The recently concluded IDEAS 2024, Pakistan's Biennial International Arms Expo in Karachi, featured the latest products offered by Pakistan's defense industry. These new products reflect new capabilities required by the Pakistani military for modern war-fighting to deter external enemies. The event hosted 550 exhibitors, including 340 international defense companies, as well as 350 civilian and military officials from 55 countries.
Pakistani defense manufacturers highlighted their latest products, including armed UAVs, air-launched cruise missiles, smart munitions and main battle tanks. A Pakistani defense official said a large number of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) were signed with foreign military officials which could potentially lead to $36 billion in future sales.
 |
| Pakistan Shahpar III UAV. Source: @ZARRAR3D |
Pakistan's state-owned defense conglomerate Global Industrial & Defense Solutions (GIDS) displayed a new medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) – Shahpar III – at the IDEAS 2024 which was held at the Karachi Expo Center from November 24 to 27, 2024. Shahpar III features longer endurance, weapon carrying capacity, and service ceiling over the earlier platforms in the Shahpar family of UAVs. The Shahpar III will have a maximum take-off weight of 1,650 kg and can carry multiple weapons on six underwing hardpoints. It will feature domestically developed avionics and be equipped with a dual-redundant flight control computer (US MIL-STD-1553 architecture), enhancing the aircraft's reliability, according to Jane's Defense.
 |
| Sarkash Kamikaze Drone On Display at IDEAS 2024. Source: Global Defense Agency |
GIDS also introduced a new Kamikaze (suicide) drone "Sarkash" at the event. The drone has a maximum range of 1,000 km, endurance of over 2 hours, a 50 kg warhead, and a total weight of 175 kg, powered by a turbojet engine. GIDS is also working on the Sarkash-1, a long-range loitering munition.
 |
| Pakistan's Blaze Loitering Munitions. Source: Quwa |
GIDS also unveiled the Blaze Series of loitering munitions, including Blaze 25, Blaze 50, and Blaze 75 at IDEAS 2024. The lightest of the series, the 25 kg Blaze 25 is ideal for short-range anti-tank operations with a range of 75 km and an endurance of 60 minutes, leaving minimal acoustic and thermal signature thanks to its electric propulsion system, according to OVD. In contrast, the Blaze 50, with its 50 kg weight, 180 km range, and 20 kg warhead, is an intermediate solution for medium-range attacks and reconnaissance missions. Designed for strategic, long-range engagements, the Blaze 75, the heaviest and most powerful model, boasts a 500 km range and a 30 kg warhead. It is powered by a gasoline engine for long-term endurance.
 |
| Azb-81 LR Small Diameter Bomb. Source: Quwa |
Qaswa Industries showcased its AZB-81LR Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) at IDEAS 2024. It is a stand-off weapon (SOW) with a range of 200 km. The precision-guided munition has a 250 lbs weight and has a standoff attack range of 200 kilometers, with an imaging infrared (IIR) seeker, according to defense publication Quwa.
Quwa also reported on a new Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) displayed at Expo. Using a stealthy low-observable (LO) airframe, the Rasoob-250 offers a range of 350 km with a cruising speed of Mach 0.7 and accuracy of within 5 m CEP (circular error probable). Including a booster, it has a total mass of 285 kg, with the semi-armor piercing warhead taking up 75 kg. It can be launched from drones, helicopters, and maritime patrol aircraft (MPA).
The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) publicly revealed for the first time a model of the next generation of its Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC)/Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) JF-17 ‘Thunder' fighter aircraft. Known as the JF-17 PFX (Pakistan Fighter Experimental), the model was displayed at the event in Karachi. Pakistani officials at IDEAS 2024 described the JF-17 PFX as a 4.5-plus generation twin-engine fighter aircraft. They also said that development of the type is expected to be completed before the end of the decade, according to Jane's.
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
South Asia Investor Review
Pakistan-China Defense Industry Collaboration Irks West
Pakistan's Cyber Attack and Defense Capability
Is India a Paper Elephant?
Pakistan's Aircraft Exports
Pakistan Navy Modernization
West's Technological Edge in Geopolitical Competition
Pakistan Defense Industry
Silicon Valley Book Launch of "Eating Grass"
Ukraine's Lesson For Pakistan: Never Give Up Nukes!
Pakistan Economy Nears Trillion Dollars
Pakistan's Sea-Based Second Strike Capability
Riaz Haq Youtube Channel
VPOS Youtube Channel
52 comments:
I'm guessing the JF-17 PFX is intended to rival the Tejas Mk2 which is under development in India to replace its ageing fleet of Mirage, Jaguar and MiG-29 jets and expected to become operational in the early 2030s. Though its too early to say how the two jets would compare performance-wise, the JF-17 does seem to have one crucial advantage vis-a-vis Tejas as regards to exports. Tejas's usage of the American GE engine, though likely superior to JF-17's Russian/Chinese equivalent as regards to performance, reliability and service life, puts constraints on its export prospects compared to the latter.
Retired PAF Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail, a recognized expert blogger on PAF-IAF matchup:
http://pakistanpolitico.com/rafales-impact-on-iafs-air-power-capabilities/
Mr. Modi has apparently not yet been briefed by his Air Staff about the JF-17’s upcoming PL-15 BVR missile guided by the new AESA radar, which beats the Rafale’s ramjet-powered Meteor by several tens of kilometers. It is manifest that long range BVR combat will take precedence over close combat in any future conflict, and enemy aircraft will be shot out of the skies while remaining well inside their own territory.
While we are at it, it may be worthwhile to have a cursory line comparison of the Rafale, F-16A and JF-17 in one-on-one visual air combat.
All three aircraft have a ‘clean’ configuration Thrust-to-Weight Ratio of 1:1 and can climb and accelerate equally well. In a turning fight, Aspect Ratio and Wing Loading are critical parameters. The JF-17 and F-16A enjoy better Aspect Ratios of 3.7 each, compared to the Rafale which stands at 2.6. A better Aspect Ratio (square of wing span to wing area) implies better aerodynamic efficiency due to less induced drag during turning. As for Wing Loading, or the weight of the aircraft per unit area, the lesser the better. The Rafale has a slight edge, having 68 lbs/sq ft compared to the JF-17 and F-16A, both of which have Wing Loadings of 77 lbs/sq ft. A lightly loaded wing helps in a tighter turn, though in case of the Rafale, this advantage is overcome by greater induced drag due its lower Aspect Ratio. In sum, all three fighters are at par, more or less, in a turning fight.
Induction of the Rafale in IAF has created considerable media interest, and the impression has been created that with immediate effect, IAF will rule the Indian skies. It must, however, be remembered that it will be at least two years before the Rafale achieves anything close to Full Operational Capability. PAF, on the other hand, has been flying F-16s for 37 years, including hot scenarios during the Afghan War, in local counter-insurgency operations, and the latest Operation ‘Swift Retort,’ downing half a dozen enemy fighters in these operations. The JF-17 has been fully operational for over a decade, and is expected to replace the legacy fighters over the next five years. These combat-proven PAF fighters are fully integrated with the air defence system, and are mutually data-linked, alongside all AEW and ground sensors. Such capabilities are not achieved overnight, and it will be several years before the Rafales can be considered a threat in any real sense.
Any immediate impact of the Rafale on IAF’s air power capabilities is, thus, simply over-hyped. This inference, however, must not be dealt with lightly, as there is a distinct possibility of the Indian Prime Minister using the Rafale for a false-flag operation in a surreptitious manner, to prove his point that, “with the Rafale, the results would have been different,” from those of 27 February 2019.
Pakistan now has 123 JF-17 combat aircraft in service, with another 35 on order, and also employs 25 as dedicated trainers.
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/pakistan-displays-jf-17-block-iii-fighter-at-bahrain-show/160723.article
Myanmar has so far fielded seven JF-17s, with another nine on order, while Nigeria’s air force has received three. Azerbaijan, meanwhile, recently announced an order – brokered by Pakistan – for a dozen JF-17s, including four two-seat trainers.
Baku’s commitment emerged in late September, when president Ilyam Aliyev toured a PAF aircraft at the Azerbaijan Defence Exhibition. “The jets have already been integrated into the arsenal of Azerbaijan’s air force,” the nation’s defence ministry said.
I'm not sure it makes much sense in comparing Rafale with JF-17 as the Rafale is a much heavier multirole fighter with greater combat load and range. (There is a reason why PAF bought the larger J-10C after India purchased the Rafales.) JF-17 Block III is more comparable to Tejas Mk1A and JF-17 PFX is likely designed to match Tejas Mk2.
Some rough numbers I found online for comparison given below. (The numbers may vary depending on the mission I guess.)
Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW):
JF-17 Block III: 13,500 kg
J-10C : 19,200 kg
Tejas Mk1A: 13,500 kg
F-16: 19,100 kg
Rafale: 24,500 kg
Tejas Mk2: 17,500 kg (projected)
Combat Load:
JF-17 Block III: 4325 kg
J-10C: 5600 kg
Tejas Mk1A: 5300 kg
F-16: 7700 kg
Rafale: 9500 kg
Tejas Mk2: 6500 kg (projected)
IAF is likely to use Rafales and Tejas Mk2 for cross-border air-to-ground mission role for which it currently use its ageing Mirage 2000 and Jaguar jets, while Tejas Mk1A and Sukhois would likely perform the task of air defense.
As for comparing the PL-15 and the Meteor, I do not know if Chinese weapons systems have reached the level of sophistication, reliability and effectiveness of their western counterparts as yet. Only an actual combat scenario will prove their relative potency. (The AIM-120 in the PAF F-16 were potent enough to deter IAF during the Balakot strike though.)
In any case, beyond their role in deterrent postures I do not think these weapon systems would decide the fate of either Pakistan or India as much as the strength and fragility of their economies would.
Hello Mr. Vineeth
It's nice to see how you are showing interest in the Defence and Military expo which was held in Karachi city of Pakistan.
Sir if you ask any Pakistan airforce pilot about the performance of an airforce, he will say :
" IT IS NOT ACTUALLY THE MACHINE THAT MATTERS IT IS IN FACT THE MAN BEHIND THE MACHINE THAT MATTERS "
___________
What this actually means is that it is the airforce pilot, his training, skills, talent ,confidence and determination that matters.
