals and elect a popular democracy or Pak rulers change their ideology and do not view India as an enemy meant to be destroyed.
Sridhar

re:#156 by HisExcellency
You can wax eloquence on all the good that Ayub or Zia did but as the saying goes: the proof of pudding is in the eating. Where are all those gains? what happened to all the great industrial strides that you claim were made during Ayub`s time?
We are revisiting the changes that happened during Ayub`s time now during Mushy`s rule. Constitutional amendment, promise of great democratic changes shorn of corruption, giving himself (Mushy) greater power with a promise that only he can deliver the goods- all this must be deja vu for Pakis. It has happened before and it will happen again. Gains (real or perceived) during a military rule are never permanent. Next dictator will undo everything that Mushy has done and then Pak has to start all over again. Two steps forward, 3 backwards.
Sridhar

HisExcellency #163

`` According to Shaukat Aziz, Pakistan will pay off 90% of bilateral debt owed to US by 2007.
Foreign aid comes attached with conditionalities. It cannot be spent to create more jobs in PIA, Railways or WAPDA. IMF has already advised Pakistan not to use these government departments as recruitment agencies.``

It depends on why the foreign aid is provided.

If foreign aid is for military equipment, the military might no be able to purchase the equipment without foreign funds. The Pakistani air force lacks adequate number of modern combat aircraft. They could purchase 50 Mirage-2000-5. But it costs $4 billion.

If foreign aid is for school and hospitals I am sure Pakistani labor and materials are used to construct the facilities. The teachers, doctors and hospital staff are paid with foreign funds.

`` As part of SAP, the government usually spends this money on health, education and electrification of villages. Such services improve the basic indicators such as life expectancy, # of infant deaths per 1000 births, number of basic health units in rural areas. Although these services are important, these services do not significantly increase GDP per capita or national income. These basic services are either delivered free or at highly subsidized rates.``

Foreign aid is used to pay the salaries of personnel who deliver these services. If not Pakistani govt has to use its internal resources which is meagre.

`` On the other hand, investment results in job creation and production/consumption of goods & services. Since these benefits are quantifiable and direct, only these benefits are considered in national income statistics.``

You cannot invest in disease infested mal-nourished illiterate countries.

``So clearly your impression that Pakistan`s GDP per capita was high in 1960s because of foreign aid... is absolutely incorrect.``

It was higher than what India received. Also bulk of the aid was siphoned to West Pakistan. Bangladesh was called a fourth world country back in the early 1970s.

HisExcellency, O great one, one who never sees the sun set

can you asnwer me this:

from todays Nation
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/July-2003/4/EDITOR/op4.asp
start_quote

Recent IMF and World Bank surveys and reports have revealed that we never kept a proper accounting of over $50 billion of foreign assistance that we played with during the Cold War heyday. These examples are just the tip of an iceberg.

end_quote

re: #162 by bharatvaasi on July 3, 2003 1:07pm PT

Dear bharatvaasi, I don`t know the answers to your questions. I am just repeating what I learnt from my study of Pakistan`s economic history and the Bhutto years. If the impact of Hindu money/property ending up in Pakistani hands was significant, the World Dev reports would certainly have discussed it as one of the factors in Pakistan`s economic boom.

BTW, the economic boom wasn`t that early. It actually began in late 1950s. There was considerable poverty and unemployment from 1947 till 1958 (with an occasional bumper year in 1951 Korean War because of increased jute exports).

If you have any research material that suggests that the evacuee property and wealth left by Hindus in Pakistan was the major source of boom... please feel free to post it. I would still like to study it.

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

re: bbabu

++
If foreign aid does not affect anything please pay back the few billions back to Uncle Sam.
Ever heard of free money ???
++

According to Shaukat Aziz, Pakistan will pay off 90% of bilateral debt owed to US by 2007.
Foreign aid comes attached with conditionalities. It cannot be spent to create more jobs in PIA, Railways or WAPDA. IMF has already advised Pakistan not to use these government departments as recruitment agencies.

You perhaps don`t understand how foreign aid works, especially in Pakistan. Pakistan government usually ties the foreign aid to Social Action Program (SAP) which is part of annual budget.

As part of SAP, the government usually spends this money on health, education and electrification of villages. Such services improve the basic indicators such as life expectancy, # of infant deaths per 1000 births, number of basic health units in rural areas. Although these services are important, these services do not significantly increase GDP per capita or national income. These basic services are either delivered free or at highly subsidized rates.

Only income-generating investment contributes to increase in GDP per capita and national income. For national accounting purposes, non-quantifiables such as `life expectancy` and `family planning` are not considered.

On the other hand, investment results in job creation and production/consumption of goods & services. Since these benefits are quantifiable and direct, only these benefits are considered in national income statistics.

So clearly your impression that Pakistan`s GDP per capita was high in 1960s because of foreign aid... is absolutely incorrect.

