Re: Terror Strike in Pune
^^ Go checkout African and Middle Eastern generalisimos and then you will know :)
CAlm down Yamaha.
don't you realize that Indians would have launched strikes if they could?
Reality is that Indian generals (and their Pakistani counterparts) are a lot more cool headed compared to the high school gangland mentality of the youth in the two countries.
Remember that both Indian and Pakistani generals come from the same stock, and from the same historical training of British Indian Army, and before that from the armies of Mogals.
With that kind of background, no Pak general would do terrorist act in Bombay or Pune. Yes they will do a fair fight in Kashmir because it is disputed. But not Pune, Not Dilli, Not Bombay.
Similarly no Indian general in his right mind would be thinking to strike Karachi or Muridke.
Reason!
Pak and Indian generals are no depots like some generalisimos from Iraq, Iran or some other Gad awful dung heaps of middle East or Africa.
Unlike many key board warriors from the Indian South and East like yourself, these generals come from the same geographical area of North West of the subcontinent. And they love and cherish the land of their ancestors.
Many Indian generals love to visit and soak in the air of Pindi, Gujrat, Sahiwal, Chakwal, Gujranwala, Kasoor, etc. etc.
It is thanks to these generals, that Pak and India haven't turned into a burned up pile of ashes.
And the way the key board warrirors from the two countries talk, may be such generals are dying bread. Who knows 50 years from now, these generals will be gone, and Indo Pak may turn each other into a burning pile.
Who knows!
I'm very much calm. Thank you. I do agree that, Indo-Pak generals have same history. They come from same schools. It was good to see Gen Shankar Roy Chaudhary addressing Gen Aslam Beg as "Sir" during one of the talk shows, as Gen Aslam Beg was senior than Roy chaudhary.
Why would you believe, I'm from "Indian South or East"?
But I do not believe that we should thank Indian General and paksitani generals for not having us burned up in a pile of ashes.
I believe it was coz of the civilian govts. from both sides. Indian army generals have repeatedly said, they are ready to strike across the Loc, or they shoudl cross Loc during the kargil war. But it was the civilian govt. that had to clip the wings of the Army. There have been many times, Indian Army generals have been asked to apologise for their actions by the govt. Like, AY Tipnis, chief of Air staff had to make a public apology, for not saluting to Presedent Musharrraf during his arrival. Indian defence minister Goerge Fernandez has dismissed Indian Navy Chief, for his anti govt remarks.
Gen K Sunderji's plan was to bisect paksitan throught he middle during operation brasstacks, but civilian govt. dismissed his plans. Due to Sunderji's war doctrine, Pakistan wants to use afghanistan as its strategic depth.
There were many times, Army chief padmanabhan jingoistic comments were dismissed and the chief was asked to know his limits.
I truely believe its the civilian govts from India and pakistan that should and is responsible for whatever peace that exists in the sub continent.
India has been mostly surrounded by military or military like govts. paksitan, bangladesh, china. Its a big task for Govt of India, to make sure that it checks the activities of its army, navy or air force, so that there is no coup, like it happens in pakistan.
I truely believe kargil war would have not taken place, if Govt of pakistan would have been in total control of its army.
As both Army generals come from same old schools, they have the same Khujli as well.
Re: Terror Strike in Pune
Burqposhs, Yamahaguy - good well argued debate. But don't forget the reality which is Pakistan has had several coups and India hasn't had any.
So how can you agree that the generals are of similar mold? Are there some similarities - sure. But the differences are a lot lot more.
I will say this - going by the record of coups, we will have to say that the Pakistani military has no respect for its place or for the constitutional government.
Even today with Kiyani, the president and government of Pakistan serves at the pleasure of Kiyani.
The generals in India serve at the pleasure of the President of India, however dumb that person may be.
Well, I think after independence, India and Pakistan went on different paths. India chose to be with the third world (non-aligned countries). World was divided into three halves, pro-western powers, communists and then there was the third world (non aligned countries).
Pkaistan chose to be a part of the 1st world pro-western by signing the CENTO in 1955. Main goal of CENTO was to contain USSR from the southern front. There by UK had military bases in these countries and they had access to facilities through Pakistan. United States was not a member of the organization, it did sign bilateral military aid treaties with Pakistan, Iran and Turkey, ensuring that it would continue to be active in supporting the CENTO members.
They tried to develop it as NATO in the middle east.
When a country signs pacts military pact with western countries during infancy, then there are chances that western countries will push their own military agenda.
There would have been too much involvement of Pak military in the international affairs of pakistan. Western powers would have liked to see strong military or military govt. in pakistan that was pro west. During that time they supported Shah, the infamous dictator of Iran. Plus, then again there was Soviet war and Pak fauj played a major role
Plus, Pakistan was not able to strengthen as a democratic republic, establish a strong parliament and curtail the powers of army.
The definition of powerful nation in modern times have changed. Powerful nation in todays world consist of a strong parliament, strong judiciary and a obedient army. Example, Turkish parliament rejected giving entry to US troops from nothern side of Iraq, during Iraqs invasion, US could not do anything in that case. But in pakistan they were able to dictate terms to the dictator of pakistan (Musharraf).