Mr. Vineeth
Rafael is no doubt a very good and advance airforce aircraft but pls note that it is not exactly battle tested. Meaning it has not taken part in any war or any airforce combat yet.
As far as I know or remember Rafael has not been even yet used in any air operations that are conducted against terrorists.
But as far as I know or remember JF-17 thunder although I think haven't taken part in any war or air combat but it was used by PAF in war against terrorism.
Pls check this, these are some of the comparison that are made between Rafael and JF-17 thunder :
_________
However, when it comes to speed, JF-17 can achieve a maximum of 1960 kmph (1058 knots) while Rafale can fly at up to 1915 kmph (1034 knots). JF-17 also has an edge with regard to the range. The maximum range of JF-17 jet is 3,482 km (1880 nautical miles) while that of Rafale is 1,850 km (999 nautical miles).
__________
For further information, pls check this link :
https://www.earlytimes.in/m/newsdet.aspx?q=252233#:~:text=However%2C%20when%20it%20comes%20to,km%20(999%20nautical%20miles).
Ahmed,
The range of 3482 km which you have quoted for JF-17 is its maximum "ferry range" with three external drop tanks and without any armament (i.e the maximum distance it can go without refuelling if it were to go for an air show or something similar). The maximum "combat range" of JF-17 (i.e. with armaments or payloads) is reportedly 900km on its internal fuel load and 1741 km with added external drop tanks.
From what I could read online, the "combat range" for Rafale with and without external drop tanks are in the same ballpark (approx 800-1800 km). The difference though is that since Rafale is a larger twin-engine fighter they can carry much greater weapons load (heavier bombs, ALCMs etc) than JF-17.
But one also needs to bear in mind that there are many variables involved in these range numbers for combat jets. The real range would vary significantly based on the mission and the weapon loads, and the inclusion of external fuel tanks would reduce the amount of armaments that a combat jet can carry.
Also, the French have used Rafales in combat operations in Libya, Mali and against ISIL targets in Iraq and Syria.
Hello Mr. Vineeth
Thanks for your reply to my comment, I am not much sure and know whether Rafael has been tested in war against terrorists in Libya but what I know and understand is that the real potential ,efficiency and capabilities of the fighter jet and jet aircraft depends on much it has taken part in air to air combat and what was it's performance in air to air combat.
Again according to PARTICIPATE chief and airforce, it is man behind the gun and machine that matters more than the machine or the gun itself.
The machine here refers to jet fighters and jet aircraft which airforce pilots use.
Thanks
Mr. Vineeth
You are welcome to make such comments , actually the priorities of airforce varies depending on the talent and capabilities of their airforce pilot and the conditions of the environment. Since many decades PAF ( Pakistan Airforce) has used lighter jet or fighter aircrafts which has less weight and pls note that in some ways PAF has advantage over IAF in the sense that PAF is used to using lighter jet fighters and pls note that lighter jet fighters or lighter fighter planes can take less time to take off as compared to heavy and big aircrafts and it is easier for airforce pilots to maneovur the aircrafts in skies.
Many Indians including Pakistanis are not aware of the fact that Pakistan airforce (PAF) has gone through vigorious training, in 1971 war against India, PAF was trained by an American legendary airforce pilot who broke the sound barrier. He even often praises PAF for its performance.
Also in 1960s and even before that it was polish pilots who worked with PAF.
During partition of 1947, Pakistan millitary was trained by retired British officers who took part in world War 1 and 2 .
Ahmed,
Both IAF and PAF use lighter and heavier fighter jets for different roles. Why do you think PAF acquired the larger J-10C jets from China if the smaller JF-17 was sufficient? India's Tejas Mk1A is light fighter jet developed to replace the MiG-21 in air defense role and it is in the same weight class as JF-17 as I mentioned above. Its more appropriate to compare Rafale to the J-10C rather than the JF-17.
Veneeth, you wrote:
"In any case, beyond their role in deterrent postures I do not think these weapon systems would decide the fate of either Pakistan or India as much as the strength and fragility of their economies would."
You are correct, it is sad that two countries that are barely above Sub Saharan Africa on HDI index spend so much on an arms race. However, it is a necessary evil for Pakistan. Untill an unless India is broken into smaller manageable countries it will keep its imperialistic mindset and will keep bullying smaller countries in the neighborhood and will keep meddling in their internal affairs as well as promoting terrorism in in the neighborhood.
G. Ali
@G Ali,
Its interesting you say that, since in all the cases of India-Pakistan wars it was clearly Pakistan that was the aggressor, not India. The Kashmir war began when Pakistan sent Pashtun tribals to invade Kashmir while the Maharajah was contemplating the idea of keeping the territory independent. India airlifted its forces to Kashmir valley only when the Maharajah requested India's help to beat back the invaders and agreed to sign the instrument of accession. The 1965 war began with Pakistan's "Operation Gibraltar". In the case of the 1971 Bangaldesh liberation war, though India had been secretly training and arming the Mukti Bahini, full fledged war only began between the two countries when Pakistan pre-emptively struck Indian airfields ("Operation Chengiz Khan"). And why did India choose to help the Mukti Bahini? Because Bengalis were fleeing across the border from East Pakistan into India as refugees in huge numbers after Pakistan Army began "Operation Searchlight". And Kargil war as we all know began with Musharraf's act of treachery ("Operation Badr") when the governments of Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif were negotiating peace after the Lahore bus ride.
So who has legitimate reasons to distrust the intentions of whom here? India is a status-quo power and is happy with the borders as it stands. It is nowhere near as obsessed about Pak-administered portion of Kashmir as Pakistan is about the Indian-administered portion. India will be happy to have peaceful relations with Pakistan as long as Pakistan respects LoC as the de-facto border and abandons its 75-year quest for Kashmir (or atleast agree to keep it a purely diplomatic-level dispute between the two countries and pull the plug on Kashmir jihadist groups like LeT/TRF/JeM that it actively funds and arms). If Pakistan doesn't agree to that, expect India to retaliate in the same coin by arming anti-Pakistan groups like BLA.
Secondly, as you may well know India has tense political relations with Nepal and Bangladesh as well. India surrounds both of these countries from their three sides and neither of those countries have nukes, missiles or any other advanced weaponry of the kind Pakistan has to defend themselves. Has India ever tried to attack them, or even threaten them with an attack?
Every large country tries to protect its interests in its backyard. US does it, China does it, Russia does it. Would you say these countries need to be broken up? Besides, just take a look at the map of the subcontinent and see how India naturally dominates the region by its size (and population). With its geographical extent and central location India shares land or sea borders with every other South Asian nation with the sole exception of Afghanistan. It has a lot to defend.
Nikkei Asia
@NikkeiAsia
Misguided foreign policy has left India friendless in South Asia
https://x.com/NikkeiAsia/status/1843110934358724924
https://muslimmirror.com/misguided-foreign-policy-leaves-india-friendless-in-south-asia-claims-japanese-media-outlet-nikkei/
In a recent report, Japanese media outlet Nikkei Asia has criticized India’s foreign policy, claiming that it has led to the country’s increasing isolation in South Asia. The report suggests that India’s diplomatic strategies under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government have backfired, leaving the nation with few allies in its own neighborhood.
The Nikkei report highlights strained relations with key regional players like Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, countries that have traditionally maintained close ties with India. These tensions have reportedly been fueled by a combination of internal political dynamics, mismanagement of regional partnerships, and India’s perceived alignment with global powers like the U.S. and Japan.
Strained Relations with Nepal and Bangladesh
One of the focal points of the article is India’s deteriorating relationship with Nepal. The report claims that India’s heavy-handed approach to Nepal’s constitutional crisis in 2015, followed by its blockade of essential supplies, has left a lasting negative impact on bilateral ties. Nepal has since sought closer relations with China, a move that has caused concern in New Delhi.
In Bangladesh, the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam have led to growing distrust of India. The policies, which many Bangladeshis view as targeting their population, have strained relations, despite decades of cooperation on trade, infrastructure, and security. The Nikkei article notes that Dhaka is now looking to diversify its partnerships, with China emerging as a significant alternative.
India’s Influence in Sri Lanka and the Maldives
India’s relationship with Sri Lanka has also faced challenges, according to Nikkei. Although India has provided financial aid to help Sri Lanka manage its recent economic crisis, the growing Chinese influence on the island nation, including Beijing’s investments in key infrastructure projects, has limited India’s influence.
In the Maldives, China’s expanding footprint has similarly reduced India’s traditional clout. While India has worked to rebuild its influence through initiatives like the “Neighborhood First” policy, the article suggests that these efforts have been slow to produce results.
China’s Growing Influence in South Asia
According to Nikkei, China has capitalized on India’s strained relations with its neighbors by making strategic investments and forming partnerships across South Asia. From large infrastructure projects in Pakistan and Sri Lanka to growing trade ties with Bangladesh and Nepal, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been a key tool in expanding its influence.
The report implies that India’s inability to counter China’s growing presence in the region stems from miscalculations in foreign policy, with New Delhi’s focus on global partnerships coming at the expense of regional diplomacy. India’s reluctance to openly challenge China’s influence while prioritizing ties with the U.S., Japan, and Australia through the Quad alliance has, according to Nikkei, weakened its position in South Asia.
The Nikkei report concludes by urging India to recalibrate its foreign policy and restore ties with its South Asian neighbors. It argues that a more balanced and inclusive approach to regional diplomacy, combined with efforts to counter China’s growing influence, is crucial for India to regain its position as a regional leader.
As India faces significant geopolitical challenges, including tensions with Pakistan and China, its ability to maintain strong ties with its immediate neighbors is becoming increasingly critical.
Indian government's former Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian has enumerated and challenged arguments for what he calls "India's Size Illusion" as follows:
India’s economic size has not translated into commensurate military strength. Part of the problem is simple geography. (German Chancellor Otto Von) Bismarck (1815-1898) supposedly said that the US is bordered on two sides by weak neighbors and on two sides by fish. India, however, does not enjoy such splendid isolation. Ever since independence, it has been confronted on its Western frontier by Pakistan, a highly armed, chronically hostile, and often military-ruled neighbor. More recently, India’s northern neighbor, China, also has become aggressive, repudiating the territorial status quo, occupying contested land in the Himalayas, reclaiming territory in the east, and building up a large military presence along India’s borders. So, India may have fish for neighbors along its long peninsular coast, but on land it faces major security challenges on two fronts.
https://www.riazhaq.com/2024/06/are-some-pakistanis-feeding-into-indian.html
Ah, so you want India to become a superpower – like America?
