In a recent article titled “The Arms Crawl that Wasn’t”, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Centre in Washington, writes: “Nuclear buildups have always resulted in greater anxiety rather than deterrence stability.” I agree.
Countervalue strategy, targeting cities, doesn’t need too much sophistication. Also, greater numbers, despite talk of redundancy, do not matter beyond a certain point. No state need destroy another twice or three times over. Nor does greater accuracy of missiles matter much in a countervalue targeting strategy unless we are talking intercontinental distances where the flight trajectory should be accurate enough for a missile to hit a city.
I have been critical of the introduction into this region of tactical nuclear weapons, as I have been of Pakistan’s stance to not let negotiations begin on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). Regarding tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs), the argument that it is important to add another layer of deterrence against an evolving threat and respond to the possibility by the adversary of testing a state at the sub-strategic level — spread over time and space — is not convincing. There are many reasons for that including that the dispersal of such weapons at the unit and subunit levels adds terrible instability and, as Krepon has pointed out, makes command and control very difficult to maintain.
There is also no need for Pakistan to be the hold-out state on FMCT. India and Israel are reaping the benefits of Pakistan’s position without having to do anything themselves to thwart negotiations while Pakistan places itself upfront as the supposed spoiler.
Yet, Pakistan’s responses have to be put in a perspective, even when one is being critical, as I have often been. That is where Krepon’s analysis falters. Here’s what he says referring to Ashley Tellis’ argument in the latter’s book:
“Tellis was right about New Delhi’s limited enthusiasm for nuclear weapons, but he was off the mark in assuming that Pakistan’s nuclear requirements would be influenced by India’s restraint and deep ambivalence about the Bomb. New Delhi has clearly decided that the Bomb takes a back seat to economic growth, which is the key to its social cohesion and international standing. In contrast, Pakistan’s economic prospects are diminishing while its nuclear stockpile is growing.”
Krepon is wrong on four straight counts: India’s restraint; India’s ‘deep ambivalence’ about the Bomb; India’s decision to let the Bomb take a back seat to economic growth; and finally, the assumption that Pakistan’s efforts to make its strategic arsenal survivable and credible are not driven by existing and evolving threats in the region.
India has long had a very ambitious space programme with its subset of intercontinental ballistic missile reach; it has an equally ambitious ATV (advanced technology vessel) programme since 1974 which aims at building and operating nuclear-powered submarines (SSN) and advancing to nuclear-powered subs which carry nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles (SSBN). It launched the SSN INS Arihant in 2009. It has invested heavily in its navy to turn it into a blue water navy. All these developments are directly and indirectly related to acquiring greater outreach and a second-strike capability. Incidentally, just as TNWs in the field are a command and control headache, so are SSBNs!
There’s no ambivalence about the Bomb among India’s strategic enclave. That India may have a Zen-like attitude to the Bomb is a red herring that has worked to New Delhi’s advantage. Early into the game India developed its nuclear doctrine which it kept calling a draft doctrine while continuing in that smokescreen with its efforts to build a triad. Of course there are bureaucratic delays, inefficiencies, poor decision-making, rivalries among different organisations etcetera. But those are functional issues and must not be confused, as they often are, with the broad consensus on what India wants to do with the Bomb and configure its forces.
As for the Bomb taking a back seat to economic progress, there’s no sequential pattern here, though much of India’s military modernisation — it is now number eight or nine among the top 15 spenders on defence in the world according to SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) et al — takes its steam from its growing economic strength.
Finally, how can any strategic analysis present Pakistan’s perception of security threats as emanating from nothing? There are unresolved disputes; India’s growing economic and military strength; US-India strategic partnership; US-India civil nuclear deal; American efforts to prop India up as the regional power; the situation in Afghanistan where India and the US are in a deep partnership; American firms straining at the leash to sell advanced weapons systems and platforms to India and so on.
None of this may be grudged India. The world is about acquiring power and projecting it. But to present Pakistan as the reason for the arms race, especially when it is exercising the cheaper of the two options given both the resource constraint and the growing threats? Really?
Published in The Express Tribune, November 5th, 2011.
COMMENTS (71)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Realist: Do you think the national symbol of India is "Hindu"? It shows your poor education. The symbol has been taken from a proclamation of Emperor Ashok who was a Buddhist. The symbol itself symbolizes different aspects of Buddhist belief and the proclamation was about justice and moral duties of citizens without any reference to any religion. For your information Buddhists form the fifth largest religious group in India after Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs.