It was very easy to influence a dictator, rather than a functioning parliament. It would have been interesting to see, if pakistan had a functioning parliament, and parliamant of pakistan would have rejected US access in Afghanistan.
India army on the other hand had no scope of getting involved in international affairs right from the infancy. And India was able to strengthen its parliament and establish faith within its people in its parliament. And in Pakistan to this date, people still have more faith in its army than its parliament.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
.... As both Army generals come from same old schools, they have the same Khujli as well.
hahahhaha. Khujli. That's correct.
BTW, I was comparing the real generals vs. arm-chair aka key-board warriors in Pak and Ind.
(The comparison was not between Generals+Politikos.)
Anyways, I think we agree on overall analysis.
Well, I think after independence, India and Pakistan went on different paths. India chose to be with the third world (non-aligned countries). World was divided into three halves, pro-western powers, communists and then there was the third world (non aligned countries).
Pkaistan chose to be a part of the 1st world pro-western by signing the CENTO in 1955. ...
Just a correction.
We ought to be honest to accept that Indians went for Commie Ruskies. India was and has been the biggest buyer and close confidant of Ruskies.
1979 clearly showed, and KGB general's tell all books exhibit that Dilli was in Commie pockets just like Pakistan was in US pocket.
Let's not be too nationalist to ignore the obvious.
Just a correction.
We ought to be honest to accept that Indians went for Commie Ruskies. India was and has been the biggest buyer and close confidant of Ruskies.
1979 clearly showed, and KGB general's tell all books exhibit that Dilli was in Commie pockets just like Pakistan was in US pocket.
Let's not be too nationalist to ignore the obvious.
Yes, in fact India was approached for the CENTO pact as well. Our leaders rejected it, as they were born socialists. Indian worked like a scoialist nation till 1990.
And we were dependent on Russia for the arms.
But, its because of Pakistan today India is not a socialist or a communist country. Pakistans played a major role in defeating the russians in Soviet war in Afghanistan.
If Pakistan was not involved and and the Soviets were not defeated, Russians would have spread their commi tenticles in the South Asia via Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Indians socialist politicians would have welcomed commis with their four arms. And today, many Indians would be still waiting for 8 years to get a phone connection or to get a bajaj scooter as they did in the 1980's
Just a correction.
We ought to be honest to accept that Indians went for Commie Ruskies. India was and has been the biggest buyer and close confidant of Ruskies.
1979 clearly showed, and KGB general's tell all books exhibit that Dilli was in Commie pockets just like Pakistan was in US pocket.
Let's not be too nationalist to ignore the obvious.
India and USSR were allies for a long time and i don't see anything wrong in that. Comparing Pakistan's relation with US with India's relation with USSR is not a fair comparison.
Pakistan's relation was more subserviant than India's and in time of need India was able to get more out of its relationship then Pakistan did. The case in point being 1971 when the allies left Pakistan high and dry. While as India's pact with USSR kept China at bay ..... CENTO or SEATO or any TO would not come to Pakistans aid when they required it. This is after Pakistan had offered US the use of their bases for launching U2 planes. I can go on and on about it but then you already know the fact so no point in my repeating them. And as you rightly said let us not get nationalist about it .....
hahahhaha. Khujli. That's correct.
BTW, I was comparing the real generals vs. arm-chair aka key-board warriors in Pak and Ind.
(The comparison was not between Generals+Politikos.)
Anyways, I think we agree on overall analysis.
Actually the comparison IS about Generals and Politicians ..... i mean everyone knows who wears the "pants" in Pakistan. Forget about last 60+ years of history ... just a few years back Pakistan army chief went ahead and got involved in a major invovlement with India ... in Kargil ... without any orders for the "government" .... i cannot think of an incident where an army chief in India has been able to move even a handfull of soldier within India without getting orders .... "in triplicate" as babus love them.
Even now ... at the time to Mumbai attack when Zardari had said he would be sending ISI chief to India, he was duly reminded by the army chief as to what he could do and what he could not ..... so IT IS between the policians and generlas as far as India and Pakistan is concerned. Politicians in Pakistan, unfortunately, don't have a backbone to stand on their own ... fact of life ... but let us see what happens in future !!!!
India and USSR were allies for a long time and i don't see anything wrong in that.
...... Pakistan's relation was more subserviant than India's .
Off course an Indian nationalist who has to be prejudiced against Pak, would use all the flowery language as quoted above. why not?
Indian kids raised on the cola of "Mother India" will never see anything wrong with becoming Commie slave. Never.
Only Pakistan has the problems. Mother India (obviously a mother) is holier than holy.
Indian kids raised on the cola of "Mother India" will never see anything wrong with becoming Commie slave. Never.
Only Pakistan has the problems. Mother India (obviously a mother) is holier than holy.
Fundamental difference ..... Indians could elect or remove any of its leaders ..... Commies could do bubkiss about it .... on the other hand Americans could (and still can) literally "hand pick" the rulers in Pakistan. Still wanna call it holier than holy attitude ... be my guest Big B.
Re: Terror Strike in Pune
^^ Hmmm. Mother India slogans!
And we all thought, this thread was about PUNE.