By Roger Marshall
Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/ah-so-you-want-india-to-become-a-superpower-like-america-3018901
https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/ah-so-you-want-india-to-become-a-superpower-like-america-3018901
In the agricultural sector, most US farms would be out of business but for cheap migrant labour from Central America, mainly Mexico -- the same Mexico whose lands were expropriated but whose people are still being shut out at the border.
———-
There are many Indians, politicians and ordinary citizens alike, who would like to see India become a superpower, much along the lines of the United States. Is this in keeping with the ethos of the Indian character? And to what end? To answer these questions, we need to understand what it is in the American character that enabled the US to grow from a 300,000 square-mile territory comprised of 13 original colonies bordering the Atlantic Ocean to a gigantic country covering some 3.5 million square-miles, extending out to the Pacific Ocean.
Though the phrase ‘manifest destiny’ was coined in 1845 by Democrat John O’Sullivan, the ideology behind the phrase was operative even back in the 1620s, when the first European settlers, the Puritans from England fleeing religious persecution, set foot in North America. Manifest destiny refers to the divine right to “tame and cultivate” the new country by displacing the “uncivilised,” non-Christian peoples who did not take full advantage of the land God had granted them..
This ideology served to justify the violent displacement of native peoples and military takeover of their lands. When the US purchased the territory of Louisiana (over 800,000 square-miles) from France in 1803, it essentially bought Native American tribal land which France neither owned nor controlled, if only to prevent Spain, Britain and Russia from colonising the area. This area is what is now known as Middle America, populated almost entirely by the ancestors of white immigrants from northern Europe
That race has been a huge factor in America’s attainment of superpower status can be seen by examining legislation pertaining to immigration and trade over the last 200 years. While unrestricted immigration from Western Europe has always been allowed, it has been less so for Southern and Eastern Europeans but definitely not for Asians, unless they were slaves and indentured labourers. Even though it was cheap Chinese labour that built the American railroads in the 1870s, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 drove most of the Chinese out of America. American labour unions believed that Chinese coolies were responsible for declining wages and lowered standards of living.
—————
Absent a moral or ethical compass, we suppose that any nation singularly focused on enriching itself can become a superpower. To quote John O’Sullivan, “Yes, more, more, more! . . . till our national destiny is fulfilled and. . the whole boundless continent is ours”.
Ah, but these articles often leave unsaid how Chinese loans and investments into Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Maldives have only led them deeper into unsustainable debt.
Some Nepali leaders have been trying to pivot away from India to China ignoring the simple truth of geography - Nepal shares an open border on its three sides with populous regions of India while to the north the mighty Himalayas separate it from an arid Tibet. Not just that, but the people living in the fertile Terai region towards the south of the country share close kinship with those of northern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Uttarakhand.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1876457/in-pivot-from-india-nepal-pm-seeks-economic-support-from-china
"Oli arrived in China on Monday for a four-day visit, his first to a foreign country since his July swearing-in, and breaking tradition by not making New Delhi, with which Kathmandu has centuries-old ties, his initial port of call."
"Oli has so far been greeted by familiar pledges of assistance, but no new investment."
"The nine deals that Nepal signed with China on Tuesday had been previously agreed."
"India accounts for two-thirds of Nepal’s international trade while China has a share of just 14 per cent. But China is a bigger two-way creditor, having lent more than $310 million, World Bank data shows, or $30m more than New Delhi."
"China has since extended Nepal a loan of $216m to build an international airport in Pokhara, the second-largest city about 200 kilometres west of Kathmandu, which began operating last year.
But the Chinese-built airport, claimed by Beijing as a symbol of Belt and Road success, has grappled with problems, such as a lack of international flights, due to India’s refusal to let planes use its airspace to reach Pokhara."
"Debt concerns have also spurred debate within Oli’s coalition government, with the Nepali Congress party, a key supporter of Oli being in office, opposing any project funded by loans.
Ahead of his China visit, the coalition partners, including Oli’s own Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), agreed to use grants and not loans from China for Belt and Road projects."
"Sri Lanka, a key recipient of Belt and Road loans to fund transport and power projects, defaulted on foreign debt in May 2022, offering a sobering reminder of the risks of unsustainable borrowing."
Even the new government in Bangladesh that seek to distance themselves from India would face a similar predicament. Not only does India surround it on three sides, but the rivers that water their lands flow to the country from India too. Whatever faults India's foreign policy may have (there are several), it still has geography in its favour with respect to its smaller neighbours. India is the large next-door neighbour that they simply cannot afford to ignore.
And then, how exactly is Pakistan endowed with its "strategic location" faring with respect to relations with its neighbours? It may sound counter-intuitive that barring perhaps the small Himalayan border with China to its north-east, Pakistan's most peaceful and least problematic border at the moment is the one that it shares with India!
This analysis feels a bit dated at present as India and China reached an agreement to pull back their troops from the contested areas in Ladakh and restore the status quo ante. I wouldn't say the relations have been normalized, but there is definitely a thaw as both sides (and China especially) appear to have come to the conclusion that a prolonged face off is not in the interest of either country.
Vineeth, there you go again with long irrelevant mumbo jumbo.
Every time I argue with Indians two things strike me as amazing. First, and I hate to bring religion into the discussion, is how correct Dr. Ambedkar was when he said "Hindu moral compass changes depending on whether they are the perpetrators or the victims". Second, how successfully Indian government, historians and intellectuals have brainwashed the public that even the educated people, like yourself, never deviate from the official version. An accomplishment that would make Goebel look like a kindergarten teacher. Sad part is that you will never realize or recognize your double standard and hypocrisy.
You are correct Pakistan had sent tribesman into Kashmir, but India did that same with Junagarh. So why was it Ok for India to do but not for Pakistan?
You said that Pakistan started all wars? But do you know that in 1971 118 countries in UN accused India of the aggression. The decision was not unanimous because the countries of the Soviet block supported India. Also, compare 1965 with 71. In 1965 Pakistan started trouble in Kashmir, a disputed territory, India retaliated by crossing the international border. In 1971 India started trouble in E. Pakistan a part of Pakistan, Pakistan retaliated by crossing international border but to you Pakistan is aggressor in both cases. Amazing.
You mentioned Let/TRF/JeM etc, but conveniently forgot to mention LTTE, mukti bahini and Shanti Bahini etc. All created, supported and funded by India. PM Oli was considered a terrorist by the then Napali government, but would roam around in India meeting all sort of politicians.
Fact is your country is the fountain of most evils in South Asia. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t …
G. Ali
G Ali,
"First, and I hate to bring religion into the discussion.."
Please don't bring religion into the discussion, or else we might end up having to talk about the raging wars and extremism in the Middle East and North Africa which reflects badly on a certain religion as well. Lets keep the discussion civil and keep our religious prejudices to ourselves. I did not mention any religion anywhere in this discussion.
"You are correct Pakistan had sent tribesman into Kashmir, but India did that same with Junagarh. So why was it Ok for India to do but not for Pakistan?"
I was talking about Indo-Pak wars and who started each of them. There was no Indo-Pak war in Junagarh or Hyderabad. In the case of Indo-Pak war over Kashmir in 1947-48, India wasn't the one that started it as it only sent its forces to beat back the Pashtun tribals at Maharajah's request and after he signed the instrument of accession. Until then Pakistan's stand was that it had nothing to do with the tribal invasion of Kashmir.
"But do you know that in 1971 118 countries in UN accused India of the aggression."
The Western bloc and China sided with Pakistan in the 1971 war purely for geo-political reasons while the Muslim world sided with it due to religious reasons and Sri Lanka sided with Pakistan because they had a Tamil minority whom objected to the imposition of Sinhala. (Pakistan was after all the "blue eyed boy" of the West at the time and its genocidal actions in East Pakistan - "Operation Searchlight" and the events described in the "Blood Telegram" - didn't matter then in Western capitals, just as Israel's actions in Gaza now doesn't.)
I have no idea who the rest of the 118 countries were or what exactly they accused India of at the time other than that there was an US sponsored resolution in the Security Council for immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of troops that the Soviet Union vetoed. Perhaps you can share a link about what exactly you are referring to.
The only grey area I see about India's actions in 1971 war was the training and arming of the Mukti bahini - a native East Pakistani resistance force formed by Bengali officers in Pakistani military like Gen M A G Osmani, Major Ziaur Rahman etc, but I see it as no worse from what Pakistan has done later by arming and infiltrating jihadists to fight India in Kashmir. However, Indian troops crossed the borders and invaded East Pakistan only when Pakistan conducted pre-emptive strikes on Indian military airfields - which was an open act of war.
"In 1965 Pakistan started trouble in Kashmir, a disputed territory, India retaliated by crossing the international border. In 1971 India started trouble in E. Pakistan a part of Pakistan, Pakistan retaliated by crossing international border but to you Pakistan is aggressor in both cases. Amazing."
You can twist the facts the way you like. Pakistan started the war with India in 1965 without any provocation (as in the later Kargil war) when it sent its soldiers across the LoC, but found that it bit more than it can chew when India retaliated by opening another front against Pakistan and threatened Lahore. In the case of 1971 war, India did not start the troubles in East Pakistan, but Pakistani military did that through its own actions ("Operation Searchlight"). It was not India that induced the Bengali officers and soldiers among Pakistan's military to revolt. At best, India took advantage of the evolving situation that Pakistan itself created. Read the history of the Mukti bahini.
Lastly, the party who fires the first shot is the "aggressor" in any war. And Pakistani military was the one who did it every time in all the wars with India. "Proxy wars" by clandestinely arming insurgent groups against another country is an altogether different matter, and both India and Pakistan have been doing it for a long time.
Russian FSB Hackers Breach Pakistani APT Storm-0156
(Russian) Parasitic advanced persistent threat (APT) Secret Blizzard accessed another APT's infrastructure (Pakistan's), and stole the same kinds of info it targets in South Asian government and military victims.
https://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/russian-fsb-hackers-breach-pakistan-storm-0156
Hackers operating on behalf of Russian state intelligence have breached hackers operating out of Pakistan, latching onto their espionage campaigns to steal information from government, military, and defense targets in Afghanistan and India.