HisExcellency saar, O all knowing one

could the reason for the early economic boom in pakistan be

(a) - majority of the creditors were hindu`s who got the boot during partition and hence the debtors suddenly had money they did not have the previous day literally. Indeed it is said that in many cases this was the reason for the riots and the mass killings. Indeed it is this reason that most of us pakistanis consider Indians to be banias!

AND

(b) the property vacated by these hindus was given to the people who did not have to earn it.

Suddenly on both counts people for a generation or more had more maney then sense and in typical paindoo fashion decided it was the genius of the muslim that generated this wealth.

Indeed this short to wealth is also the current flavour in pakistan - witrness the contortions mush-e-ruff and all of us go through with regard to the pipelines oil and gas and ll that. If India and iran decides a sub-sea line there goes our economic models. There is more to this shortsighted nature of us pakistanis.

So for once get of that high horse and smell the shot as it is......

re: #141 by rsridhar on July 2, 2003 6:26pm PT

Depends what you call an extreme point of view.

Almost 90% of Pakistanis support self-determination for Kashmiris. However, 60-70% want to support the Kashmir movement through peaceful means. The remaining 30-40% want a violent insurgency (which they describe as `Jihad`) to liberate Kashmir. I define extremists as the latter group only. These are the people who would perhaps contribute financially or physically to the JeM, LeT, HM, etc.

Using this definition, I would say that the mainstream Urdu press (Jang, Nawa-i-Waqt) are largely not extremist. Although the reporting is extremist/sensational, the opinion pages and editorials are not. For every extremist op-ed piece, about 2 are not.

Extremist organizations have their own publications. e.g. Hafiz Saeed`s organization (Markaz-ul-Dawa, i think) publishes a series of biweekly & monthly journals that are rabidly extremist. Similarly, Jamaat-e-Islami and other MMA parties take out dailies such as Jasarat and monthly publications such as Takbeer, etc. As the names suggest, these publications serve as recruitment pamphlets for Mujahideen. The content is very well researched but highly inflammatory against India. These publications have limited circulation compared to the (relatively) moderate Jang and Nawa-i-Waqt.

If you refer to arjun_m`s post, you will realize that circulation of newspapers (both English and Urdu) in Pakistan is quite limited, like India. The primary source of extremist views are loudspeakers installed in thousands of mosques across the country.

HisExcellency #155

`` You make an interesting point about the correlation between Oil Embargo and rise of fundamentalism. However, your knowledge is a little deficient about the latter. The fundamentalist wave engulfed Algeria, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia at roughly the same time. It may have been spurred by the Oil crisis of 1974... but the oil crisis died with the assassination of King Faisal. He was replaced with an American stooge, King Fahad who was not a fundamentalist.``

I would guess it is greater than correlation.

`` As this masterpiece elaborates, Islamic fundamentalism precedes the Oil Embargo and OPEC crisis of 1974. Both editors trace its roots to early 1900s.``

Petrodollars gives muscle. Where does the $$$ for the madrassas come for ? Without those $$$ your young student is out in the farm earning a few pennies for survival.

`` Once again you are misinformed about the 1945 Elections. Most of the UP and Bihar Muslim Leaguers were educated people with government jobs, small businesses and property. They suffered enormously under Congress rule from 1937 to 1939. As a result, the educated middle and upper class Muslims of UP/Bihar/MP migrated to Pakistan. These so-called Mohajirs were educated and became the backbone of bureaucracy in newly-formed Pakistan. Only the uneducated lower-middle class stayed behind. Only the uneducated Muslims of UP/Bihar/MP could be swayed by the vain `secularism` slogans of Congress. Educated Muslims with political IQ could see through the farce and voted for Pakistan instead. Socialist writers like Saadat Manto and Faiz wrotes volumes about this class divide among UP/Bihar/MP Muslims...``

