Forum Menu - Click/Swipe to open
 

Pakistan vs India: Background, Conflict, Analysis

Jump to page:

You have contributed 0.0% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, sipraomer
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,324
Brother
7,802
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#1 [Permalink] Posted on 23rd February 2019 21:09

Part 1: Ideology between India and Pakistan

Throughout history, there has NEVER been a country or state called India. It has always been a loose conglomerate of independent fiefdoms which pledged loyalty to a higher power. They also switched loyalty to gain benefits.

The Muslims ruled India with enormous military strength but were constantly putting down rebellion, bribing certain fiefdoms, coercing others to stay loyal.

The British tried to unite “India” as a nation and they also bribed, cajoled, wooed and coerced fiefdoms to stay loyal to them.

It is because India is a truly “multi-ethnic” society with diverse languages, cultures and religions. There is not a lot to unite the people of India.

The only possible slogan to unite the people of India could be religion but here we hit a problem:

  1. Hinduism: While it counts as a religion in the world but when you study Hinduism you realist very quickly that it is based on mythology and it is strictly based on casts. It is for this very reason, adherents have broken off and joined the ranks of Buddhists, Sikhs and Christians (under the allure and appeal of the British empire). The mythological underpinnings of Hinduism lay itself open to logical counter movements like “Rationalism” and “Atheism”.
  2. Islam: It truly has the power to transcend race, ethnicity, language, culture and bind people together.

After 1947, India and Pakistan have had two separate sets of problems.

  1. United India: There is no foundation to unite citizens of India. Hinduism will not do it. The only possible (temporary) solution is Nationalism and economy but Nationalism does not come naturally to the (population) of India as they are diverse. If the Hinduism is forced upon the population (it may yield short term dividends) but in the long term it will alienate people but Hinduism is nothing but rule of the upper cast Hindus. Deep down, the “Non upper cast Hindus” and minorities in India realize it and they are still the numerical majority. The rise of Hindutva will bring about the downfall of India because its own citizens will revolt! In fact, emphasizing any religion in India will bring about its downfall. Secularism is the need of India.
  2. United Pakistan: The only way to galvanize “Muslims” to seek their rights was to use Islam. Muslims of Bengal and UP are poles apart in looks, language, culture, outlook, preferences and the only way to bind them is “Islam”. When “Islam” transcends all other identities get suppressed. Majority of citizens of Pakistan may not be practicing and may not be literate but they are still bound together by a single ideology. Secularism will bring about the downfall of Pakistan. Islam is the need of Pakistan.

This is the key ideological difference everyone needs to understand between India and Pakistan.

report post quote code quick quote reply
+4 -0Winner x 2Old x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,324
Brother
7,802
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#2 [Permalink] Posted on 23rd February 2019 21:39

Part 2: 1979-1991

Pakistan were never meant to be a country. Dr Allamah Iqbal never conceived an intendent country called “Pakistan”. There was NEVER any demand for a country called “Pakistan”.

It is due to the treachery of the Hindus that Muhammad Ali Jinnah (RA) realized that after independence Hindus (largest) Hindu majority will never give the rights to the (largest) minority called Muslims, thus he had no choice but to urgently revamp his plans and demand a country.

This broken country in two halves (with India) in the middle was not the plan. It was never meant to survive and it did not survive.


India had massive numeric, financial, industrial superiority over a split Pakistan. The British and the Indians ensured that this broken up land would not survive and indeed it did split up in 1971.

The Indian superiority (over Pakistan) would have kept getting bigger and the advantage would have become unassailable except for two developments:

  1. 1979: Russian invasion in Afghanistan resulted in massive investment into reviving Islam in Pakistan. I am a personal witness to Pakistan (pre-1979 and post-1979) and the are poles apart. Pakistan was atheistic, secular and nomically Muslim until BILLIONS of dollars were invested (by CIA) to counter the Soviet Union. Overnight, the new Pakistan emerged which was visibly and palpably more Islamic. You may be surprised to read this but consider the facts that AIMPLB and Indian Muslims had overwhelming legislative protections (based on Sunna) while Pakistani constitution had none. India is just starting on the path of banning “triple Talaq” while Pakistan did it in 1960s. Before 1979, Pakistan was a destination of nightclubs, parties , Music, dating etc. Even at the beginning of 1980’s the popular pop Music was from Pakistani despite a massive Bollywood Music industry. The Pakistani society underwent a massive (and violent) ideological change. This led to the “Ummah revival” amongst Pakistani Muslims which never really cared much about anybody else, even next door Kashmir which was a conflict since 1947 didn’t really have much of an “Islamic insurgency”. CIA woke up the sleeping giant at its own detriment!
  2. 1991: The breakup of Soviet Union meant that for the first time there was a potential for “Muslims” to (ideologically) unite across continents. This gave the Muslims strategic depth against a much larger India. The modern country of India has no such ideological underpinning with anyone so to counter it, they made alliances with ”Israel” and the two world powers with an ideological rift with “Islam” joined forces.