With nukes, Pakistan can only run around scared, waiting for doomsday that will never arrive. The simplest way to obliterate Pakistan is not by waging war against it, but to make it economically dependent on India. No nuke can deter that scenario. Only an economically strong Pakistan can.
@Maria: And what are these declared policy objectives and goals of Pakistan other than w\"we shall eat grass but make bombs"? Kindly enlighten.
@G. Din
Nice update, actually Bhutto has made up his mind after 65 war itself. It was not a defensive step. Also by exploding nuclear devices within month of India's test proved that Pakistan actually had the bomb all along and all the earlier denials were fake.
@Zahir "The China-card used by India to justify a large and expanding nuclear weapons’ program raises a question. Why should India have more weapons to deter China? China has never threatened India with nuclear weapons use"
How do yo know China never threatened Inida with nuclear weapons? China do not have any treaty with India that says it will not attack India with nuclear weapons. Also after china violated the no war agreement with India in 1962, you can not blame India for having zero trust with China. I can understand that Pakistan also has same fear from India and probably that why they are piling up arms and weapons.
@antanu g: @sk: "your logic is wrong. When we detonated our first Nuclear bomb…India was no where a shadow of today. In fact it was the biggest begger in the world feeding its citizen US aided rotten wheat. Justification should not be on weak foundations my dear. In fact it was this bomb testong that push Pak to neclear arms race." Since at another place, you have vigorously defended yourself as an Indian, a resident of Kolkutta and also since you have determined sk's logic to be wrong, would it be illogical to ask you where did the wheat you were fed come from since you would hardly be expected to eat "US aided rotten wheat." supplied to and apparently gratefully accepted by "the biggest begger in the world"? You were a citizen of India then, weren't you? Far be it for me to correct a sanctimoniously "fair" person like you but the reason Bhutto (Pakistan) acquired nuclear weapons was the humiliation Pakistan suffered when India cut her down to half its size in 1971. That is when Bhutto declared that Pakistan would become nuclear even if in the process it had to eat grass. India tested its nuclear bomb in 1974, much after the debacle in 1971.
@ I tend to agree with Adil. I would rather go on to say that power is the best virtue. If governance and economy were the bench marks for the right to possess nuclear weapons, then the domestically ineffectual and 'severely-under-debt' US government would have disarmed once it was about to shut down due to a staggering $14,960,076,989,131 (approx.) national debt - that roughly means every US citizen is under $ 47,860 of debt. The reason that the US exudes tremendous power is its huge nuclear arsenal and a navy second to none. They hold more conventional destructive power than few small nuclear powers combined. Also their Navy has the capability to "squeeze" all sea-trade routes. This capability holds even once their domestic governance is just satisfactory. That said, good economy and governance add to a country's power, prestige and domestic well-being.
Three facts belie Krepon's argument that India has “limited enthusiasm” for nuclear weapons. In a 1997 meeting with President Clinton, Indian Prime Minister Gujral said, “When his third eye looks at the door into the Security Council chamber it sees a little sign that reads, ‘only those with economic wealth or nuclear weapons allowed’.” He told Clinton that it was very difficult to achieve economic wealth—implying that nuclear weapons would do the trick. Likewise, New Delhi’s “lack of enthusiasm for the nukes” was reflected in the 1974 nuclear test that was ingeniously portrayed as “peaceful nuclear test,” mockingly named “Smiling Buddha”. India’s current pursuit of a nuclear triad, ICBMs and fissile materials production reflects similar ‘dislike’ for the nukes.
The implied meaning in Krepon's assertion that “Pakistan is pursuing a nuclear weapons program despite diminishing economic prospects” is that nuclear weapons are justified if a State can pay its bills. Linking security imperatives to economy is correct but outstretching the idea is not. States don’t build nukes once they have money—Japan and Germany would be the first ones to do that if the argument was correct.
The China-card used by India to justify a large and expanding nuclear weapons’ program raises a question. Why should India have more weapons to deter China? China has never threatened India with nuclear weapons use. Also how many weapons would be enough to deter Beijing? Can India outpace China in financially sustaining an arms race? If India freezes at the current force posture, it will encourage Pakistan to follow suit.
Like India, Pakistan has done the ‘needful’ to deter the hostile amongst its neighbours. Krepon considers India’s nuclear program a ‘measured’ one. Is it balanced or tilted? Who will Agni-5 ICBM deter in future? China and Pakistan are already in its missile range.
On the issue of tactical nuclear weapons, many analysts have gullibly termed the first flight test of Nasr – like India’s Prahaar – as a ‘tactical nuclear weapons capability.’ Wouldn’t it be fair to mention Prahaar? India was developing the short-range Prahaar for over two years before Pakistan tested Nasr. A point of analysis is that the Indians were developing the short-range missile anyway. I would tend to place onus of South Asian arms race on India more than China, as former is spending more in terms of percentage of GDP and in absolute terms.
Lastly, it’s true that the analysts in South Asia reject the Cold War model; but they don’t reject its lessons. First, till nuclear-armed states do not develop complete array of force-structure for an assured second-strike capability, the deterrence remains elusive. Second, till the political disputes underlying arms buildup are not simultaneously resolved, the arms control and disarmament remain a pipe dream. History shows that the U.S. and Russia only lower force postures in times of political alignment – standoff on ballistic missile defence and inventories of tactical nuclear weapons on European soil are two examples.
It is challenging to disagree with Krepon, as I hold him in high esteem for the depth of his knowledge. An anecdote may mollify him. When Robert McNamara took over the Pentagon in 1961 and started axing weapons programmes, the uniformed military went berserk. McNamara brought in some arrogant young “whiz kids” from the RAND Corporation, Alain Enthoven, (29) was amongst them. He told the Air Force chief, who tried to lecture him on nuclear-war plans, “General, I have fought just as many nuclear wars as you have” (Fred Kaplan, 2004). I am no whiz kid, just attempting to set the record straight.
India will always do things in proportion to its 7 times bigger size. E Haider is implying that Pakistan's sense of insecurity due to this is the basis for the world to declare India 'at fault' for Pakistan's own choices. Looks like a deadend for Pakistan-blame India for Pakistan's choices, after that what?
@Jeff Quote "fire missiles that fully circumnavigate the planet before hitting Pakistan? Maybe for “nuclear war style points”?"
lol
@Realist: Then please tell us where the North Korean missles are aimed, since you have had a look at their strategic and tactical war plan! NOT!
@Nadir: Very sharp writing. You should consider writing regularly. At least a blog.
Ejaz! I may disagree with some of your views but overall a good article. Just a question for my own people (neighbors who are overtly worried about our fate may not respond). With no nuclear weapons - can you guarantee 'Roti, Kapra, Makan'? Please do not mix governance issues with security issues. As Steve Cohen puts it - 'without nuclear weapons Pakistan would be like Nigeria without oil - last in Foreign Policy priorities of the US, and of course the others as well. Let me also add a quote from one of Michael Krepon's article “Virtue is respected only when it is backed by power; power without virtue is disastrous; but virtue without power is helpless. The fate of the merely virtuous is often decided in the assemblies of the powerful without reference to and at the expense of the virtuous.” [Professor Krishna]
Eid Mubarak to all
good article. So if the india is not wanting war with Pakistan, they have good relations with china, they want peace with all neighboring countries, they why they spent Billions of dollars of of their budget on purchasing weapons? The indian defense budget has crossed 13 billions dollar a year now which is much higher than pakistan's total budget. why is that then?
Mr. Haider, please come out of anti-India virtual hatred world. What is most important for Pakistan to create a state which is primarily based on social, economic ideology and NOT On security issue only. India has nothing to gain from invading Pakistan rather it will loose more. Please put your energy in bringing better health, education, electricity, good quality of life for common Pakistani. It is enough now all these useless anti-India propaganda. Please read the book "Pakistan - between Mullah & Miltary " by Mr Haqqani, formal ambassador and advisor to Pakistan prime minister. Hope to see good article from you next time, which will benefit Pakistan in a social economic way
@Realist: That's what i am trying to explain here. South Korea has American backup because South has made sure because of its economic growth world has an interest in it, if not for america some one else will come help South Korea. That's because thousands of people have invested Billions of dollars in South which is providing good returns there by helping millions of people to lead a decent life. While North which has nuclear weapons has no one to call as friend who will stand by it. In case of emergency even China will not stand by it North Korea provides no interest to any one. Its up to us the people to decide whether we want bread, medicine, education or useless bomb.
The author has failed to understand what why Michael Krepon believes that Pakistan's nuclear posture is deeply irresponsible. By introducing Nasr missile Pakistan is saying that it will respond to any Indian incursion (even limited like kargil) with tactical nuclear weapons. If that happens India will respond with tactical strikes on pakistan. Now pakistan with a smaller army and practically zero protection against NBC warfarare (unlike India that has specifically designed T-90 and Arjun formations to withstand NBC strikes) will be the bigger looser and may loose a massive chunk of its army on Indian counter-attack. Then what. As per pakistan nuclear doctrine and pakistani army's dented pride, pakistan will have no choice but to respond with 'strategic strikes' on city's and population centeres which will force India to go for total nuclear retaliation. Either ways it will be death-knell for millions in the subcontinent and quickly raise the escalation trigger. Its precisely the reason why pakistan is irresponsible. As for comparing SSBN to tactical nukes, the author forgets that SSBNs are primarily instruments of assured second strike while tactical nukes are fighting weapons.
@antanu g: " ............. US aided rotten wheat." Your depth of information is astounding. You actually know the wheat was rotten ! You know, we tried so hard to conceal this absolute truth from you. Let me ask you something else. Do you know where Dawood Ibrahim is ? No ? I thought you must be knowing. the whole world knows it. You govt says he is not in Pak. And Masood Azhar ? Should i keep asking ?
@Maulana Sandwich : Loved the sarcasm. I'm sure it brought many a smile to those who got it. You got it spot on and I couldn't agree with you more.
India is a big country. It already has a huge legacy of being a world power quite a number of times through out the recorded history of the world. Whatever it is doing now is to realise again the dream of India as a world leader. This dream is not new. Many of Mr Haider's forefathers had the same dream before they had even thought of "Pakistan" as a concept. Later Pakistan happened painfully and what was left of erstwhile India got together into the present India. The dream still lives on. Indian have nurtured this dream through generations.
However it is ok that a Pakistani cannot understand this. It is beyond Pakistan's capacity to comprehend what it takes to start of with a destroyed nation and a dream of world leadership sometime around 1857 and to still keep working on that today. India has come a long way. It will go still further. Pakistanis should find their own dream. There can be no glory in clinging to the Indian dream all the time. So work hard to find your unique destiny. If it is there somewhere you will surely find it.All the best.
@Maria. ... 3 "defensive" wars? You need to listen to Air Marshal Asgar Khan and get your history right. Maybe you will appreciate where the problem is.
Ejaz sahab seems to be a good writer. But why do I feel that he is just sometimes presents his views which does not make him look like a complete revolutionary who is going against the establishment. This particular piece displays a feeling of insecurity from his earlier hard hitting articles. He sort of wants to endear himself to some higher ups in order to escape a harsh brutal or a drastic action. Well.. Totally understandable. But the times through which Pakistan is going through require extraordinary people with extraordinary courage. A revolution is required to bring this country out of the deep crisis which to some extent is it's own doing. Ejaz sahab is doing his country no favour by portraying himself as a fence sitter. Rise, speak up, awake others... It is the need of the hour.
@Usman: You just stole the words from my mouth. India and US are Pakistan's best friends and you don’t need a nuclear arsenal. It is no coincidence that Pakistan's economic slide started with the acquisition of nukes. Nukes are VERY expensive to maintain. They are not toys that a middling economy can afford. What use are nukes when the economy is collapsing all around it? How long can this scenario continue?
So India's ambition is actually what is killing Pakistan. India has to aim high and due to its size and Super Power potential, Pakistan will try to match it.
Sir Haider,you, Imran Khan,Ziad Hamid,Ali Azmat,Lukman,Bokhari and few other anchors are the real patriots,defending this country from liberal Fascist,who want friendship with Hanood and Yahood.We should be proud of the fact that we do not have electricity,but we launch a new missile every next day.Did our ancestors have electricity,once they conquered the world?The urban youth and we religious people love you.Do not pay any attention to Liberal Fascist,continue with with your intellectual pursuits,time is not far away,once we would be number 1 nuclear power,a step towards making Pakistan a super power.The liberals, want you to get involved in petty issues like poverty,load shedding, ,education,health,improving living standards of ordinary Pakistanis,justice,security etc etc,but thank Allah that we have patriots like you, setting the right direction for this great country.
Two Assets turned Liabilities. Location and Bombs. Weren't we told that our "strategic location"is an asset, and now we are being told that we are "sandwiched" between India and Afghanistan. Well, obviously, thanks to our Romels and Guderians. Our other "Strategic Assest" Bombs: are being driven in vans and trucks (If Atlantic Journal is worth believing), to keep them from the eyes of "Eagles" . Why cant we just be friends with India, we wouldn't have to worry about anything, and still be able to keep both strategic assets as "Assets" not liabilities that both have now become. Treat one as your elder brother (India) and other as younger (Afganistan).
@Realistic: If the North Korean nukes are not aimed to the South, Where then? To Pakistan?
"There are unresolved disputes; India’s growing economic and military strength" . This one on the last paragraph says it all. India's economic growth should be seen as military design. India doesn't have PAK as the 1y neighbour. Evrybody knows about china even vietnam enters in to pact to face the join threat. Tell me ur threats? This is the most poor analysis
@Nero:
Secular? Doesn't look like it. What is the official emblem/coat of arms of India? Please take a close look at it.
@lobe:
South Korea has US guarantee of defense in case of North Korean invasion. We have no such guarantee. And North Korean Missiles are not aimed at South Korea. And the South Koreans know it.
@Maria: "live and die together"? I thought you guys wanted to live and die together with the Arabs!!!
Oh no, India may develop ICBMs! That presents a serious danger to Pakistan, which basically exists along a three hundred mile stretch of India's western border.
What is the danger here, every inch of Pakistan can be reached by missiles that India has had for years. Will they try to fire missiles that fully circumnavigate the planet before hitting Pakistan? Maybe for "nuclear war style points"?
This is just the type of
Your comment is alarming and treading collision course, one that we are not jealous of your country,s development, we wish you become great power, i hope what great implies.Moreover with regards to your concern for us to be failing although is highly prejudiced, however, if that happens you should better be prepared for the similar effect. we will live and die together. @Arindom:
@sk: your logic is wrong. When we detonated our first Nuclear bomb...India was no where a shadow of today. In fact it was the biggest begger in the world feeding its citizen US aided rotten wheat. Justification should not be on weak foundations my dear. In fact it was this bomb testong that push Pak to neclear arms race.
It may be pertinent to add that Pakistan has the most sophisticated command and control system for its assets under the robust National Command Authority, hence there is no reason to be concerned about safety and security of strategic assets. We are not prepared to eat 100 onions and 100 shoes, its a punjabi saying. it implies do not dare to mess with us.
A very thought provoking article indeed, the critics however seem highly confused on what writer is talking about. Strategic intent coupled with Armed forces Developmental strategy to me are the main determinants of your policy objectives and goals. This may sound a surprise to many however we pakistanis believe and practice principles of amity and enmity as good as any self respecting country in the world. Threat perception notwithstanding, the divine guidelines we inherited are unequivocal in saying to be prepared to defend, moreover, its human psyche to think of eating later, first and foremost is survival and security. For those of you who think that we are unnecessarily obsessed with security, pakistan has fought three defensive wars against india to date, no denying many times bigger in size and economic standings.I wonder what is India,s Cold start Doctrine aimed at,the large scale mechanization especially is disturbing, the deserts are the most suitable areas for large scale armour maneuvers,not the mountainous terrain along India china borders.Lastly, i must compliment the author in correctly highlighting the effects of deterrence if you have triad of delivery means but as regards TNWs, this capability would definitely add one more levels to your thresholds before going for counter value targets and thus lend more credibility and stability in response options.
Excellent article, again, showcasing Pakistani liberals' continued unexceptionable grasp on reality.
Those who feel that having acquired nuclear bombs, Pakistan should divert its resources to so-called 'productive' areas are unaware of the great and growing external dangers confronting Pakistan. Patriotic Pakistani army must be given more and more of Pakistan's resources to keep rapidly building more and more bombs in order to fully serve the safety and honor needs of the great masses of Pakistan. What is the point of feeding Pakistrani people and educating children, or protecting them from violence inside, if their lives, in great danger from abroad, are not protected by Pakistani army?
Yes.. As a Pakistani i want to know from Ijaz how many more nuclear bombs are required by us (We already have more than 100) is enough to counter the threat? If 100 nukes aren
t enough, probably well make a 1000 more, but will we ever remain secure?I disagree with the author on India's intentions as assumed by Pakistan. History says it was Pakistan who started the all the wars with India (and lost them). IT is a pity that Pakistan specifically Pak army has not learnt its lessons that false propaganda and deceit of its own public is not going to make the poor self sufficient. It is common sense that as you earn more and more, you will buy lockers, security systems etc for your own and your assets safety. This applies to individuals and states. It does not mean that your intention is to fight with the neighbour and snatch a few things from the poor bugger. But the neighbour should understand this and start earning first and then worry about safeguarding what he has. Simply buying security systems and feeling jealous is no good for him. Again this applies to individuals and states. Grow up author. Preach the right things instead of worrying too much about INdia. And for Pakistani readers, enough has been said, written and replied on the Kashmir bogey, Any other reply is welcome.
@faraz: The value of them = Peanuts now! Kilo ke hisaab sey bech do! If you find a khareedaar!
what can the army do other than keep on making more nukes,when the masses are willing to sacrifice' roti,kapra and makaan',and are shouting for more bombs.
@Shakir Lakhani
You are the next Foreign/Defence Minister of Pakistan.
@Usman those "liberals" who oppose Pakistan's nuclear weapons expansion are no other than pro-Indian Muhajirs who have lived in jealousy of Pakistan's military rulers and wish for their beloved Indian brothers to remain the strongest military force. Find me one fifth columnist in Pakistan who isn't originally from East Punjab, Utter Pradesh or Hyderabad Dhaccan. You won't find one!
I thought that with 100 nuclear bombs, this drama of external threats would end
@Shakir Lakhani Ha. 1. Troops were sent at the request of the ruler of Kashmir one day AFTER the Instrument of Accession signed on 26th October 1947. And this was after Pakistan violated the Standstill Agreement it had signed with Kashmir and infiltrated thousands of tribal lashkar into the state a few days earlier. 2. The UN resolution envisages the complete withdrawal from the state of Pakistani forces and the ceding of administrative control over the territory to Indian forces during the pendency of the plebiscite process. Does Pakistan agree to this? 3. Concealing the truth? What would you call the theft of the national elections which the Awami League won? What about the denials of genocide not only of Bangladesi nationalists but en masse of Hindus in East Pakistan by the Razakars and the Pak Army regulars? 4. Concealing the truth? The Congress government came to power 2 elections ago by debunking the India Shining myth of the BJP. India Shining has become a pariah phrase for the BJP, let alone the Congress. 5. I'm no fan of the BJP but even the most hardcore, fringe anti-Muslim ideologues of the Sangh Parivar publicly acknowledge grudgingly that the hundreds of millions of Indian Muslims must be lived with. Concealing the truth? What about Pakistan's denials that it was fomenting insurgency in Kashmir? What about its denials during the Soviet-Afghan war that it was behind the insurgency in Afghanistan? What about its denials that its regulars were occupying the heights during the Kargil conflict? What about its denials that Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan? What about its denials that its nationals waged war against India during the November 2008 attacks on Mumbai until it was forced, by the (un)lucky capture of Ajmal Kasab to admit his nationality?
This is nothing but India obsession. I thing there are other important issues which Pakistan needs to care like education, health, terrorism and not WMDs. Even if India is working on its nuclear arsenal why is the need to match it. They have the money and can afford it. This has been Pakistan's problem precisely in all these 60 odd years. India obsession has made it do thing which is beyond its might and size. Pakistan try to become a social state and not security state
@ Shakir Lakhani India was attacked by China in 1962 before war with Pakistan in 1965. China exploded its nuclear bomb well before India so it is wrong to say that it was aimed at only Pakistan. It is just like your thinks that your nuclear bomb acts as deterrence against India, India also felt likewise after the war with China. Now come to second point on Kashmir. India only landed the troops after Raja Hari Singh sign the instrument of accession in October 1947, accepting the merger with India. Although Pakistan regulars had attacked Kashmir in the garb of Kabailis and Raja Hari Singh was asking for help, Pt Nehru was hesitant on sending the army on place which still was not part of India and therefore he insisted on signing of treaty. India have a big poor population that's no doubt but not as statistically true as you have been fed(wrongly). It is 40% and that is a number not to be happy about, but what happened for shining India and the people who hyped this, they were defeated in the next general election. But for your knowledge it is this communal party (got defeated in 2004) whose PM visited to your country and who had come two times very close on solving the Kashmir dispute. What you say?????
@Devils Advice: without defence u wont be able to eat ur bread dude.
Ejaz is right.Pakistan needs to upgrade it's Military might all the time, 24X7. Being sandwitched between India and Afghanistan is not an ideal situation to be in. Talking about world powers, US is a proven enemy. Russia is India's perenial freind. China is a mystery! I doubt they will be of any help when push comes to shove. Remember they have not fired a single bullet to regain Taiwan. Britain, well it's the 53rd state of US. Protecting the land is more important than temporary economic gain here and there.
The problem is Pakistani analysts can't get over the fact that today India, along with it's poverty, is also among the biggest economies in the world. Do you know India is one of the biggest foreign investors in UK, Europe and USA? Do you know that Indian consumption is causing a scramble among Western and Eastern companies lining up hat in hand on the doors of India? Do you know Indian firms are the biggest employers in UK? and also employ thousands and thousands in USA? Sp why shouldn't India have military capabilities commensurate with it's economic and political status in the Global platform. If some failing neighbour feels jealous, too bad.
@ Ejaz Haider: You have mentioned the following reasons for a threat from India: - unresolved disputes; - India’s growing economic and military strength; - US-India strategic partnership; - US-India civil nuclear deal; - American efforts to prop India up as the regional power; - the situation in Afghanistan where India and the US are in a deep partnership; - American firms straining at the leash to sell advanced weapons systems and platforms to India
But you have not mentioned HOW these are threats to Pakistan. Other than "unresolved disputes" not a single item in that list pertains exclusively to Pakistan. All of them have the SAME significance towards ALL neighboring countries. So why isn't Bangladesh or Bhutan or Nepal killing their own people or eating GRASS in order to counter India's threat? As for the "unresolved disputes", it is INDIA that has "our" part of Kashmir, not the other way round. So it is nonsense to expect India to attack us.. for what will they attack us? It is THEY who have "our" part. We are supposed to attack them if at all.. They did not even take over Bangladesh, why will they attack us? . You must mention why only we Pakistanis are in a dire need to counter India's "threat" to the extent that even GRASS has become too expensive to live on. Please write a sequel to this article.
@Shakir Lakhani: "...The world will soon know the truth about India." So, there is hardly any need to foam at the mouth. Sit back and enjoy the little time before "world knows the truth about India" and then you shall have the satisfaction of saying:"I told you so". Incidentally, "India shining" is not a hype; it is a fact!
@Shakir Lakhani : Responses to you one by one. "Their first nuclear explosion in 1974 was called a “pacific” device. " - Sorry, I dont know much about it.
"They invaded J&K before getting the Instrument of Accession signed by the ruler of Kashmir. Then they went to the U.N., accusing Pakistan of aggression." -- Wrong, your MUJAHIDS invaded the Princely State of Kashmir, the Maharaja asked for India's help, India refused since India defends only its own territory, so Maharaja signs the treaty of ascension and then India fights and stops your MUJAHIDs.
"The pact with the Soviet Union to dismember Pakistan was called the “Friendship Treaty”. " --- What about your pacts with USA and NATO alliances?
" Despite 80% of its population struggling to survive on less than half a dollar a day, its government promotes the “Shining India” hype" -- None of your business.
"One of its two major political parties, the BJP, is committed to turn India into a Hindu state, yet claims that it is secular. This cannot go on for much longer." If what you are saying is true, India would have been a HINDU state since 80% people are Hindus in India. India is secular not because Congress wants it to be. India is secular because most Hindus are secular and very liberal when it comes to religion UNLIKE muslims for whom everything starts with and ends with MAZHAB.
"The world will soon know the truth about India." -- Good if it does.
This discussion of nuclear strategy and nuclear policy sadly looks very irrelevant now. Pakistan has reached the stage where - just like USSR of 1991 - it really does not matter how many bombs and delivery systems we have. All that matters is that the economy and pretty much everything else has terminally stalled after 53 years' "stewardship" of our affairs by the army.
First thing Ijaz! Stop seeing the world through the anti-India prism. Given the economic growth of India, in comparison defense spending pales when it comes to other infrastructure spending India is aiming for. So yes nuclear weapons are sort of in a backseat. Pakistan on the other hand has no growth, nothing to show for and yet is spending much of its budget on defense. Quantitatively less than India but then again, it is the fraction that counts. Now comparing India to Pakistan is an insult to India's economic growth in itself. Pakistan has to stop comparing itself to India because India is too far off at this point and Pakistan has a lot of work to do to be on par with India. India has more enormous challenges than Pakistan and has been on the right rack to handling them while Pakistan is not in that frame of mind yet. So again what India does is not Pakistan's concern. Why not talk of China and other countries who are spending like crazy on defense armaments? I am tired of authors like you pointing out my beloved country whenever you find your country in a mess. India is not PAKISTAN. Get that in your head right now. We have nothing to gain from Pakistan. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
@Shakir Lakhani: Pakistanis are masters in misrepresenting statistics just of reference i live in a tire two city in India and i have 24 hour electricity do you have such facility. As far as Kashmir is concerned terrorism was first started by mujaheddin when they killed innocent kashmiri pundits but you ignore that. Regarding your point of BJP dint you Quaid say minorities will have equal rights in spite of Islam being idea behind Pakistan but even today Hindus struggle to get their marriage registered Ahamadies are expelled from public schools.
Sir it dose not make any sense to me. We are growing at 8% p.a and to protect this growth we are spending around 2% of our GDP on defense. Where as you guys feel we are having economic growth to fight a war. It is because of your point of view, people in India are very comfortable with the way things are happening in Pakistan. Our economic growth has brought noticeable change in the lives of many people hopefully this growth will help us in eliminating poverty in our country Indo - US nuclear deal was one such step in this direction. Pakistan has more nuclear warheads than India today this shows nuclear arsenal is a deterrence for us. But for many in Pakistan media( you know who i am speaking about) its an obsession. So take a chill pill nuclear power is protecting poverty and hunger in both the countries. Hopefully our growth will make sure the cost of maintaining these weapons will not harm our poor. Just for reference North Korea has nuclear weapons South has economic growth where are people more happy ?
@Shakir Lakhani Its famous say " Bughel me chury .................. and all the librals chant pakistan invaded allways poor india blah blah....
PAK is free to spend all her money on defense. No one is bothered. As long as PAK can keep her army under lock and key. If both India and PAK are in confrontation, the ultimate casualty will be only PAK.
The position of a nation among nations is earned. Today, Bangladesh receives more favorable outlook than PAK.
PAK can look across the border and destroy herself, or move forward. Today's PAK is having a forward outlook. But will it last. The old world of twentieth century is gone and so are the concepts of nuclear weapons.
Indians had set a goal and it is remarkable that have moved forward so quickly in health, agriculture, science, technology, commerce,and finance and they managed to keep their stance even during cold war times.
As much as it might irritate PAK, the present turmoil in the region is indeed all Pakistan's doing even before soviets in Afghanistan.
Outside of PAK borders, everyone is worried that indeed one day some form of fissile material will get out of PAK for some unsavory purposes. So accountability is needed given the ground reality of PAK.
The Indians are masters in concealing the truth. Their first nuclear explosion in 1974 was called a "pacific" device. They invaded J&K before getting the Instrument of Accession signed by the ruler of Kashmir. Then they went to the U.N., accusing Pakistan of aggression. The pact with the Soviet Union to dismember Pakistan was called the "Friendship Treaty". Despite 80% of its population struggling to survive on less than half a dollar a day, its government promotes the "Shining India" hype. One of its two major political parties, the BJP, is committed to turn India into a Hindu state, yet claims that it is secular. This cannot go on for much longer. The world will soon know the truth about India.
The flaw in your and many other Pakistani strategic analysts' argument is the prism through which they look at India's attempt at building power projection (blue water navy, ICBMs etc). They seem to assume as Pakistan's mirror image that India's concerns are limited to Pakistan as Pakistan's are limited to India. However the fact is Indian capital and Indian state has great power ambitions and investments that are growing all over the world. (According to Economist from 2005-2010 India exported over $75 billion in investments abroad where as the FDI was less than that). If you are buying up mines, Oil & Gas fields, factories (through private sector unlike the Chinese) all over Africa, South East Asia and even South China Sea, I am sure you would like to "protect" your investments with gun boats as all powers have done in the past besides the soft power of course.
As Usual writer is clearly obsessed with Defence topic when country is going into deep chaos. ROTI--KAPRA or MAKAN ,this is what you have to discuss ,NOT atomic Takat. Some people never change unless cruel Destiny changed them.
Yest another spot on piece by Mr. Haider!
Mr. Haider, Do you doubt that Pakistan's economy is in a free fall? The strategic depth policy in Afghanistan has Pakistan surrounded militarily from the East and the West. Projecting power through nuclear weapons does not mitigate any potential threat from outside. A surrender of sorts; making peace within the region and with the world at large is the only course left for Pakistan's military strategists and they could be doing just that with external forces. Overruling cabinet's decision to grant India a MFN status and insisting on strategic importance of nukes is only a ploy to keep Pakistan under military domination. This obsession with control can only multiply the misery for Pakistanis. A reasonable, humane understanding of the situation still escapes the so called patriotic perception of our military strategists. Peace.
Yeah! Stop blaming us rest of the world! I would write more but the electricity is about to go off. But its good to know that the topic at hand is being handled as the most pressing issue. Our ego's is all we have left.
Great article Ejaz. I'm just waiting for the 'liberals' to come out and say India and US are our best friends and we don't need a nuclear arsenal. Someone needs to wake these people from their sleep.