From: patrinr@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Bharat's (India's) Ballistic Missile Program !
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:51:28 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Aug31.165639.5200@bernina.ethz.ch>, nadeem@igpho (Nadeem Malik) writes:
> 
> This depends upon what section of the military you mean; in 1988 the
> Indian army had 1,100,000 regulars and no reserves, and Pakistan had
> 450,000 regulars and 500,000 reserves. That is an Indian superiority
> of roughly 5:2 regulars. India had a 2:1 advantage in fighter aircraft.
> Indian naval advantage is considerably better (I cannot figure out the
> exact ratio).
> 
> However, there has always been this imbalance right from the beginning.

 The imbalance, IMHO, is understandable considering the size of the
 country & the length of its borders with not just Pakistan but also
 China. 
 
> This has never prevented Pakistan from defending aganist Indian
> aggression. In 1948 Indian forces invaded Kashmir by surprise (I think
> even as negotiations were going on at the U.N. ?). In 1965 Pakistani
> army was within an hours march to Sri Nagar and as such technically it
> constitutes for the Pakistani forces. (It still remakins  a mystery
> why the Pakistani army didn't actually go into Sri Nagar because there 
> was nothing to stop it.) In 1971, East Pakistan was clearly indefensible
> and India made no impression on (West) Pakistan. 

 
  The goals (India's) in 1971 were clearly defined. The liberation of
East Pakistan was the objective, NOT the conquest of West Pakistan.


> 
> The conventional wisdom is that an attacking force needs at least a 3:1
> superiority in manpower to succeed in overcomming an enemy in denfence.
> The Indo-Pak wars seems to confirm this line of thinking. 
> 
> 
> The loose joker in all of this is offcourse China. Whether India thinks 
> that it is strong enough to take on Pakistan and China when Pakistan alone
> is probably more than it can handle as an attacker is very doubtful. On the
> other hand, will the Chino-Pak axis survive in the emerging New China 
> with Capitalism catching fire etc. etc. etc. is perhaps the most fascinating
> gambit at stake on the regional strategic chess-board.
> 
> : 2. N. Sharief wants Kashmir. India is all for the Kashmiris to
> : decide but Pakistan should pull out first.
> 
> Two corrections: (1) All pakistanis and most kashmiris want Kashmir.
> (2) India has consistently refused to allow *democratic* elections for
> the people of Kashmir to decide for themselves. Pakistan has fully agreed
> to the terms  of the UN resolutions on this issue.
> 

  Pakistan has just provided lip service regarding adherence to the UN
 resolutions. It cannot ask for independence of Kashmir and at the same
 time position its troops in POK.   



> 
> As for the last bit, I have a better idea .. why not let India withdraw 
> its bit of occupied Kashmir and let Pakistan hold elections for Kashmiris
> which they wil. undoubtedly do with good-will, love and fairness ? :-)



 Pakistan's ability to conduct free and fair polls not only in Kashmir but
in its own country is questionable :-)


>
> : 3. Pakistan has attacked India in the past.
> 
> India has attacked Pakistan and China in the past.
> 
>

  
 Untrue, to say the least.
   

 
> [deletions] 
> 
> : If the west could stop India's missile program it would.
> 
> I am not sure about that. In the final analysis I think the West
> would rather see India developed at the expense of Pakistan
> rather than the other way round.                                
> 
> : When we exploded the nuclear bomb we did not need any
> : components from abroad, it was totally built in India.
> 
> So was Pakistan's!!! :-) (Borrowing a few documents
> from friendly Profs :-):-) here and there surely doen't hurt
> anyone!:-):-) )
> : 
> : [One should not expect others to solve one's problems]
> 
> Totally agree with you here
> : 
> : Manoj
> 
> -Nadeem Malik	nadeem@p.igp.ethz.ch


  Patri Rao