This is the reason why you see India-Israel Nexus in Kashmir. India is petrified with the return of Taliban who are practicing Muslims. An (Islamic) Afghanistan bordering an increasingly practicing Pakistan and central Asia is a disaster for India. Its numeric, financial, economic superiority will no longer count for much.

The other party which is naturally afraid of this alliance is Iran and it is for this reason you see India and Iran cooperating with each other. It is in neither of their interest for the Taliban to return.

The return of Taliban will be the GREATEST NEWS for Muslims Ummah since 1924.

The return of Taliban will also begin the COUNTDOWN for the breakup of India.

Even if you do not believe in the Ahadeeth of Nabi (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) it is clear as daylight that Taliban 2.0 will be a significant milestone in world simply due to its geo-political significance.

Close to 30 countries invaded a backward, deprived country with no standing army or Military, why? There has never been such an alliance in our Modern history against such a helpless, defenseless, poor country in our lifetime (and beyond). What threat could the “Poor Afghan” possibly pose to warrant such a response?

report post quote code quick quote reply
+6 -0Like x 3Winner x 2
back to top
Rank Image
xs11ax's avatar
Unspecified
2,004
Brother
1,622
xs11ax's avatar
#3 [Permalink] Posted on 23rd February 2019 23:01
Quote:
What threat could the “Poor Afghan” possibly pose to warrant such a response?


This is the million dollar question. And the answer is priceless.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Like x 1Agree x 2
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,324
Brother
7,802
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#4 [Permalink] Posted on 24th February 2019 15:25

Part 3:  Kashmir, History and Future

Boundary Commission, consultative committee created in July 1947 to recommend how the Punjab and Bengal regions of the Indian subcontinent were to be divided between India and Pakistan shortly before each was to become independent from Britain. The commission—appointed by Lord Mountbatten, the final viceroy of British India—consisted of four members from the Indian National Congress and four from the Muslim League and was chaired by Sir Cyril Radcliffe.

Treachery 1:

The land access to Kashmir in 1947 was controlled through Gurdaspur district. This was a Muslim majority district, it was not a princely state so the Boundary Commission should have awarded this district to Pakistan.Gurdaspur was awarded to India trough clear treachery and deception.

This meant that Pakistan was denied land access to Kashmir.


Treachery 2:

Kashmir was and still is Muslim majority state. In 1947 it was ruled by a Hindu Raja. He decided to ignore the wishes of his majority Muslim population and remained neutral.

Since Pakistan had no land access to Kashmir and it was denied Gurdaspur district, the British made sure that Kashmir went to India, thus ignoring the fact about Muslim majority.

Why Kashmir matters to India?

There are several reason and the mater has evolved over the last 70+ years.

  1. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who was the first Prime Minister of India was Kashmiri. It was personal for him to ensure that his own land is not awarded to Pakistan.
  2. The founding principle of India is "Secularism" and it is an affront to India's Secularism that the only Muslim majority state is unwilling to become part of India. Kashmir (or the Muslim adherents of Kashmir) must be beaten and submitted into Secular India.
  3. Within 15 years of independence, the geographic importance of Kashmir became evident. Most of the rivers originate from Kashmir so whoever controls Kashmir will have the power to control waters and hold a choke hold on the economy of the other Nation.
  4. India has over 20 insurgencies throughout the country. Kashmir is the most ideological, violent and unrelenting and linked to Islam. If the insurgency in Kashmir is not put down it will create a ripple effect for the rest of insurgencies in India. It is for this reason India has thousands of soldiers and paramilitary personnel to try to suppress the insurgency. Hindutva now wants to ethnically cleanse Kashmir or Kashmirees but keep the land. Indians are SICK and TIRED of Kashmir, they cannot give it up and they cannot bring peace to it either.
Kashmirees have NOTHING in common with India or Indian culture, it is clear as daylight. India will have to kill all the Kahsmirees to suppress the insurgency, there is no other military solution.

report post quote code quick quote reply
+4 -0Winner x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,324
Brother
7,802
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#5 [Permalink] Posted on 25th February 2019 22:24

Part 4: Afghanistan

Throughout history and through thousands of years of warfare, mankind has discovered the need for strategic depth. If a country has strategic depth then even in case of a foreign invasion the invading force will be bogged down due to natural geography.