In December 2022, Secret Blizzard (aka Turla) — which the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has tied to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) — gained access to a server run by another advanced persistent threat (APT), Storm-0156 (aka Transparent Tribe, SideCopy, APT36). It soon expanded into 33 separate command-and-control (C2) nodes operated by Storm-0156 and, in April 2023, breached individual workstations owned by its fellow hackers.
Since then, researchers from Microsoft and Black Lotus Labs say, Secret Blizzard has been able to leech off of Storm-0156's cyberattacks, accessing sensitive information from various Afghani government agencies and Indian military and defense targets.
---------------------
Frequent freeloader part I: Secret Blizzard compromising Storm-0156 infrastructure for espionage | Microsoft Security Blog
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2024/12/04/frequent-freeloader-part-i-secret-blizzard-compromising-storm-0156-infrastructure-for-espionage/
In this first of a two-part blog series, we discuss how (Russia's) Secret Blizzard has used the infrastructure of the Pakistan-based threat activity cluster we call Storm-0156 — which overlaps with the threat actor known as SideCopy, Transparent Tribe, and APT36 — to install backdoors and collect intelligence on targets of interest in South Asia. Microsoft Threat Intelligence partnered with Black Lotus Labs, the threat intelligence arm of Lumen Technologies, to confirm that Secret Blizzard command-and-control (C2) traffic emanated from Storm-0156 infrastructure, including infrastructure used by Storm-0156 to collate exfiltrated data from campaigns in Afghanistan and India. We thank the Black Lotus Team for recognizing the impact of this threat and collaborating on investigative efforts. In the second blog, Microsoft Threat Intelligence will be detailing how Secret Blizzard has used Amadey bots and the PowerShell backdoor of two other threat actors to deploy the Tavdigbackdoor and then use that foothold to install their KazuarV2 backdoor on target devices in Ukraine.
Russian FSB Hackers Breach Pakistani APT Storm-0156
(Russian) Parasitic advanced persistent threat (APT) Secret Blizzard accessed another APT's infrastructure (Pakistan's), and stole the same kinds of info it targets in South Asian government and military victims.
https://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/russian-fsb-hackers-breach-pakistan-storm-0156
Hackers operating on behalf of Russian state intelligence have breached hackers operating out of Pakistan, latching onto their espionage campaigns to steal information from government, military, and defense targets in Afghanistan and India.
In December 2022, Secret Blizzard (aka Turla) — which the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has tied to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) — gained access to a server run by another advanced persistent threat (APT), Storm-0156 (aka Transparent Tribe, SideCopy, APT36). It soon expanded into 33 separate command-and-control (C2) nodes operated by Storm-0156 and, in April 2023, breached individual workstations owned by its fellow hackers.
Since then, researchers from Microsoft and Black Lotus Labs say, Secret Blizzard has been able to leech off of Storm-0156's cyberattacks, accessing sensitive information from various Afghani government agencies and Indian military and defense targets.
---------------------
Frequent freeloader part I: Secret Blizzard compromising Storm-0156 infrastructure for espionage | Microsoft Security Blog
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2024/12/04/frequent-freeloader-part-i-secret-blizzard-compromising-storm-0156-infrastructure-for-espionage/
In this first of a two-part blog series, we discuss how (Russia's) Secret Blizzard has used the infrastructure of the Pakistan-based threat activity cluster we call Storm-0156 — which overlaps with the threat actor known as SideCopy, Transparent Tribe, and APT36 — to install backdoors and collect intelligence on targets of interest in South Asia. Microsoft Threat Intelligence partnered with Black Lotus Labs, the threat intelligence arm of Lumen Technologies, to confirm that Secret Blizzard command-and-control (C2) traffic emanated from Storm-0156 infrastructure, including infrastructure used by Storm-0156 to collate exfiltrated data from campaigns in Afghanistan and India. We thank the Black Lotus Team for recognizing the impact of this threat and collaborating on investigative efforts. In the second blog, Microsoft Threat Intelligence will be detailing how Secret Blizzard has used Amadey bots and the PowerShell backdoor of two other threat actors to deploy the Tavdigbackdoor and then use that foothold to install their KazuarV2 backdoor on target devices in Ukraine.
Vineeth,
I am not going to bring religion into the discussion, or else we might end up having to talk about thousands of years of unethical, immoral, inhumane and downright barbaric practices of the followers of a certain religion against a certain caste.
However, Dr. Ambedkar has been proven correct again and again, your moral compass changes based on whether you’re the victim or the perpetrator.
Junagarh was started by India using irregulars so why was it wrong for Pakistan to send militants into Kashmir? At least there was no genocide in Junagarh, whereas Mahraja and his cohorts were busy in ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Jammu, where between August and October of 1947 somewhere between 100-300K Muslims were eliminated and Jammu was changed from a Muslim majority to minority area.
“You can twist the facts the way you like. “, Kashmir being a disputed territory is not a twisting the fact but is the fact. You can see any map, outside India, and you will find that Kashmir is shown as a disputed territory.
“The only grey area I see about India's actions in 1971 war was the training and arming of the Mukti bahini”? Really, you think it was a gray area? Buddy it was a black spot, not a gray area. Muktis were create, trained and supported by India. Before they started fighting Pakistani army they were busy killing non-Bengalis and after the war they took revenge on unarmed Bengalis who were supporting Pakistan.
You conveniently ignored LTTE and Shanti Bahini, were they gray areas too?
Fact is, Indians complaining about terrorism is like Nazis giving lecture on human rights or the Klan talking about human equality.
G. Ali
Salam Sir
The millitary and Defence of Pakistan must be alert and concious of all these hacking activities taking place.
Pls note that hackers from Russia are very well skilled and are known in the world for their hacking abilities.
Normally the governments of various countries who are interested to know the secrets of the millitary and defence of other countries actually don't use their own hackers but they sometimes also hire hackers from other countries to perform hacking on their behalf.
These hackers that are hired to perform these hacking tasks for governments of other countries are actually black hat hackers.
G Ali,
"Junagarh was started by India using irregulars so why was it wrong for Pakistan to send militants into Kashmir?"
You mistake me, sir. I didn't say anything about Pakistan sending tribals to invade Kashmir being "right" or "wrong". I just said that India did not start the Indo-Pakistan war over Kashmir in 1947-48 since it sent troops to expel the invading Pashtun tribals (sent by Pakistan) only on Maharaja's request and only after he signed the instrument of accession.
"At least there was no genocide in Junagarh, whereas Mahraja and his cohorts were busy in ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Jammu.."
Whatever the Maharaja did in his kingdom before he signed the instrument of accession was his own business. India had no part in it.
"Kashmir being a disputed territory is not a twisting the fact but is the fact."
I didn't say anywhere that Kashmir is not disputed territory. The whole of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir including the territories of Jammu, Kashmir valley, Ladakh, AJK and GB is internationally accepted to be disputed territory. But that doesn't mean Pakistan wouldn't be an "aggressor" if it sends its troops across to invade the Indian-administered portion unprovoked and in violation of the previous ceasefire agreement. Think of it happening the other way round with India invading AJK and GB because they are "disputed territory".
"Really, you think it was a gray area? Buddy it was a black spot, not a gray area."
Like I said, its no more of a grey or black spot than Pakistan funding, arming and infiltrating LeT/JeM/TRF/HuM and other jihadis into Kashmir to fight India since the early '90s or aiding Khalistani militants in Indian Punjab in the '80s.
"Muktis were create, trained and supported by India."
India provided training and arms for the Mukti bahini, but the rebel force itself wasn't India's creation as they were founded and led by East Bengali officers who defected from the Pakistani military. It wouldn't have been possible for India to induce such large numbers of East Bengalis (including those who served in the Pakistan military) to rise in open revolt against the West Pakistani-led military forces had the latter not laid the groundwork for it themselves through violent repression of native Bengalis culminating in "Operation Searchlight". (Read about "The Blood Telegram" sent by Archer Blood, the American Consul General in Dhaka in 1971 when the Nixon administration was leaving no stone unturned to defend Pakistan and whitewash the genocide.)
As I said, India at best took advantage of an opportunity created by West Pakistani leadership and aided the rebels as a response to the waves of refugees fleeing across its borders, and (possibly) to return a favour to Pakistan for starting the 1965 war 6 years earlier.
"You conveniently ignored LTTE and Shanti Bahini, were they gray areas too?"
Neither of them have anything to do with Pakistan and the Indo-Pak wars.
"Indians complaining about terrorism.."
Indian govt complains as part of its diplomatic strategy. Atleast, I have no reasons to complain since if the security situation of Pakistan for the last few years and its dossiers are to be believed, India is paying back Pakistan with interest and arrears in KP and Balochistan for whatever it did in Kashmir and the Indian Punjab. Lets keep playing the proxy war games and see who wins at the end. Shall we?
Salam Sir
Something important according to this last post about hacking of sensitive data , what I understand from this last article is that these hackers that were hired by Russian State or government didn't actually directly hack into the systems of defence and millitary of Pakistan but they actually breached into the hackers system(source systems) which hackers use to target the other users systems.
The hackers systems that these Russian hired hacker breached into actually contained and stored the sensitive data of Pakistan millitary and defence which these hackers already gained access to illegally.
So these Russian hired hacker didn't directly hack into the servers or systems of Pakistan Millitary and Defence but they knew already who those hackers are who have already hacked into these systems and servers of Pakistan millitary.
So these Russian hired hacker indirectly gained access to the sensitive data of Pak millitary and Defence by hacking into these hackers systems.
Salam Sir
Thanks for posting this article, actually Indians are suffering from superiority complex and they are in illusion that they can become super power like America and UK.
They must realize that at the moment the level of problems they have like high level unemployment, poverty, inflation and violence and attacks on religious minorities in the country, it actually creates a picture that sadly poor India is heading towards disintegration rather than remaining a single country. Forget about becoming a super power.
Even Shashi That or a well known Indian politician from Congress party of India said that India can't become super power if it remains super poor.
Thanks
Ahmed,
"..poor India is heading towards disintegration rather than remaining a single country."
We have been hearing of this 'India heading towards disintegration' thing from Pakistanis for the past 75 years. India has had poverty, unemployment and social tensions from the time of independence and yet it remains in one piece and is no closer to disintegration than it was seven decades ago. There is a reason for that - "democracy". For all its faults, India's democratic system is a safety valve and allows accomodation of its diversity. Meanwhile Pakistan has already broken in two and Pakistanis should really worry where their country is heading now with this potent mix of political instability, military's overreach, economic mess and rising militant attacks.
Vineeth,
As I said you will never see your own double standards and hypocrisy.
“Whatever the Maharaja did in his kingdom before he signed the instrument of accession was his own business. India had no part in it.”
Wrong, Indian citizens were involved in that, so India is responsible.
And how about the genocide of Muslims after the occupation of Hyderabad? Was India not responsible for that either?
“Neither of them (LTTE & Shanti Bahini) have anything to do with Pakistan and the Indo-Pak wars”
Using same logic nothing that happens in Pakistan is your concern? So why are you here pointing negatives about Pakistan?
“…but the rebel force itself wasn't India's “.
Not true, I had family members in East Pakistan who were told long before the elections about the support India will provide.
G. Ali
G Ali,
"Wrong, Indian citizens were involved in that, so India is responsible."
That's a laughable argument. The "Maharajah and his cohorts" whom you accuse of for those acts weren't Indian citizens at the time and therefore India cannot be held responsible for whatever they did before they became Indian citizens.
"And how about the genocide of Muslims after the occupation of Hyderabad? Was India not responsible for that either?"
I have no idea why you are repeatedly attempting to drag unrelated matters to the discussion. The subject of this thread was Indo-Pakistan conflicts, and the events during Hyderabad's or Junagadh's annexation did not involve any Indo-Pakistan conflict at all as neither of those territories were in a position to join Pakistan as they did not share land boundaries with it. (Is it that you felt uncomfortable and defensive when I mentioned "Operation Searchlight" and the genocide of Bengalis during Bangladesh liberation war?)
Though I would not defend any sort of mob violence or genocide, the "Hyderbad massacre" happened obviously in retaliation to the widespread violence unleashed by Nizam's Razakar militias on the Hindu population previously.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razakars_(Hyderabad)
This was similar to the case of Bangladesh liberation war as well where the violence unleashed by Mukti bahini on Urdu-speaking Bihari Muslims was in retaliation to Pakistan Army's "Operation Searchlight" and the role of East Pakistan's Razakar militias in the genocide of Bengalis, or the case of the mass violence between Hindus/Sikhs and Muslims in the aftermath of partition in Punjab and Bengal. Neither side was exactly innocent here.
"Using same logic nothing that happens in Pakistan is your concern? So why are you here pointing negatives about Pakistan?"
Nothing that happens in Pakistan should be my concern as an Indian, as long as it has no impact whatsoever on India and its people. Not even the persecution of Hindus or the reported forced conversions of Hindu minor girls in Pakistan should be my concern as I consider Pakistani Hindus to be Pakistani citizens. I haven't pointed out any "negatives" of Pakistan anywhere in this discussion. I only made an observation that advanced weaponry being acquired by India and Pakistan are only good for deterrent postures and that the greater determining factor for the fate of both nations would be their economies.
The only times when I point out negatives about Pakistan in this blog is when Pakistanis list out negatives about India seemingly oblivious of the faults of their own country. Otherwise I am well aware that both countries have plenty of faults and failings of their own.
"Not true, I had family members in East Pakistan who were told long before the elections about the support India will provide."
What kind of support? Mukti bahini was formed only after Pakistan Army began "Operation Searchlight" which resulted in the rebellion of many Bengali Muslim officers and soldiers in the Pakistani Army.
Salam Sir
If these Russian based hackers indirectly and illegally accessed the sensitive data of the Pak military and Defence by accessing and breaching into the systems of these hackers that was holding the sensitive data of Pak millitary, this clearly shows that these hackers computers and devices which they used as a source hacking system where not secure enough to protect the sensitive data of pak millitary neither the storage device where these hackers actually stored and saved this sensitive data of Pak army was secure.
Vineeth,
“Hyderbad massacre happened obviously in retaliation to the widespread violence unleashed by Nizam's Razakar militias on the Hindu population previously.”.
Wrong, the violence was actually carried out by the communists against the Brahmin land owners.
https://thewire.in/film/how-the-movie-razakar-silent-genocide-of-hyderabad-sets-out-to-distort-history
“The only times when I point out negatives about Pakistan in this blog is when Pakistanis list out negatives about India seemingly oblivious of the faults of their own country. “
Now read this
https://www.riazhaq.com/2024/12/russian-hackers-steal-indian-military.html
Yours is the very first comment: “Looks like Pakistani regime is quite busy spying on its own people too, and making a mess of internet speeds in the process. Pakistan is currently ranked 100 in mobile internet speeds and 141 in fixed broadband speeds.”
Is this supposed to be a positive or was India implicated anywhere? Just like your civilizational unity that changed between Sunday and Monday, this changed between Wednesday and Thursday.
“What kind of support? “
Al was promised “ALL” support from India. Pakistan army started the operation in mid-late March. Bengalis were busy killing non-Bengalis in early March. Specially in Chittagong and surrounding areas. The sophistication and precision tells us that they were well planned and well executed operations.
To your point that Pakistan started all wars.
Kuldip Nayyer wrote a book “Distinct neighbors”, regarding 1965 he writes that even some of India’s friends were not happy with Indian aggression.
1971, in UN general assembly 118 members accused India of being aggressor and a large number of those were from the non-aligned movement.
G. Ali
G Ali,
"Wrong, the violence was actually carried out by the communists against the Brahmin land owners."
Okay, I stand corrected. So the Razakars were innocent and the violence against Hyderbad's Hindus attributed to Razakars were instead perpetrated by the communists. Razakars didn't harm even a hair of the Hindus while Hindu mobs and the Indian Army massacred the hapless Muslims of Hyderabad without any provocation. Fair enough. But I still don't get what the events in Hyderabad and Junagadh in 1948 had to do with our original topic of discussion - about who was responsible for starting Indo-Pak conflicts.
"Is this supposed to be a positive or was India implicated anywhere?"
That blog post started with how Russian FSB hackers stole "Indian" military data that had been collected by Pakistani security services. And then it went on to say how Pakistan is investing millions to improve its cybersecurity and how it improved in their rankings. I thought it relevant to mention a DAWN report which came the very next day about how the internet speeds in Pakistan has drastically slowed after Pakistani state's implementation of a supposed "firewall" with deep packet inspection capabilities (again ostensibly for cybersecurity). That this "firewall" was being installed at the behest of the military establishment to target Pakistan's opposition political parties (especially the PTI) was also mentioned in multiple DAWN reports previously. India's and Pakistan's rankings in speed test results were from the link given in DAWN report itself, and I mentioned India's rankings in those results only to give the context about how much the recent slowdown of Pakistan's internet has been. I was not pointing out any negatives about Pakistan, nor was I doing any chest thumping about how India has beaten Pakistan in internet speeds.
"AL was promised “ALL” support from India. Pakistan army started the operation in mid-late March. Bengalis were busy killing non-Bengalis in early March."
Do you have any evidence or reports from any neutral sources to substantiate your argument that India was involved in those incidents?
"Kuldip Nayyer wrote a book “Distinct neighbors”, regarding 1965 he writes that even some of India’s friends were not happy with Indian aggression."
So, you are trying to say that Pakistan violating the ceasefire without any provocation and sending troops across the ceasefire line cannot be counted as "aggression" while India opening a second front against Lahore in retaliation was an act of "aggression"? Perhaps by that logic India was the "aggressor" in Kargil war as well as Pakistan's Northern Light Infantry had the right to cross LoC and occupy positions on the Indian side without any provocation? And India wouldn't be an "aggressor" if it were to violate the ceasefire, cross LoC and invade AJK and GB?
"1971, in UN general assembly 118 members accused India of being aggressor and a large number of those were from the non-aligned movement."
That India was pretty much isolated in the UN during the 1971 war with the Western world and Muslim world siding with Pakistan (for geo-political and religious reasons respectively) is well known. But I would love to know what exactly was the "aggression" which you claim they accused India of, since the Indo-Pak war officially began and Indian troops crossed the East Pakistan's border only after PAF conducted a pre-emptive strike on Indian military airfields ("Operation Chengiz Khan") which was an act of war. Until then India's involvement was restricted to clandestinely aiding the Mukti bahini (which as I said, is no different from Pakistan's subsequent actions of aiding and arming the Khalistani militants in the Indian Punjab and the Jihadi outfits in Kashmir).
Vineeth,
So, this is the summary of your argument that Pakistan was always aggressor.
1947 – Muslim genocide in Kashmir (not part of India) and rebellion against Dogra raj in Punch, Pakistan supports the rebellion. PAKISTAN is THE AGRESSOR.
India did the same in Junagarh (which had technically acceded to Pakistan) – IRRELEVENT
1948 – India invades a UN member Hyderabad, commits a genocide - OOPS.
1965 - Pakistan started in disputed territory, India retaliated by opening a front in international border. PAKISTAN is THE AGRESSOR.
1971 – Pakistan retaliates against Bengalis, India started disturbance, Pakistan retaliates against India. PAKISTAN is THE AGRESSOR.
Btw, I find it interesting that you were not aware of the crimes commited by your country but claim to know so much about Urdu. Shouldn’t you look into the mirror first before pointing figure at other?
G. Ali
G Ali,
We were speaking of Indo-Pakistan wars (where Indian and Pakistani troops clashed in battles) and who the "aggressor" in each of those were.
"1947 – Muslim genocide in Kashmir (not part of India) and rebellion against Dogra raj in Punch, Pakistan supports the rebellion. PAKISTAN is THE AGRESSOR."
India sent troops to Kashmir valley to beat back tribal invaders sent by Pakistan ONLY AFTER the Maharajah signed the instrument of accession to join his kingdom to India (and thereby making the Indian military intervention in the kingdom's territory "legal" from the Indian perspective). So, India cannot be considered the "aggressor" in the Indo-Pakistani war over Kashmir in 1947-48.
"India did the same in Junagarh (which had technically acceded to Pakistan) – IRRELEVENT"
Unlike the case of Jammu & Kashmir, neither Junagarh nor Hyderabad shared land border with Pakistan. Pakistan was free to militarily intervene in Junagarh if it wanted and accepted the accession. However it did not and there was no Indo-Pakistan war over Junagarh. So yes, its irrelevant to the discussion here.
"1948 – India invades a UN member Hyderabad, commits a genocide - OOPS."
Again, no Indo-Pakistan war in Hyderabad. So, irrelevant again.
"1965 - Pakistan started in disputed territory, India retaliated by opening a front in international border. PAKISTAN is THE AGRESSOR."
Pakistan violated the ceasefire and sent its troops across the ceasefire line to start a war with India ("Operation Gibraltar") without any provocation from the Indian side, and India retaliated by opening a second front against Lahore during the course of the war. Pakistan is unquestionably the "aggressor" in the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965.
"1971 – Pakistan retaliates against Bengalis, India started disturbance, Pakistan retaliates against India. PAKISTAN is THE AGRESSOR."
Though India had been clandestinely aiding the Mukti bahini after the rebellion in East Pakistan, the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 formally started (and India sent its troops across the border to East Pakistan) ONLY AFTER Pakistani Air Force pre-emptively struck Indian airfields ("Operation Chengiz Khan").
"Btw, I find it interesting that you were not aware of the crimes commited by your country but claim to know so much about Urdu."
Here we go again! What has Urdu got to do with any of this? And what exactly are the "crimes" you refer to, and how were they relevant to Indo-Pakistan wars? (I am not a speaker of Urdu/Hindi and I have never claimed to be scholar of either. I only repeated what linguists have said about the relationship between Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani, and the absurdity of linking a vernacular language to a religion.)
Damen delivers second OPV 2600 to Pakistan Navy - Naval News
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/12/damen-delivers-second-opv-2600-to-pakistan-navy/
Damen Shipyards Group has delivered the second in a series of two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) 2600 to the Pakistan Navy.
The OPV project has brought both the Pakistan Navy and Damen to new levels of enhanced cooperation in diverse fields. The delivery of the fourth OPV comes at a time of increasing collaboration as the two parties signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) during the International Defence Exhibition and Seminar (IDEAS) in Karachi in November.
The MoU demonstrates Damen’s commitment to supporting the Pakistan Maritime Science and Technology Park (PMSTP), an initiative recently unveiled by the Pakistan Navy. With the creation of a central hub close to the University of Bahria, Karachi, the PMSTP looks to foster collaboration between the authorities, industry and researchers, towards innovation and advancement in maritime technology.
As part of its scope as a PMSTP partner, Damen will be supporting the establishment of a local service centre to provide maintenance and services to Damen vessels operating in the region, such as the Pakistan Navy’s OPVs. Damen will collaborate with local businesses on shipbuilding projects, leveraging the advanced design and engineering capabilities it will develop as a partner in the PMSTP, enabling the joint design and development of new vessels for the Pakistan Navy.
---------------------------
Two new warships to be inducted into Pakistan fleet on Defense Day 2024
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2569870/pakistan
The construction of PNS Babur started on June 4, 2020, and it was launched on August 15, 2021, while commissioning took place on September 23, 2023.
The Babur-class corvette, also known as the PN MILGEM class, is a class of four heavy corvettes under construction for the Pakistan Navy. This class is a subclass of the Turkish MILGEM project. The corvette class is heavier and larger than the Turkish Ada-class corvette and also equipped with vertical launch systems.
“Four Babur class ships equipped with a vertical launching system are being inducted into the Pakistan Navy,” ISPR said.
“Under the Pak-Turkiye agreement, 2 ships are being built in Istanbul and 2 in Karachi. Three other Babur class ships PNS Badr, Tariq and Khyber are currently in various stages of preparation.”
Babur class ships are capable of fighting above the surface, underwater, and in the air.
“The third Yarmouk-class OPV 2600 for the Pakistan Navy has also been built at Galati Shipyard in Romania,” ISPR said about PNS Hunain built in Romania. “The last two OPVs have a displacement of 2600 tons compared to the first two ships of the Yarmouk class.”
The Yarmook-class corvette is primarily based on the Dutch Damen Group’s Offshore Patrol Vessel 1900.
Yarmouk class ships have the status of Guided Missile Corvettes in the Pakistan Navy. All ships of this class, including PNS Hunain, are suitable for surface and air warfare as well as search and rescue operations.
The 98 meter long PNS Hunain has a speed of around 24 knots and with the help of a vertical launching system can propel surface-to-air missiles.
“Along with the 76 mm main gun, PNS Haneen is also equipped with two 20 mm secondary guns,” ISPR said.
PNS Yamama, the fourth and final vessel of the Yarmouk class, is undergoing completion after its launch in February this year.
Vineeth,
As I said earlier, the sad part is that you will never realize the double standard. When I mentioned that 118 countries, including some of India’s friends voted against India in 1971 your response was to blame others. That. Unfortunately. has been the modus operandi of your country since the beginning. Never do self reflection and always blame others.
Any way, for arguments sake let’s just say that Pakistan was the aggressor in all three cases. So what? Didn’t India do the same starting from Junagarh and going from Pondichery to Sikkim and Goa to Nagas?
Why was it wrong for Pakistan to be aggressor when India did the same on more occasions and for a longer period of time?
Is it the same rule Dr. Ambedkar mentioned, it is aggression when India is the victim and not aggression when India carries it out?
G, Ali
Damen Shipyards Launches Fourth Pakistan Navy OPV - Quwa
https://quwa.org/daily-news/damen-shipyards-launches-fourth-pakistan-navy-opv-2/
On 21 February, Damen Shipyards launched the fourth Yarmouk-class offshore patron vessel (OPV) for the Pakistan Navy (PN) from its facilities in Galati, Romania.
Though the fourth Damen OPV ordered by the PN, this ship – i.e., PNS Yamama (274) – is the second of the ‘Batch-II’ variant, which is larger and more capable than the first pair of Yarmouk-class OPVs. The first Batch-II OPV, PNS Hunain, was launched for sea trials in September 2023.
The PN initiated its OPV program in 2017 through an order for two Damen OPV 1900s plus an option for two additional ships from the Netherlands. The PN inducted the first two ships – i.e., PNS Yarmouk and PNS Tabuk – in February 2020 and May 2020, respectively.
Based on Damen’s OPV 1900 design, the first two ships have a displacement of 2,300 tons each. The Yarmouk-class has a length of 90 m, top speed of 23 knots, endurance of 40 days, and crew of over 60 personnel. The PN acquired ships to support a wide range of missions, including maritime security and policing, surveillance and intelligence, and search-and-rescue, among others.
The Yarmouk-class OPVs will likely be the PN’s main asset for policing Pakistan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Basically, it will support the PN’s anti-smuggling/piracy, counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism, fishery control, and humanitarian and disaster-relief operations. This would free the PN’s frigate and corvette assets to focus on their core missions and, potentially, reduce the risk of damage in peacetime resulting from asymmetrical maritime missions.
That said, the PN does intend to leverage the Yarmouk-class OPVs in wartime. The first two Yarmouk-class OPVs can be configured with anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) and close-in-weapons-systems (CIWS), giving it long-range strike and point-defence anti-air capabilities. The Damen OPV 1900 can also carry two special mission containers, which the PN could use for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) or mine countermeasures (MCM), thus making these OPVs versatile when required.
With a displacement of 2,600 tons, the Batch-II OPV is larger than the preceding two ships and more capable in its anti-ship warfare (AShW) and anti-air warfare (AAW) potential. Based on the illustration of the ship released by Damen, the Batch-II can carry a supersonic-cruising ASCM (possibly the CM-302) in a two-by-two configuration as well as vertical launch system (VLS) cells for a medium-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, possibly the MBDA CAMM-ER…
Pakistan's missile program is 'emerging threat', top US official says | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/world/pakistan-developing-missiles-that-eventually-could-hit-us-top-us-official-says-2024-12-19/
Pakistan developing long-range missiles that could threaten United States, senior US official says
Pakistan refuses to address why it is developing more powerful rocket engines, senior officials say
US has imposed new sanctions on Pakistan's missile program
Speaking to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, (US Deputy National Security Advisor Jon) Finer said Pakistan has pursued "increasingly sophisticated missile technology, from long-range ballistic missile systems to equipment, that would enable the testing of significantly larger rocket motors."
------------------------
"They don't acknowledge our concerns. They tell us we are biased," said the second U.S. official, adding that Pakistani officials have wrongly implied that U.S. sanctions on their missile program are intended "to handicap their ability to defend against India."
Finer included himself among senior U.S. officials who he said repeatedly have raised concerns about the missile program with top Pakistani officials to no avail.
Washington and Islamabad, he noted, had been "long-time partners" on development, counter-terrorism and security.
"That makes us question even more why Pakistan will be motivated to develop a capability that could be used against us.
If those trends continue, Finer said, "Pakistan will have the capability to strike targets well beyond South Asia, including in the United States."
The number of nuclear-armed states with missiles that can reach the U.S. homeland "is very small and they tend to be adversarial," he continued, naming Russia, North Korea and China.
"So, candidly, it's hard for us to see Pakistan's actions as anything other than an emerging threat to the United States," Finer said.
His speech came a day after Washington announced a new round of sanctions related to Pakistan's ballistic missile development program, including for the first time against the state-run defense agency that oversees the program.
-------------
Pakistan denounces US sanctions on its missile program as biased and putting regional peace at risk | AP News
https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-sanctions-ballistic-missiles-shaheen-proliferation-66eb36c61f3d22138972e4fd07c82a2d
ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan on Thursday denounced new U.S. sanctions on the country’s ballistic missile program as “discriminatory” that put the region’s peace and security at risk.
Pakistan’s foreign ministry warned in a statement that the sanctions “have dangerous implications for strategic stability of our region and beyond.” It also cast doubt on U.S. allegations that targeted businesses were involved in weapons proliferation because previous sanctions “were based on mere doubts and suspicion without any evidence whatsoever.”
It also accused the U.S. of “double standards” for waiving licensing requirements for advanced military technology to other countries.
The sanctions freeze any U.S. property belonging to the targeted businesses and bar Americans from doing business with them.
The U.S. State Department said one such sanctioned entity, the Islamabad-based National Development Complex, worked to acquire items for developing Pakistan’s long range ballistic missile program that includes the SHAHEEN series of ballistic missiles
The other sanctioned entities are Akhtar and Sons Private Limited, Affiliates International and Rockside Enterprise.
U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said Wednesday on X that the U.S. had “been clear and consistent about our concerns” over such weapons proliferation and that it would “continue to engage constructively with Pakistan on these issues.”
The sanctions were also opposed by the party of Pakistan’s imprisoned former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
I was surprised by the news of recent sanctions and the comments of the American deputy NSA. But I guess rather than Pakistani missile program posing a threat to the United States, the US sanctions are meant to put pressure on Pakistan to toe its line and warn it to not get too close to China.
After all, Indian ballistic missiles like Agni-V use larger solid motors and have greater range than Pakistani missiles (not to mention the even larger solid motors used in ISRO's space rockets) and there is nothing technically hindering India from developing an ICBM capable of reaching US mainland. However India appears to have capped the range of its land-based missiles at 5,500-7000 km (enough to cover all of China) possibly to avoid Western concerns.
G Ali,
"When I mentioned that 118 countries, including some of India’s friends voted against India in 1971 your response was to blame others."
I did not "blame"others. I acknowledged that India was isolated at UN on the issue due to various reasons like geo-politics (West) and religion (Muslim world). By the way, whom did you refer to as "India's friends" in that lot?
The only act of "aggression" (if you call it that) I see on India's part during Bangladesh liberation war was its clandestine support for the Mukti bahini. India's reason for supporting Mukti bahini back then was two-fold: to stem the flow of refugees across its border escaping genocide from East Pakistan, and to pay back the favour to Pakistan for starting the 1965 war. And it was no more an act of "aggression" than Pakistan's funding and arming Khalistani separatists or the alphabet soup of jihadi outfits against India. Moreover, until the India-Pakistan war of 1971 formally started with Pakistan's "Operation Chengiz Khan", Indian troops had not crossed to East Pakistan. (By the way, if it gives you any consolation, the new Bangladeshi rulers are already busy belittling India's role in their liberation by arguing that it was primarily an inside job and that India was merely an opportunistic ally.)
"Didn’t India do the same starting from Junagarh and going from Pondichery to Sikkim and Goa to Nagas? Why was it wrong for Pakistan to be aggressor when India did the same on more occasions and for a longer period of time?"
Did Junagarh, Sikkim, Goa or Nagaland have anything to do with India-Pakistan wars? Why should Pakistan feel aggrieved if India took back the colonial possessions from Portugal and France, or annex an Indian protectorate (Sikkim) to the country? You argued at the beginning of this thread that Pakistan needs advanced weaponry to defend itself against Indian "aggression" and "bullying". Just as India having advanced weaponry did not stop Pakistan from waging a proxy war against it in Kashmir or Indian Punjab, Pakistan's large military, missiles and nukes apparently did not deter India from waging a retaliatory proxy war in Balochistan as well. Neither Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Maldives have a large military or advanced weapons and yet India has not invaded any of these smaller neighbours under any pretext. Moreover, the greatest security threat Pakistan faces at present is evidently not from its eastern border, but from its northern and western borders where Pakistan's nukes and missiles are of little use.
Since you say India bullies its smaller neighbours, I can point out that China has acted with far greater aggression and bullying with regard to Tibet, and the ludicrous "9-dash line" claim over nearly the whole of South China Sea to the detriment of its smaller neighbours like Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. But would you, as a Pakistani, call China a bully? Large nations like China, Russia and the US are often accused of throwing their weight around and militarily threatening their smaller neighbours they consider their "backyard". The"aggression" and "bullying" you accuse India of is actually mild in comparison.
Pakistan’s reported J-35 deal shows Chinese stealth fighter is ready for global market: analysts | South China Morning Post
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3291826/pakistans-reported-j-35-deal-shows-chinese-stealth-fighter-ready-global-market-analysts
Pakistan’s reported procurement of J-35 jets from China signals that the stealth fighter is ready to enter the international market, potentially helping to finance development of more advanced weaponry for the People’s Liberation Army, analysts say.
The sale would mark Beijing’s first export of fifth-generation jets to a foreign ally and is expected to recalibrate regional dynamics, particularly in relation to Pakistan’s rival, India.
Pakistani broadcaster 24 News HD reported last week that the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) had approved the purchase of 40 of the aircraft, which are expected to be delivered within two years to replace the country’s ageing fleet of American F-16s and French Mirage fighters.
Pravin Sawhney
@PravinSawhney
Since conventional war deterrence is far more important that nuclear deterrence between India & Pakistan, IAF should seriously consider SU-57 aircraft.
PAF has edge over IAF in:
1. Electronic Warfare (it demonstrated this in 2019 Balakot. And since 2021, it has been working on Cognitive AI)
2. Pak CAS, ACM Sidhu announced in Jan that his force was ready to induct fifth generation J-35A (air force version) into service. Reports say PAF to get 40 J-35A. It already has J-10C & JF-17
3. It is fair to assume that J-35A will come with advanced weapons & sensors. With this acquisition PAF will have an advanced stealth fighter, what IAF lacks.
4. India's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, I understand, will not be available on time. There are too many issues.
Hope Russia brings SU-57 to Aero-India in Feb 2025 in Bangalore!
https://x.com/PravinSawhney/status/1870668314344657331
Vineeth,
“Did Junagarh, Sikkim, Goa or Nagaland have anything to do with India-Pakistan wars? “
Read my original post at the beginning of this discussion. I started with wider South Asia, you narrowed it down to Indo-Pakistan rivalry. So yes, it has everything to do with this discussion.
“why should Pakistan feel aggrieved if India took back the colonial possessions from Portugal and France, or annex an Indian protectorate (Sikkim) to the country? “
In South Asia “Sikkimisation” or “ghost of Sikkim” is a common term used from Kathmandu to Male and from Colombo to Dhaka. The only country that is not afraid of Sikkimisation is Pakistan. Do you know that Pondichery had actually voted a pro-French, non-merger party?
When Goa’s future was being decided, a suggestion was made to have a referendum. To which Nehru said that he will not accept the results of the referendum if they were against India.
They all represent India’s colonial mindset.
“Since you say India bullies its smaller neighbours, I can point out that China has acted with far greater aggression and bullying …”
This is call whataboutery. But thanks for proving my original point. We don’t need another bully, specially one with colonial mindset. That is why India should be broken into smaller peace’s for the progress and tranquility of the region.
G. Ali
G Ali,
"I started with wider South Asia, you narrowed it down to Indo-Pakistan rivalry. So yes, it has everything to do with this discussion."
Speak for Pakistan, sir. Let other countries speak for themselves. When did these other countries anoint Pakistan as the spokesperson of their concerns?
"In South Asia Sikkimisation or ghost of Sikkim is a common term used from Kathmandu to Male and from Colombo to Dhaka."
Sikkim was not a sovereign country when it was annexed by India. It was an Indian protectorate. If India wanted to "Sikkimise" Nepal, Bhutan or Bangladesh it would have done it already on one pretext or the other as none of these countries have a military capable of withstanding an Indian attack from their three sides. India had its troops stationed in Sri Lanka during the late 1980s as part of Indo-Sri Lankan Accords for peacekeeping and to disarm the Tamil rebels. The only side IPKF ended up fighting was the Tamil Tigers, not the Sri Lankan military, and it was withdrawn when Sri Lankan govt asked for it. So clearly India had no desire to "Sikkimise" Sri Lanka (or even its Tamil-majority north) either. India also sent troops to Maldives to defeat a coup d'état attempt by some rebels and Tamil mercenaries in 1988, but didn't make use of the opportunity to "Sikkimise" tiny Maldives either.
"They all represent India’s colonial mindset."
You are holding the idea of "colonialism" upside down, sir. Turn it the other way round to see it right. It was the French and Portuguese who were the colonial powers ruling Indian territory, and India's action was "decolonisation" as it was taking back control of European colonial possessions on Indian soil.
"This is call whataboutery. But thanks for proving my original point. We don’t need another bully, specially one with colonial mindset."
I was just repeating my original point as well - that India naturally dominates the subcontinent on account of its geographical size and population, that it has a long land border and coastline to defend, that it is only acting as any large country would (China, US and Russia included) to protect its interests in its "backyard", and that it is less of a neighbourhood "bully" than your higher-than-mountains, deeper-than-oceans, sweeter-than-honey iron brother.
"That is why India should be broken into smaller peace’s for the progress and tranquility of the region."
You appear to have an OCD fantasizing about India's breakup into smaller pieces. Since when did this start - 1971? And who in your colourful imagination is going to lead the noble mission to realize it? The brave Pakistan Army that lost no war? Or their Chinese friends? But please, while you are at it, take care that West Pakistan doesn't fall apart sooner under its own weight. The country has been looking all shaky for the past few years even with the eastern neighbour doing nothing.
Vineeth,
Your said: “Speak for Pakistan, sir. Let other countries speak for themselves.”
Why? You can not look into the issues in isolation. Looking from other countries perspectives gives you a better idea about India’s bullying techniques. Fact is Pakistan committed two cardinal sins. First it separated from India thus busting the myth of “civilizational unity”. Second, it stood up to the bully and gave India a taste of it’s own medicine. Of course, like any good fascist regime this is not acceptable to India.
“Sikkim was not a sovereign country when it was annexed by India.”
Wrong, Sikkim was a protectorate. Meaning India was responsible for it’s protection. But it was independent in internal matters. Even Moraji Desai, when he became the Prime Minister, deplored the annexation of Sikkim.
https://www.nytimes.com/1978/03/08/archives/desai-deplores-annexation-of-sikkim-but-says-he-cannot-undo-it.html
Regarding, Sri Lanka you continently ignored the fact that India created, supported and armed the LTTE.
“…And who in your colourful imagination is going to lead the noble mission to realize it…?”
History has an interesting way of solving many problems. I am sure no one in 1970s and 80s thought that one day they will wake up and find Soviet Union disappeared. Disintegration of India can be achieved without fighting a war. India has many ethnic, linguistic, cultural, caste and religious fault lines. Any one who wants can and should exploit these fault lines to achieve the desired results.
As Fukiyama said, disintegration is the natural state of India, it unites for short periods of time and then disintegrates into smaller units.
G. Ali
G Ali,
"Why? You can not look into the issues in isolation."
You can, sir. Just as the territorial disputes or tensions that Pakistan has with Afghanistan and Iran is none of India's business, squabbles between India and its other neighbours is none of Pakistan's business either.
"Wrong, Sikkim was a protectorate."
Didn't you read my reply clearly, sir? I already said Sikkim was not a sovereign country, but a protectorate. Sikkim was a dependent territory that only had an internal autonomy, and its defense and external relations were controlled by India.
"Regarding, Sri Lanka you continently ignored the fact that India created, supported and armed the LTTE."
I was replying to your comment about 'Sikkimisation' here, and I was referring to the chances that India had to 'Sikkimise' Sri Lanka or its Tamil-controlled north if it wanted that. And as I repeatedly said, LTTE, Shanti bahini etc had nothing to do with Pakistan. I would like to keep the discussion focussed on the topic and not digress and take it somewhere else.
"I am sure no one in 1970s and 80s thought that one day they will wake up and find Soviet Union disappeared."
Countries like Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were totalitarian dictatorships with failing centralised economies. Both countries may have survived in one piece (mostly in one piece, in case of Soviet Union) had they transitioned peacefully into a federal, democratic rule that respected its diverse subnationalities. However, the KGB coup in case of Soviet Union and Slobodan Milosevic's machinations for Serbian domination in case of Yugoslavia effectively torpedoed both.
"Disintegration of India can be achieved without fighting a war. India has many ethnic, linguistic, cultural, caste and religious fault lines. Any one who wants can and should exploit these fault lines to achieve the desired results."
I live in a southern Indian state with considerable ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences from the northern states (and even from the neighbouring southern states). I can vouch that there is no separatism anywhere here in the south. While retaining our distinct regional identities, we have all been part of the larger "Indian" mainstream for long. Even when languages separate, there are other shared cultural factors that binds us closer. As for caste, that can hardly trigger separatism since different castes aren't concentrated in different areas of the country. As for religion, Sikh-majority Punjab, Muslim-majority Kashmir, and a couple of tiny Christian-majority states in the country's north-eastern fringes have had separatist insurgencies, but nothing came anywhere close to achieving separation.
Like I said earlier, the idea of India's nationhood is composite, not monolithic. And the accomodation and celebration of that diversity is precisely its strength. Perhaps that's hard for a Pakistani who grew up on a forced monolithic definition of Pakistani nationhood based on a particular religion and language to understand.
But sure, you can continue to pin your hopes on the words of Fukiyama (or anyone else) and dream of India's collapse some day. But if you ask me, I would expect Pakistan with its never-ending power struggles, military interventions, rigged elections and acutely weak economic fundamentals to collapse sooner than India would.
“You can, sir. Just as the territorial disputes or tensions that Pakistan has with Afghanistan and Iran is none of India's business…”
Sure, don’t talk about a non-exiting issue. But you repeating the mantra does not have an iota of difference on the fact that India is a bully that has interfered in the neighboring countries and they use the term of Sikkimisation quite frequently.
“Perhaps that's hard for a Pakistani who grew up on a forced monolithic definition of Pakistani nationhood based on a particular religion and language to understand.”
There you go again without having an iota of understanding about Pakistan.
As I said earlier I don’t read your comments completely because of my allergies to BS. However, it feels like you keep repeating your arguments about Sikkimisation and India’s relations with other countries. Looks like you don’t have much argument left so you keep repeating the same crap.
G. Ali
G Ali,
"Sure, don’t talk about a non-exiting issue."
Did 'non-existing issues' result in an Iranian military attack on Pakistani territory and a retaliatory strike by Pakistan? Is it a 'non-existing issue' that Afghanistan does not accept Durand Line as their border? But as I said, its none of India's business.
"But you repeating the mantra does not have an iota of difference on the fact that India is a bully that has interfered in the neighboring countries and they use the term of Sikkimisation quite frequently."
How frequently, sir?
"There you go again without having an iota of understanding about Pakistan."
Fair enough. I am not a Pakistani and therefore I may not have an iota an understanding about Pakistan. But what makes you think you know so much about India?
By the way, out of curiosity I had asked you a question about Pakistan's idea of its nationhood. Is it Islam - a religion that it it shares with much of Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa and parts of South East Asia, or South Asian Islam - which it shares with Muslims in Bangladesh and Pakistan, or Urdu - an Indo-Aryan language that is not native to any of Pakistan's provinces? If you could answer me that, I can explain to you how the idea of Indian nationhood is.
"As I said earlier I don’t read your comments completely because of my allergies to BS.. Looks like you don’t have much argument left so you keep repeating the same crap."
Or could it be that you are finding it hard to counter my arguments?
Explainer: Pakistan's military modernisation programme
By Indian Analyst Sidhant Sibal
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
From the Naval domain to the air domain, a rapid programme of modernisation is taking place. Islamabad's natural raison d'être remains India, but also increasingly angry Taliban rulers in Afghanistan, who see Pakistan's air attacks as a violation of sovereignty.
https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/explainer-pakistans-military-modernisation-programme-8592871
Pakistan's military remains a key component of the country's politics, but even as the economy remains fragile, one thing that is not halted is the country's military modernisation. From the naval domain to the air domain, a rapid programme of modernisation is taking place. Islamabad's natural raison d'être remains India, but also increasingly angry Taliban rulers in Afghanistan, who see Pakistan's air attacks as a violation of sovereignty. Let's understand what kind of modernisation Pakistan is undergoing and its impact on the country:
Naval Domain
Pakistan plans to transform its Navy into a 50-ship force by the next decade, including 20 major warships. This ambitious fleet expansion hinges on partnerships with China, Turkiye, and Romania. Pakistan has initiated the modernisation of its fleet with foreign shipbuilders like Damen Shipyards in Romania for offshore Patrol vessels. The navy is set to acquire advanced Hangor-class submarines from China, MILGEM-class corvettes from Turkiye, and the first-ever indigenous Jinnah-class frigates.
—————-
Air Domain
As reported by Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, Pakistan is reportedly planning to acquire 40 Chinese J-35 stealth fighter jets, which marks a major step in its military aviation capabilities. J35 are fifth-generation stealth fighter jets developed by China's Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. These fighters are intended to replace Pakistan's ageing fleet of American F-16s and French Mirage fighters. While there's no official confirmation from China, the speculation around this deal has been significant.
China Partnership
Pakistan and China have close ties, something that is well known. While India and China ties have seen positive momentum, it does not mean Islamabad and Beijing will forgo military partnership or ties which are "higher than mountains and deeper than oceans". China has provided support for the modernisation of both the Pakistani Air Force and the Naval forces. As Admiral Tripathi noted at the presser, "These ships and submarines are either being made in China or being made with Chinese support." China has obvious interests in making the Pakistan Navy strong given its interest in Gwadar port. The port could connect the western part of China with the Indian Ocean overland Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan's defence diplomacy
Apart from modernisation, Pakistan has been actively involved in international naval exercises. In February this year, Pakistan will be hosting AMAN-25, the 9th such naval exercise off the coast of Karachi. In 2023, the exercises saw the participation of ships from China, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and the USA. The aim is to project Pakistan's naval strength in the Indian Ocean.
Missile programme and sanctions
Pakistan increasingly plans to modernise and reform its missile programme which has raised eyebrows not only in the region but also in Washington. The United States has imposed multiple rounds of sanctions on entities involved in Pakistan's long-range ballistic missile programme, targeting both Pakistani and Chinese companies. The December 2024 sanctions regime included a Pakistan state-run enterprise, the National Development Complex (NDC) that saw a strong response from Islamabad, which defended its missile program.
OsintTV 📺
@OsintTV
📍🇮🇳🪖✈️ "We haven't even received the 40 Tejas aircraft till now which were ordered in 2009-2010..." : IAF Chief Air Marshal A.P Singh
🤔
https://x.com/OsintTV/status/1876589545468440822
-----------------------
Jayant Bhandari
@JayantBhandari5
India has no war strategy. None. None at all. Everything India does is for internal consumption, demagoguery. Of course, bribe collection is the key.
https://x.com/JayantBhandari5/status/1876771520338395552
--------------
See new posts
Conversation
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
The Indian air force still haven't received the Tejas fighters they ordered in 2009.
Tejas is a low-end 4th gen fighter, the world has moved onto 6th gen fighters.
India's war strategy revolves around the 2.5 front war theory.
A thread on the strategic predicament of India.🧵
https://x.com/zhao_dashuai/status/1876651898398453883
After ‘Stealth’ J-35A From China, Pakistan Discusses Acquiring 5th-Gen KAAN Fighters From Turkey: Reports
By Indian Analyst Sakshi Tiwari
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/after-stealth-j-35a-from-china-pakistan/
Pakistan’s appetite for a fifth-generation fighter jet appears to be expanding. Amid reports that the cash-strapped country has decided to purchase China’s newly unveiled J-35A aircraft, it is now reportedly holding discussions with Ankara for collaboration on Turkey’s fifth-generation combat jet, KAAN.
During the recently held eighth Pak-Turk Industrial Expo Joint Working Group meeting in Pakistan, the two sides discussed bilateral defense and industrial cooperation, including the possible export of Turkey’s KAAN fifth-generation fighter jet to the Pakistani Air Force (PAF). According to Turkish reports, the talks were attended by representatives of 32 institutions, including defense giants from both countries.
In addition to exploring the potential export of KAAN to Pakistan, both nations reportedly also discussed the design and co-development of an all-new helicopter.
Pakistan and Turkey are close allies. In 2021, the two states signed a formal agreement to boost defense cooperation by undertaking joint arms manufacturing and have since made concerted efforts to boost engagement and collaboration. The potential deal for KAAN is one of the components of this growing partnership, especially as Turkey seeks customers for its fifth-generation jet and Pakistan harbors ambitions to modernize its air force.
In July 2023, reports and social media posts from Pakistani military bloggers suggested that Pakistan was on the cusp of signing a contract to join the ‘KAAN’ stealth fighter jet project. No agreement to that end has been signed—yet.
The KAAN has come a long way since. Manufactured by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TUSAŞ), KAAN made its first flight in February 2024, catapulting Turkey into the elite group of countries that have indigenously developed a fifth-generation aircraft.
Though envisioned as an air-superiority fighter, some experts believe that the KAAN has evolved into a multi-role fighter, more on the lines of the F-35. This also explains Pakistan’s sustained interest in the aircraft.
While the discussions on KAAN’s export continue to take place, there is a paucity of information about the nature of these talks and whether Islamabad would join the program as a co-developer or purchase the aircraft.
Post a Comment