[Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA

Tue May 4 18:46:29 IST 2010

Yes Kshemendra, you are perfectly right and good point of argument raised. Keep it up.

-----Original Message-----
From: reader-list-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:reader-list-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of Kshmendra Kaul
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:09 PM
To: Sarai Reader-list; yasir ~يا سر
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA

Dear Yasir

>From 'Blame-USA' you move to "Blame-India". "Land of the Pure", Pakistan's favorite pastime; blame everyone else but itself. 

Your viewpoint of 'history' between India and Pakistan starts from 1971. 

Remember 1947-48 when Maharaja of Kashmir had to sign the "Instrument of Accession" because Pakistan broke the "Standstill Agreement" which (unlike India) it had signed on? In a manner of speaking, India did not 'eat up' Kashmir but Pakistan offered it to India.

Remember 1965 and Pakistan's 'Operation Gibraltar'? (Read Ikram Sehgal's  http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/gibraltor-2.htm) 

Yet India was kind to Pakistan in 1971 and returned the 90,000 POWs without getting anything in return. Rather the idiocy of Indira Gandhi in trusting whatever Bhutto had promised her.

Yet, the never to be trusted Pakistan went in for the sneaky Kargil operation.

Pakistan's build-up of Military capabilities (and connected Budgets) has as much and more to do with it's Islamic ambitions ('thekedaar' of Islam) as it has to do with threat perceptions from India that it itself has provoked. 

By your logic, with India's inimical relations with China, India should be trying to match the Defence Budget of China and more since there are two 'enemies' to contend with, China and Pakistan.

India's defence expenditure happens to be a lower percentage of it's GDP when compared to Pakistan. From 2.5% of GDP in 06-07, it has come dowm to 2.30% in 09-10 and 2.12% in 10-11. 

And yes, please make up your mind. Did India 'eat up' Hyderabad&Junagad or Kashmir? Any logic justifying claim of 'eat up' of one would contradict itself when applied to the other.

Kshmendra

--- On Mon, 5/3/10, yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com> wrote:

From: yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA
To: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Monday, May 3, 2010, 8:21 PM

no sorry you totally got that from an enemy perspective. please get this
right.

if you ask us, we will tell you the following:
the people of pakistan are the real victim, when the govt of pakistan, the
pakistan army, sold itself to the united states, becoming a mercenary state
for them. the relation is completely one-sided. what development in real
terms have we seen, take any indicator. why are we worse off with many
systems existing and functioning back in the postpartition days woefully
nonexistent or malfunctional, let alone any new systems. the answer is quite
severe. we have a military budget which has to deal with india which is many
itimes its size and (had been) eadger to destabilize it after breaking it up
into 2 in 1971, and which had earlier eaten up hyderabad and kashmir. so we
are now doomed to military spending which comes anyway from the US, leaving
little in the way of major public projects which could have benefited people
at large. Government spending was eaten by the military. if you imagine what
kind of a present society we could have been if we had not stuck to this
stupid military buildup (you can eveluate your own side). so the war on
terror is just another day, another cloud. but it follows the covert US
action in Afghanistan against the Soviets using Afghanis and Pakistanis then
disappearing for a decade and showing up again this time because the
militancy the americans had started, charlie wilson's war starring tom
cruise, could not be put out and took the wtc with it. sorry there is no
conspiracy here. we are getting the blame 'for not doing enough' and then we
have to deal with your pearls of wisdom strewn from across the border.

so dear KK, we are not asking for blood money. we are saying:  having
destroyed the region, you better build it up now, to what it should be like.
i think this is not only possible, but also a moral responsility of the US
in no uncertain terms. and we dont trust them either because of this
history.

best

y

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>wrote:

> USA also pays "Blood Money" to Pakistan which Pakistan accepts very
> gratefully.
>
> In fact there is a constant clamour by many in Pakistan : "You are not
> paying us enough!!!! We want more!!!! We want more!!!!"
>
> --- On *Mon, 5/3/10, yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA
> To: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Monday, May 3, 2010, 1:53 PM
>
> one needs to add much salt here:
>
>
>    - reporters are not allowed, you only get the official army version
>    - civilian casualties are 'normal', very high and not reported,
> including
>    extra judicial killings and right violations
>    - the number of internally displaced people is huge, frequently not
> taken
>    care of by anyone let alone by govt
>    - the motivation in no small measure comes from the US pressuring the PK
>    army to show that action is being taken, which frequently leads to
> unstable
>    conditions, rather than working with local actors with a long term view,
>    while dealing with a guerrilla like militancy.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, S. Jabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sonia.jabbar@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > FRONT-PAGE
> > ŒPakistan has moved 100,000 troops from eastern border¹
> >
> > By Our Correspondent
> >
> > Friday, 30 Apr, 2010 | 01:38 AM PST |
> >
> >
> > WASHINGTON: Pakistan has deployed 140,000 troops in Fata, moving at least
> > 100,000 soldiers from the Indian border to back up its Œunprecedented¹
> > crackdown on militants along the Afghan border, says a Pentagon report.
> >
> > In its mandatory report to the US Congress on the situation in the
> > Pakistan-Afghan region, the Pentagon notes that the deployment is the
> > biggest in the country¹s history on the western border.
> >
> > ³This unprecedented deployment and thinning of the lines against India
> > indicates that Islamabad has acknowledged its domestic insurgent threat.²
> >
> > The Pentagon also acknowledges that Pakistani military operations in the
> > tribal regions have had an impact across the border, placing a ³high
> degree
> > of pressure on enemy forces and reduced insurgent safe haven² in eastern
> > Afghanistan.
> >
> > The Pentagon informs Congress that recent arrests by Pakistan of Afghan
> > Taliban leaders, including the group¹s No. 2, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar,
> > have ³increased insurgent leaders¹ concern over the security of their
> safe
> > havens² and created ³financial and logistical² problems for them.
> >
> > This assessment contrasts sharply with the Afghan claim ‹ backed by India
> ‹
> > that the arrests have weakened Kabul¹s efforts to seek a negotiated
> > settlement with the Taliban leadership.
> >
> > The report quotes a senior US defence official as saying that the arrests
> > in
> > Pakistan produced ³a lot of concerned chatter² among Taliban sympathisers
> > in
> > Afghanistan, but there¹s no indication of ³a leadership crisis in the
> > Taliban².
> >
> > The Pentagon notes that so far the crackdown in Pakistan is focused
> almost
> > exclusively on internal threats and that¹s why it¹s not having any
> > ³significant impact on the Afghan insurgency in the short term².
> >
> > But the crackdown ³offers opportunities in coming months to have a
> greater
> > impact on the conflict in Afghanistan depending on how PAKMIL (Pakistani
> > military) operations evolve,² the report adds.
> >
> > ³Pakistan has suffered attacks from terrorists in response to its
> > successful
> > operations. These attacks include mass casualty events in Mingora, South
> > Waziristan agency close to clearing operations as well as in Lahore, far
> > away from the fighting. ³While these attacks do not appear to have shaken
> > Pakistan¹s commitment, they do demonstrate, for the time being, insurgent
> > ability to continue attacks despite successful Pakistani operations,² the
> > report warns.
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/
> >
> >
> front-page/pakistan-has-moved-100,000-troops-from-indian-border-pentagon-040<
> http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/%0Afront-page/pakistan-has-moved-100,000-troops-from-indian-border-pentagon-040
> >
>
> >
> > Copyright © 2010 - Dawn Media Group
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-request@sarai.net>with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-request@sarai.net>with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>