Take a look at Russia and imagine how the mighty forces of Hitler were bogged down in WWII, see how wide the country is making advancing in the terrain difficult.

This is a geographic problem with Pakistan because it is narrow. Pakistan is particularly narrow along the border with India.

This is Pakistan's defensive Achilles heel, so how do the Pakistan military solve this problem? It has always faced an existential threat from India since 1947. Flat border means that Indian tanks can roll straight into Pakistan.

The only solution is to use Afghanistan as strategic depth (for defense of Pakistan). This has always been an integral part of Pakistani military doctrine.

Pakistan needs Afghanistan on its side.

India needs Afghanistan on its side for Afghanistan to deny its land to Pakistan.

I hope that this helps you understand why Pakistan needs Afghanistan.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+4 -0Agree x 1
back to top
Rank Image
mSiddiqui's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
127
Brother
66
mSiddiqui's avatar
#6 [Permalink] Posted on 25th February 2019 23:55
Muadh_Khan wrote:
View original post

Napoleon made the same mistake as Hitler. Walked in to Russia with 600,000 troops strong and with out fighting a war left with 9,000 "survivors".
report post quote code quick quote reply
+2 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Rajab's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
738
Brother
356
Rajab's avatar
#7 [Permalink] Posted on 26th February 2019 05:28
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,324
Brother
7,802
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#8 [Permalink] Posted on 26th February 2019 17:52

Rajab wrote:
View original post

 

26FEB2019: Indian Airstrike in Pakistan (Part 1)

IAF struck targets this morning, lets get the story straight first.

  1. Bala Kote: This is near the LOC in the Poonch sector
  2. Balakot: This is across the International border (inside Pakistan properly) near Mansehra and in the Muzaffarabad sector in KPK

At any given day, there are many incursions inside the LOC (Line of control) by both Air forces and it is normal. It is done to check each other's defense mechanism and reaction times.

The (Pakistani) Media which are framing this as a strike against LOC are wrong because IAF does not need to fly a formation to hit "Bala Kote". This has to be in Balakot (KPK, Pakistan).


In fact, there were more incursions by India inside Pakistan last night beaten back by Combat Air Patrol (CAP) and it is clear that IAF dropped SoWs (like the one above). India has not released any pictures or footage of the bombing and are using Pakistani pictures.

  1. There were no technical details, images or videos in the Press conference of Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Keshav Gokhale
  2. There were no questions taken afterwards in the presser.

Nevertheless, this is a serious escalation by India to try to strike inside Pakistan and confirmed by ISPR.

I am sure that there will be a response by Pakistan in due time and we may never know the response because ISI & IB (Pakistan) respond differently to RAW or we may find out. It is premature to talk about this issue before the response from both sides comes to light.

There were no 300 casualties in Pakistan as claimed in the press conference and that is confirmed.

P.S: To  everyone (in Pakistan) and those who have love (for Pakistan), don’t panic and don’t get dismayed over Indian Press conference and claims.

report post quote code quick quote reply
+5 -0Like x 3
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
362
Brother
482
#9 [Permalink] Posted on 26th February 2019 18:20
The Indian media reports are only good for office gossip and joking around in Pakistan the next day after such an "attack".

That said, this was still a breach of Pakistani airspace and significantly further into than expected. IMO, Pakistan should have retaliated and brought their planes down.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Agree x 2
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,324
Brother
7,802
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#10 [Permalink] Posted on 26th February 2019 18:35

26FEB2019: Indian Airstrike in Pakistan (Part 2)

A question is circulating on Social Media as to why PAF (Pakistan Air force) did not shoot down IAF (Indian Air force) jets when they violated Pakistani airspace?

It is because it is impossible, this is what happens in real time:

  1. Indian jets can come into Pakistani airspace as the border is hundreds of miles long.
  2. PAF scrambles jets in response from either Rawalpindi, Kamra, Peshawar
  3. By the time, the jets are in the air the Indian Jets return back to or go close to LOC.

This isn’t war so there would be no point in shooting Indian Jets close to or inside Indian airspace.