Literacy rate in 1947-India was 10%. Literacy among Muslims was lower. It is true the Urdu elite in Central Provinces wanted Pakistan. The elite was a small percentage of population. But why would a landless Muslim worker vote for Pakistan especially if he cannot afford to move. Some people were way above their heads.

```Forced secularism` is when Muslim women are forbidden to wear head scarves in school or parliament in France and Turkey. `Forced secularism` is when the state starts interfering with the peoples` religious beliefs and lifestyles.``

What is the connection between head scarves and Islam ? It is a cultural thing.
France may decide its culture is best served by uniformity. They have the right to decide their national ethos. Why do Muslims go to France and expect their cultural practises to be tolerated ? Would Pakistan tolerate homosexuality the way France does ?

Singapore banned chewing gum. It looks like a arbitrary decision. it is govt way of telling its citizens to clean up.

`` a) It fails to provide constitutional safeguards for Muslims, Sikhs and other minorities. Suppose there is a law that is vehemently opposed by all Muslims, but vehemently favored by all Hindus. By virtue of their perpetual majority, Hindus can easily pass that law. Jinnah had suggested some safeguards in his Fourteen Points in 1920s.

Muslims need constitutional guarantees, not verbal promises or dogmatic ideals.``

The solution to your problem is that all Muslims live in Muslim majority states. If that is so important why are Pakistanis running all around the world asking for entry into any Westernized society.

What are there in the Indian constitution that would infringe upon freedom of religion ?

The failings of India with respect to secularism are much lower than Pakistani failings as a Islamic state or Saudi failure to be an ideal Islamic state.

`` b) An overwhelming majority of Muslims oppose secularism for ideological reasons. Under Islamic concept of state, the state must enshrine the precepts of Quran in its constitution and penal code. Of course, this means that contentious issues must be postponed. But atleast, in principle, an Islamic state cannot enact laws that violate the basic tenets of Islam. However, Muslim states are also required to guarantee the freedom of religion for non-Muslim citizens.``

All this whining about Islamic system is pure cultural chauvunism. The West has developed statecraft and political science in theory and practise to a higher level. It is hard for some folks to accept them.

Explain clearly the differences between variants of the Anglo-Saxon legal system and Islamic law.

``precepts of Quran`` and ``basic tenets of Islam`` - nice terms to throw around when you can agree with co-religionists on what they mean.

How do you reconicle the belief of some dodos that money has no time value (zero interest) with the modern workings of capitialist system ?

`` c) Even if the state professes to be religion-blind, its citizens are not. Even in America, the words ``In God We Trust`` on bank notes declare that America is a Christian/monotheistic nation. In theory, it may be possible for a Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Muslim nation to act secular. But in practise, this is very difficult to do. You need a long time, education and media effort to remove religious prejudices ingrained into people since childhood.``

Has the state in America ever mistreated you prior to Sep-11. After Sep-11 they had to round up people because they had no clue who the bad guys were.

`` Even after 57 years, India has not been able to rid itself of religious movements like Hindutva, RSS, etc. In fact, with the passage of time, these movements are growing stronger. Secular forces are considerably weaker today than they were in 1947.``

There will be powerful Hindu movements in areas bordering Pakistan - Maharastra, Gujurat, Delhi, Western UP. MP, Punjab, Jammu as long as Islamic movements exist to their West.

`` Secular forces must be judged by their actions, not their words. The definition of secularism means nothing. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in its eating. The entire world has witnessed events in Kashmir, Golden Temple and Gujrat. Sadly, these catastrophes belie all claims made by Indian nationalists about their secular democracy.``

Even with Kashmir, Gujurat, Golden Temple are people running to Pakistan ?

HisExcellency #156

`` Please be more specific. Are you talking about foreign aid or investment? Two different things. Aid does not directly impact national income, GDP per capita or private sector unemployment. In contrast, investment directly impacts the economy.``

Foreign aid !!!

If foreign aid does not affect anything please pay back the few billions back to Uncle Sam.
Ever heard of free money ???

`` The aid received by Pakistan was spent on social sector, military and infrastructure development. This would only explain higher employment in public sector.``

Don`t you think spending on social sector or infrastructure fuels economic growth ?


`` As a result, Pakistani growth rate and GDP per capita far outmatched India, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and other far eastern economies during late 1960s. In fact, in 1969 the South Korean government sent a team of experts to study the Pakistani model which was based on the Harvard Model of Economic Development. According to World Bank`s 1969 Report, Pakistan was about to ``take off`` whereas India was still back in the dark ages.``

Pakistani performance upto the 1960s was a function of excellent irrigation system in Punjab and Sind, low population density in Punjab-Sind, siphoning of East Pakistan resources.

BTW there are at least 100 foreign delegations that visit India annually to study economic projects. It mean squat.

You ignore the fact Bhutto was PM during energy crisis of 1970s. Pakistan being an importer would have been hurt no matter what.

`` Quite a ridiculous argument! Military expenditure as a % of total expenditure is approximately the same in 2003 as it was in 1996. Yet, the overall economy is stronger today than it was 7 years ago. ``

Why not compare 1988 with 1999 ?

`` I am saying what the common Pakistanis, World Bank, and IMF are also saying: Military governments have performed better in economic management than politicians. Hence your assertion that `military has brought misery to Pak` is pure Indo angst.``

Politcians never had control after 1977.

`` Between 1999 and 2001, Musharraf has essentially restructured the economy. Income taxes have been slashed. Instead, sales tax and custom duties (indirect taxes) have been increased. Defense expenditure was frozen. Agricultural tax was imposed in Pakistan for the first time. Telecommunication infrastructure was improved and expanded. And most importantly, Pakistan`s banking sector was reformed. Nawaz had drained the banks through bad loans and wilful default... Recovery of loans and tightening of lending process has improved the investment climate. Now anybody can get a loan; you don`t have to be a buddy of Nawaz Sharif or Asif Zardari. Now you can do business without having to spare 10-30% for custom officials and income tax officers.``

But the Pakistani economy was mired in a mess. They were close to a default in 2001.

`` Please post any article that supports your (lame) theory that `Pakistani economy was better under civilian rule than under military rule`.``

I never said that.

HisExcellency #157

`` Think again. China is the world`s largest dictatorship. India claims to be the largest democracy. I see this as a fundamental difference.``

They are not seeking to impose their models on anyone else.

`` Pakistan should also do the same, i.e. Freeze the Kashmir issue (without accepting LoC as border), and engage in trade/cultural exchanges (without letting India dictate which ideology to subscribe to).``

That will work if Pakistan cuts off support to armed militants.

re: bbabu

++
India and China have no fundamental ideological differences
++

Think again. China is the world`s largest dictatorship. India claims to be the largest democracy. I see this as a fundamental difference.

Nevertheless, India is wisely putting ideological and historical differences aside... and giving priority to economic interests.

Pakistan should also do the same, i.e. Freeze the Kashmir issue (without accepting LoC as border), and engage in trade/cultural exchanges (without letting India dictate which ideology to subscribe to).

In other words, Pakistan should treat India as a trade partner, not as a master or enemy. Pragmatism demands that we benefit from bilateral trade and buy cheaper goods from each other, instead of throwing precious dollars down the drain on expensive European and American imports.

re: babu

++
Zia and Ayub had American and Saudi cash flowing in it.
++

Please be more specific. Are you talking about foreign aid or investment? Two different things. Aid does not directly impact national income, GDP per capita or private sector unemployment. In contrast, investment directly impacts the economy.

The aid received by Pakistan was spent on social sector, military and infrastructure development. This would only explain higher employment in public sector.

However, if you are even vaguely familiar (although I seriously doubt most Indians would)with the Ayub Khan era, you will realize that most of the jobs being created were in the private sector. The 11-famous families (Dawoods, Saigols, Wazir Ali family, Adamjees, Crescent, and others) invested a lot of domestic capital in shipping, jute, textile, steel, banking, engineering, surgical goods, cement and sporting goods export units.

As a result, Pakistani growth rate and GDP per capita far outmatched India, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and other far eastern economies during late 1960s. In fact, in 1969 the South Korean government sent a team of experts to study the Pakistani model which was based on the Harvard Model of Economic Development. According to World Bank`s 1969 Report, Pakistan was about to ``take off`` whereas India was still back in the dark ages.

Since most of the industry (except Jute) was located in West Pakistan, the 1971 war didn`t derail this process either. The biggest blunder in Pakistan`s economic history was Bhutto`s nationalization in 1974 of banks and several key industries. Devaluation of Pakistani ruppee, labor strikes, corruption, mismanagement of industries by bureaucrats and flight of capital virtually paralyzed the economy. Bhutto was a politician. He had full control over the budget. Yet he blew the economy away.

Zia`s rule brought new industrialists to the forefront. Nawaz Sharif, Mian Mansha, Chaudhries of Gujrat, Crescent group, and several other families began to reinvest in Pakistan. By 1982, Pakistan was again sauntering ahead of India but behind the far eastern economies. South Korea has followed the Pakistani model of 1969, and sauntered ahead.

Benazir returns in 1988 and suddenly the floodgates of corruption open. Horsetrading, kickbacks and commissions mounted. Still the economy kept ticking along despite Benazir and Nawaz`s corruption. However, Nawaz Sharif froze Foreign Currency Accounts in 1999. This was the second biggest blunder in Pak`s economic history. It destroyed credibility of Pak government. The same year, Independent Power Producers were hounded off for kickbacks and commisions. As a result, foreign investors also went away from Pak.

++
Did Nawaz Sharif and Benazir have real control over the budget of Pakistan ?
++

Quite a ridiculous argument! Military expenditure as a % of total expenditure is approximately the same in 2003 as it was in 1996. Yet, the overall economy is stronger today than it was 7 years ago.

I am saying what the common Pakistanis, World Bank, and IMF are also saying: Military governments have performed better in economic management than politicians. Hence your assertion that `military has brought misery to Pak` is pure Indo angst.

++
What did the Pakistani economy do under Mushy till Sep-11 ?
++

Between 1999 and 2001, Musharraf has essentially restructured the economy. Income taxes have been slashed. Instead, sales tax and custom duties (indirect taxes) have been increased. Defense expenditure was frozen. Agricultural tax was imposed in Pakistan for the first time. Telecommunication infrastructure was improved and expanded. And most importantly, Pakistan`s banking sector was reformed. Nawaz had drained the banks through bad loans and wilful default... Recovery of loans and tightening of lending process has improved the investment climate. Now anybody can get a loan; you don`t have to be a buddy of Nawaz Sharif or Asif Zardari. Now you can do business without having to spare 10-30% for custom officials and income tax officers.

Please post any article that supports your (lame) theory that `Pakistani economy was better under civilian rule than under military rule`.

re: #144 by bbabu on July 2, 2003 8:32pm PT

You make an interesting point about the correlation between Oil Embargo and rise of fundamentalism. However, your knowledge is a little deficient about the latter. The fundamentalist wave engulfed Algeria, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia at roughly the same time. It may have been spurred by the Oil crisis of 1974... but the oil crisis died with the assassination of King Faisal. He was replaced with an American stooge, King Fahad who was not a fundamentalist.

The Islamic fundamentalist movement is not against any particular religion. It is against modernity. Islamic fundamentalist movements occur in Muslim majority countries only. It offers Islamic system of government as an alternative to Secular government. To get a better in-depth understanding of Islamic fundamentalism, please read the ``Contemporary Debates in Islam: An Anthology of Modernist and Fundamentalist Thought`` editted by Mansoor Moaddel and Kamran Talattof.

As this masterpiece elaborates, Islamic fundamentalism precedes the Oil Embargo and OPEC crisis of 1974. Both editors trace its roots to early 1900s.

++
Explain to me why an Muslim in UP/Bihar/MP would vote for the Muslim League if he was going to be stranded in Hindu India. The only logical explanation was the illiterate soul did not have a clue what he was voting for.
++

Once again you are misinformed about the 1945 Elections. Most of the UP and Bihar Muslim Leaguers were educated people with government jobs, small businesses and property. They suffered enormously under Congress rule from 1937 to 1939. As a result, the educated middle and upper class Muslims of UP/Bihar/MP migrated to Pakistan. These so-called Mohajirs were educated and became the backbone of bureaucracy in newly-formed Pakistan. Only the uneducated lower-middle class stayed behind. Only the uneducated Muslims of UP/Bihar/MP could be swayed by the vain `secularism` slogans of Congress. Educated Muslims with political IQ could see through the farce and voted for Pakistan instead. Socialist writers like Saadat Manto and Faiz wrotes volumes about this class divide among UP/Bihar/MP Muslims...

If you want a detailed discussion on this topic, let me know. I can provide you with enough historical material about those elections and Muslim perspectives from 1940-1947.

++
Explain to me what ``forced secularism`` is.
Secularism is simple in theory. It says that the State will not favor one religion over the other.
++

`Forced secularism` is when Muslim women are forbidden to wear head scarves in school or parliament in France and Turkey. `Forced secularism` is when the state starts interfering with the peoples` religious beliefs and lifestyles.

I am not talking about `secularism-the theory`. I am talking about `secularism-the practice`. All ideas are simple in theory.. But reality is significantly different from theory.

There are several problems with the concept of secularism:

a) It fails to provide constitutional safeguards for Muslims, Sikhs and other minorities. Suppose there is a law that is vehemently opposed by all Muslims, but vehemently favored by all Hindus. By virtue of their perpetual majority, Hindus can easily pass that law. Jinnah had suggested some safeguards in his Fourteen Points in 1920s.

Muslims need constitutional guarantees, not verbal promises or dogmatic ideals.

b) An overwhelming majority of Muslims oppose secularism for ideological reasons. Under Islamic concept of state, the state must enshrine the precepts of Quran in its constitution and penal code. Of course, this means that contentious issues must be postponed. But atleast, in principle, an Islamic state cannot enact laws that violate the basic tenets of Islam. However, Muslim states are also required to guarantee the freedom of religion for non-Muslim citizens.

c) Even if the state professes to be religion-blind, its citizens are not. Even in America, the words ``In God We Trust`` on bank notes declare that America is a Christian/monotheistic nation. In theory, it may be possible for a Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Muslim nation to act secular. But in practise, this is very difficult to do. You need a long time, education and media effort to remove religious prejudices ingrained into people since childhood.

Even after 57 years, India has not been able to rid itself of religious movements like Hindutva, RSS, etc. In fact, with the passage of time, these movements are growing stronger. Secular forces are considerably weaker today than they were in 1947.

Secular forces must be judged by their actions, not their words. The definition of secularism means nothing. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in its eating. The entire world has witnessed events in Kashmir, Golden Temple and Gujrat. Sadly, these catastrophes belie all claims made by Indian nationalists about their secular democracy.

HisExcellency #153

`` You are contradicting yourself. China and India don`t share the same race, language, ideology and politics. Moreover, China even thrashed India in the 1962 war. Yet, both countries are willing to cooperate in trade, without relinquishing their ideology.``

India and China have no fundamental ideological differences. They have a relatively petty border dispute. Tibet and Pakistan are serious short to intermediate term issues.

`` Pakistanis too are prepared to engage India on similar terms. We would like to trade with India, but will never compromise on our ideology. Nor do we expect India to compromise on its ideology. Pakistan has a surplus of electricity that can be supplied to various Indian cities that have frequent power outages. India has cheaper tea and wheat that Pakistan could benefit from. Pakistan has cheaper sugar. ``

What is Pakistan`s ideology ? Do not say you represent all Muslims in the sub-continent. You don`t.

`` * In 1999, when the Russian submarine Kirsk drowned, the Chinese advised the Russians NOT to accept foreign assistance from anybody in searching the crew. Their reasoning: Russia has a large population so it can afford to lose 20 sailors. But Russia should not accept foreign assistance out of national pride.``

That is false pride.

`` International maritime law states that a country`s borders extend into 10 miles of its coastal waters. China refused to accept this limit, and instead extended it to 100 miles.``

That is a gross violation of international law.

`` The Chinese realize that their ultimate opponent is US, not India. They also realize that if they maintain the current growth levels, they will outmatch US global influence in another 20 years. Hence, they are not pushed about dogmas such as democracy and secularism. Economic power is what they seek and are prepared to relegate everything else to achieve that goal.``

There is nothing stopping Pakistan from pursuing a single minded policy.

`` As for you `ludicrous` assertion that Pak Army has brought misery to people of Pakistan... think again. GDP/capita, employment, foreign direct investment and industrial growth rates were higher under Ayub and Zia rule, than say under Bhutto (both father, daughter) and Nawaz rule. Even a cursory look at World Bank reports will confirm this fact. ``

Zia and Ayub had American and Saudi cash flowing in it. Did Nawaz Sharif and Benazir have real control over the budget of Pakistan ? If not do not blame them.

What did the Pakistani economy do under Mushy till Sep-11 ?

re: #148 by rsridhar on July 3, 2003 7:22am PT

++
Pak does not share same views on history. The 2 countries are so much apart that for the 2 to become friendly, one has to give up its ideology completely.
++

You are contradicting yourself. China and India don`t share the same race, language, ideology and politics. Moreover, China even thrashed India in the 1962 war. Yet, both countries are willing to cooperate in trade, without relinquishing their ideology.

Pakistanis too are prepared to engage India on similar terms. We would like to trade with India, but will never compromise on our ideology. Nor do we expect India to compromise on its ideology. Pakistan has a surplus of electricity that can be supplied to various Indian cities that have frequent power outages. India has cheaper tea and wheat that Pakistan could benefit from. Pakistan has cheaper sugar.

++
Pakis are not as pragmatic as Chinese. An average Paki continues to trust Army generals when latter have brought only misery to Pak.
++

I agree. The Chinese are more pragmatic and nationalistic than the Pakistanis. Here are a few examples:
* In 1999, when the Russian submarine Kirsk drowned, the Chinese advised the Russians NOT to accept foreign assistance from anybody in searching the crew. Their reasoning: Russia has a large population so it can afford to lose 20 sailors. But Russia should not accept foreign assistance out of national pride.
* International maritime law states that a country`s borders extend into 10 miles of its coastal waters. China refused to accept this limit, and instead extended it to 100 miles.
* In 2001 a US spy plan transgressed into Chinese territory. The Chinese impounded the plane, released its crew and then humiliated the Americans by returning the plane piece by piece.

The Chinese realize that their ultimate opponent is US, not India. They also realize that if they maintain the current growth levels, they will outmatch US global influence in another 20 years. Hence, they are not pushed about dogmas such as democracy and secularism. Economic power is what they seek and are prepared to relegate everything else to achieve that goal.

As for you `ludicrous` assertion that Pak Army has brought misery to people of Pakistan... think again. GDP/capita, employment, foreign direct investment and industrial growth rates were higher under Ayub and Zia rule, than say under Bhutto (both father, daughter) and Nawaz rule. Even a cursory look at World Bank reports will confirm this fact.

Don`t make observations with your eyes closed.

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

#123 by rsridhar on July 2, 2003 6:49am PT

Yes I do agree with your post. Thanks for sharing the info

re:#143 by arjun_m
I read somewhere that most Israeli teenagers, after completing their compulsory military training, come to Goa to chill out. Goa is kind of a chilling out place for Israelis.
Sridhar

re:#145 by Buddy
Both Taiwan and PRC are similar at civilisational level. They share the same history, philosophy, culture. The only difference is that both have taken divergent paths politically. Taiwanese consider mainland china their own country and want to be reunited but only after PRC changes its ideology and becomes a democracy. PRC is in no mood to change its ideology at present but has become a freemarket economy. Someday, china will become a democracy. Then, Taiwan will rejoin mainland China.
India and Pak are different from civilisational aspect as well as from cultural, historical, political and every other aspects. Ghoris and ghaznis are Pak`s heros but are hated in India. Pak does not share same views on history. The 2 countries are so much apart that for the 2 to become friendly, one has to give up its ideology completely.

Pakis are not as pragmatic as Chinese. An average Paki continues to trust Army generals when latter have brought only misery to Pak. China, OTOH, had experimented with a number of ideologies (eg the long march, controlled socialism etc) giving them up one by one once they proved failures. It has embraced free market even though it goes against the very grain of communist ideology. Can you trust Pak`s Generals to have free trade with India and continue to negotiate peacefully on Kashmire? NO WAY.

Look at the recent trade agreements between India and China. NIITs from India are setting up shops all over China to train their men in software. China is investing in India now. The trade is expected to touch $10 billion in the next few years (it is about 4 billion today). This is happening despite a lot of problems including border issues, issue of arming Pak and trying to encircle India strategically. But recently i read a report that India and China will have joint naval exercises in Malacca strait. Amazing! When you have pragmatic leaders, any change is possible. With wooly headed military dictators, you can only talk about bullets and firearms.
Sridhar

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

Now, all we have to do is sit back and wait for a few major militant strikes. It always happens when there is a sense of normalcy in Kashmir.

PAHALGAM JOURNAL
India`s Tourist Destination: War-Haunted Kashmir
By DAVID ROHDE


AHALGAM, Kashmir, June 27 — Horseback riding for the kids. Barefoot walks for mom and dad in green mountain meadows. Alpine streams perfect for swimming and water fights between overheated children.

The new destination for Indian families trying to escape blistering summer heat? Kashmir, the bloodied but stunningly beautiful swath of Himalayan territory that has been the scene of a brutal 13-year insurgency and the focus of two wars between India and Pakistan.

Advertisement


By June 24, 64,000 Indian tourists and 800 foreign tourists had visited the Kashmir Valley this year, six times the number who arrived in the same period last year, according to state officials. The unexpected explosion in tourism has booked hotels solid, jammed flights and fostered something largely absent in this tense corner of South Asia for more than a decade: a sense of calm.

Standing in a valley here surrounded by granite peaks and pristine glaciers, D. C. Mehta, 55, a retired bank employee from central India, relished his vacation decision.

Before his eyes, half a dozen adults and teenagers madly splashed each other with the emerald waters of the Lidder River. This trip, he said, was his first return to Kashmir in 30 years.

``The number of tourists will increase,`` he predicted. ``There will be a flood.``

The spot where Mr. Mehta stood symbolized the scale of change here. Three years ago in the same meadow where his family played, three militants gunned down 29 tourists taking part in a Hindu pilgrimage. Eight years ago, militants kidnapped one American and four European hikers as they trekked in nearby mountains. One was found decapitated while the others were never found and are presumed dead.

Today, a Canadian, Spaniard, Frenchman, Israeli, South African and American strolled down this resort town`s main street. The foreigners were following in the footsteps of British colonialists who vacationed here a century ago. They said they felt safe and expressed surprise at the tourist boom.

``I`ve never seen this many Western tourists,`` said Eileen Salzig, 35, a Manhattan copywriter who said she had been coming to Kashmir for the last three years. ``I think it`s good for Kashmir.``

There are multiple reasons for the turnaround. In April, the Indian prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, began a peace initiative with Pakistan that reduced war fears. Killings in the state are down 20 percent this year, and a newly elected state government has started a ``healing touch`` policy intended to ease tensions and project an air of normalcy.

There is even talk of persuading Indian filmmakers to return to Kashmir, whose mountains served as Bollywood backdrops for decades. `` `Love Story` was made here,`` declared Salinder Sethi, a hotel owner, referring to an Indian classic, not to be confused with the American version.

Battered Kashmiris expressed a cautious optimism after seeing the insurgency claim more than 35,000 lives, 14,000 of them civilians, according to Indian government statistics. It has been a dirty conflict, with militants assassinating Kashmiri moderates who dare speak of compromise and security forces carrying out their own executions of suspected militants.

A similar spike in tourism in 1999 ended when a Pakistan-backed incursion touched off a 10-week border clash between India and Pakistan. An attack on tourists now would empty planes, hotels rooms and taxis in days, Kashmiri officials warned.

They say the root cause of the strife here — whether Kashmir belongs to India or Pakistan or should be independent — still stands unresolved. And away from the tourist spots, they point out, hundreds of soldiers, militants and civilians are still dying in the conflict. Despite the 20 percent drop in the casualty rate, 1,119 people were killed, including 387 civilians, from Jan. 1 to June 15 this year, according to Indian government figures.

But for now, Kashmiris are relishing the unexpected good times.

Gulam Rasul, the 54-year-old owner of the ``Cheerful Heart`` shawl shop on the town`s main street, was morose in an interview here last July. At the time, the main street was deserted. Hundreds of heavily armed policemen and soldiers ringed the town in an effort to prevent attacks on participants in the local annual Hindu pilgrimage.

Asked about the situation today, his leathery face brightened. ``First class,`` he said.

On the street outside, members of India`s growing middle class scoured souvenir shops and gobbled down ice cream. A red Mercedes-Benz coupe with New Delhi license plates sat parked on the street. A blue Mercedes-Benz coupe with New Delhi plates zoomed out of town.

While Kashmiris said they still wanted independence, they expressed a preference for negotiations over fighting. ``After having the gun for 15 years, we realize we will not get anything,`` said Rais Ahmed, a 20-year-old college student. ``Dialogue is in the air.``

He was referring to the Indian prime minister`s peace initiative and Kashmir`s new state government. In an election boycotted by militant groups last fall, the New Delhi-backed party that has dominated Kashmir, the National Conference, was driven from office for the first time in 50 years.

The new government has released some militant prisoners, cut back on searches by security forces and started investigations into some reports of human rights abuses by Indian forces, a long-running Kashmiri complaint.

The new freedoms are producing unaccustomed political activity and fresh hope. Mr. Rasul, the shopkeeper here whose mood has shifted from morose to cheery in the last year, summed up the situation with the Kashmiri version of optimism. ``I can`t say the sense of fear is gone,`` he said. ``But it`s down by half.``

#145 by Buddy on July 2, 2003 10:26pm PT

[Now look at us. Squabbling over Kashmir instead of making Indo-Pak an economically vibrant region!]

Nobe intentions indeed. But both the Chinese and Taiwanese people are educated and both China and Taiwan are basically progressive societies. But what is that India can possibly gain out of Pakistan except highly indoctrinated and brutal terrorists and the ISI? There is absolutely nothing that India can gain out of Pakistan. There`s no skilled manpower there to seek, and what can a beggared country possibly invest in India? As it is even far flung corners of India are infested with Paki spies. And that country has been brimming with hatred for India ever since its birth. Opening up of the country like the Chinese have done for the Taiwanese and vice-versa could spell doom for us.

Ref: #125 by arjun_m on July 2, 2003 7:57am PT
Even pakilands chinese buddies are investing more money in India...

Just look at China and Taiwan. Nothing comes in the way of doing business. The Taiwanese and Chinese are hypersensitive when it comes to the question of nationhood for Taiwan. Whenever a Taiwanese govt. official makes even oblique references to Taiwan as an independant country, China pulls out its missles and threatens Taiwan with all its might. However, this in no way comes in the way of business and trade between the two.

Although Taiwan does not allow mainland Chinese into their ``country``, the Taiwanese are allowed to visit, stay and live in mainland China. China considers Taiwan to be their province and so the Taiwanese are allowed in. The Taiwanese have made billions of dollars of investments in China and gain from the cheap labor and vast market. The economies of both have gained tremendously.

Now look at us. Squabbling over Kashmir instead of making Indo-Pak an economically vibrant region!

HisExcellency #136

`` Your comments about Pak-China relationship make an interesting counterargument to the ``Islamophobic theory``. ``

The rise of Islamic fundamentalism can be traced to OPEC, 1973 oil embrago and Saudi petro dollars. Pakistan had to get a share of the action. What better way than buttressing its Islamic credentials.

`` Pakistanis have a right and duty to expose Hindu fundamentalists who claim to be secular. Lets call a spade a spade. ``

Not if believe in the type of system Pakistan has now.

`` This is actually not true. The 1940 Lahore Resolution had already spelt out creation of a separate state as a goal for All India Muslim League. Jinnah had also been accepted as the sole spokesman and leader of all Indian Muslims at that session. Between 1940 and 1945, Muslim League campaigned for Pakistan vigorously. Effectively, the 1945 election was a vote about partition plan. Between 1945 and 1947, the Congress and AIML were simply trying to find a workable solution within the Indian Union. By 1946 however, it was clear that two parties could not work together because of their diametrically opposed views. ``

Explain to me why an Muslim in UP/Bihar/MP would vote for the Muslim League if he was going to be stranded in Hindu India. The only logical explanation was the illiterate soul did not have a clue what he was voting for.

`` Ah.. so finally you reveal the imperialist mindset behind all that ``secular`` and ``largest democracy`` eyewash! I am finding it hard to differentiate between your brand of ``forced secularism`` and Taliban`s brand of ``forced Islam``.``

Explain to me what ``forced secularism`` is

Secularism is simple in theory. It says that the State will not favor one religion over the other.

Most of the advanced societies in this world have been secular. Secularism does not automatically imply democracy, civil society (Saddam was secular), ethnic/economic disparities.

There are a lot of cultural legacies of British rule
Sunday as a holiday
English language
Western dress
Convent education

It happens whether you like imperialism or not.

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

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

re:#134 by HisExcellency
Sometimes ago,someone in Chowk posted an article showing very few people in Pak (a small percentage) even read those liberal English dailies. OTOH, Urdu papers have a much wider circulation in Pak. What do these Urdu papers say? Are they not holding an extreme view point? Are they liberal in debating the various aspects of problems confronting Pak? I can`t answer that question as i do not read Urdu. But what i have heard is not pleasant.
(English dailies in India, OTOH, have a much wider circulaton, due to low cost of paper and printing as well as a much larger readership).
Sridhar

Includes a picture of an ISRAELI TOURIST (oh, no, bad enough that the hindus are back, but hunoon AND yahood??????).

-------------------------------------------------------------
From the Calcutta Telegraph, Wednesday July2, 2003


Season of peace brings back tourists
MUKHTAR AHMAD AND AGENCIES

A tourist skis on the Dal Lake in Srinagar. (PTI)

Israeli tourists in Srinagar. (AFP)
Srinagar, July 1: Thousands of tourists have been flocking to Kashmir this summer, encouraged by the recent peace overtures between India and Pakistan.

Nearly 50,000 tourists, including 3,200 foreigners, have visited the state so far this year, Mohammad Ashraf, director general, tourism, said. There were only 10,104 tourists during the same period last year.

“Year 2003 is different. Not only have the domestic tourists been coming here in good numbers but the message that has gone out because of the renewed tourist influx is heartening,” Ashraf said, his face breaking into a smile.

He said the trend indicated more were likely to visit the state this year than in 1999, when a record 2.17 lakh showed up due to a lull in militancy between Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s Lahore bus ride and the outbreak of hostilities in Kargil.

Tour operators said tourists now felt confident about visiting Kashmir