In an actual war, there will be SAMs and planes will hit BVR (Beyond Visual Range)...You cannot do this in this scenario.

The flight time to Pakistan is ONE MINUTE from India at many places. It is NOT POSSIBLE to respond and unleash sorties against this sort of IAF sortie. IAF has advantage in these sorts of strikes (due to surprise and reaction time). This was always going to happen and expected.

What matters is response from Pakistan. 

report post quote code quick quote reply
+5 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,324
Brother
7,802
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#11 [Permalink] Posted on 26th February 2019 19:02

fod1083 wrote:
View original post

www.muftisays.com/forums/14-peoples-say/12491-pakistan-vs...

As I tried to explain here that Pakistan has no depth and the distances are really close to the Indian border. India has an advantage in this area and this was expected.

Balakot is about 50 KM from LOC, the planes have to come and return so make it about 100 KM. Lets translate this into time using average speeds:

  1. Subsonic (950 KM/Hr): This is the speed of small commercial Jets. Time would be 6 minutes 18 seconds.
  2. Transonic (1250 KM/Hr): This is the (lower) speed of modern Jets. Time would be 4 minutes 48 seconds.
  3. Supersonic (2200 KM/Hr): This is the capability of Mirage which IAF used in the airstrikes. Time would be 2 minutes 43 seconds. It could fly even faster (may be)...

IAF have to come into Pakistan and be in Pakistani airspace for (roughly) under 3 minutes drop bombs and return. I don't know the facts so lets see if PAF releases facts and figures but it will be between 2 minutes 30 seconds to 4 minutes.

It is not possible to dispatch fighters and shoot them down in this sort of time unless you are willing to have them fall in Indian space.

report post quote code quick quote reply
+5 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,324
Brother
7,802
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#12 [Permalink] Posted on 26th February 2019 20:58
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Winner x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Moderator's avatar
Moderator's avatar
#13 [Permalink] Posted on 26th February 2019 21:42
Images or videos (media) with people (eyes) is simply not permitted on muftisays.com public section to respect all opinions. If the video is beneficial, please convert it to audio format and repost. See this topic for help on video conversion to audio.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
362
Brother
482
#14 [Permalink] Posted on 27th February 2019 03:53
Muadh_Khan wrote:
View original post

Yes, that makes sense. My point was based on the reports that the PAF jets were on routine patrol when they intercepted the IAF jets. So I was wondering why the PAF didn't attack those planes when violating a country's airspace is as good as declaring a war.

The general sentiment right now in Pakistan, from what I have gleaned from talking to other people, is that this was a humiliation for the Pakistani military and that Pakistan should have done more than just talking. People here are tired of India's BS.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Unspecified
740
Brother
497
#15 [Permalink] Posted on 27th February 2019 05:17
Strategically it was a good move.Indeed PAF was airborne,but not like in war situation.IAF tried to enter or gave impression of it from one point near Sialkot and PAF engaged it,then from a second point and were again challenged, in the meanwhile they entered from phoonch area,while the airborne units of PAF were already engaged,and succeeded in dropping bombs...

I agree with Muad khan that in real war like situation it would not have been so easy for IAF.

It is significant in the sense that escalation has gone up,otherwise it has no real value other than for domestic Indian consumption.The people from Balakot are NOT aware of any casualties whatsoever,in fact there was an election going on there and it went smoothly the next morning.I am sure it was not their intent either,the whole drama was for the satisfaction of Indian public and the election campaign of Modi,portraying him as a strong leader,the gapes could easily be filled with the help of ‘Bollywood inspired Indian media’.

Pakistan will have to retaliate for two reasons :
1)If it does not retaliate the government would look weak
2) India would be encouraged to do the same in future

If Pakistan retaliates,India will be forced to retaliate again(unless better sense prevails or the fear of God enters their hearts),and it would lead to war.India is apparently counting on the fact that because of its very weak economy Pakistan would be reluctant to go for an ‘all out war’.It is a gamble and shows Modi have got strong nerves as well as total disregard for human values,as any miscalculation or misunderstanding may quickly transform the situation to a nuclear war with its unspeakable consequences for both the countries and the world at large...

I am surprised that the international community is not showing any interest to calm down the situation and intervene for the sake of peace ? May be they want to show to the world how bad it could be if ‘irresponsible’ states are allowed to acquire nuclear capabilities ?
report post quote code quick quote reply
+2 -0Like x 1
back to top

Jump to page: