Dr. Bharat Karnad: Guest Speaker at BRF NJ MEET Nov 13 2011

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2011 07:20

The argument of the need for large yield vs existing weapons is more about pre deterrence and post deterrence. The existing weapons combined with accurate missiles can devastate most challengers. But this is a post-deterrent argument. To deter, one has to put oneself in the challengers mind and create the necessary and sufficient conditions for that. The Chinese mindset is deterred only by large yield weapons as there leaders are still in Maoist aura. Maybe in a few decades they will start valuing their possessions and accept Indian capability. That is the crux of the Bharat Karnad argument.

In a similar way TSP is deterred by massive conventional forces and not nukes as they have their own myths of prevailing winds, international intervention and all that.

The 1993 Peace and Tranquility agreement that PVNR had signed has restrictions on short range missiles. So deploying them towards the East is not viable.

Instead make a declaratory statement that Prithivi is conventional armed and remove the ambiguity in order to raise the nuke threshold vis a vis TSP. And deploy them as TBMs with the strike and holding corps.

And raise four more IBGs for that is the deterrent that TSP understands and fears.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 16 Nov 2011 07:31

^^ +1.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 16 Nov 2011 08:11

i think we should move this thread to GDF. BKji has let his guard down a little and will expect us to be discreet. IMHO.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2011 08:17

no. He hasnt and its only right that others get to read and ruminate.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Nov 2011 09:22

As a rhetorical question - unfair maybe, let me ask. What if an attack such as Mumbai 26/11 or Kaluchack is committed tomorrow?

By going "further" in making our neighbours feel comfortable, what sorts of assurances are we getting? You see if we do not bitterly criticise Karnad now and put these questions to him, it would be tragic to look back after giving Pakistan a lot of concessions only to find that they think that they can do a Hudaibya on us. Are Karnad and the Indian government too secular and are blind-siding themselves to contemporary reality?

The other philosophical question is as follows: Given that Musharraf openly used the example of a "holding" treaty that the Prophet Mohammad entered while his allies gathered strength for a final victory - the treaty of Hudaibiya - which featured in Musharraf's post 9-11 speech. What expectation can we have that a Pakistan army that is openly Islamized and a Pakistan that has done noting about Hafiz Saeed and the Jammat ud Dawa will not buy time and then hit India at a time that is more opportune fo them?

Either Karnad and the government know something that we don't know or they are recommending hope as a policy.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Nov 2011 09:51

shiv wrote:As a rhetorical question - unfair maybe, let me ask. What if an attack such as Mumbai 26/11 or Kaluchack is committed tomorrow?<SNIP>

Hakim sahab, you've mail.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 16 Nov 2011 10:48

The one thing that is saddening is that all voices have now been synchronized. This is usually not the case. I believe the GoI is capable of draconian crack-down on dissenting voices if it wants to. I have said it a long time ago and still think thats the case - that sundry folks making statements contrary to government opinion are all part of the game, either co-opted or understandably let alone to inject more chaos into the signal lines. The Indian government loves its greyness as far as policy matters go. Massa based folks and folks outside the sub-continent find that very hard to comprehend.

As it stands today, it looks like all efforts are to try and hug the pakis. I guess, it allows for many interesting views depending on if one were an optimist or a pessimist. I for one hope, the powers that be have seen something and this is a move to minimize our silhouette vis-a-vis Uncle at least. And not one of those sudden urges that MMS and co display to go hug the pakis.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Nov 2011 16:14

rohitvats wrote:
shiv wrote:As a rhetorical question - unfair maybe, let me ask. What if an attack such as Mumbai 26/11 or Kaluchack is committed tomorrow?<SNIP>
Hakim sahab, you've mail.

Got it. So no Cold start then. Just Butt Kick

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Nov 2011 16:23

shiv wrote: Got it. So no Cold start then. Just Butt Kick

We should call it BKD

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 16 Nov 2011 17:35

I feel BK is planting ideas in the wind and these ideas have already been made policy by the pro-American GOI. So he is just clearing the way for these ideas to be implemented.

If you look at his ideas, they are consistently pro-American - it is US' plan for Indian subcontinent. Especially the focus away from pak to China. Anybody who says that pakistan is not a threat to India needs to have head examined, no matter how high he is.

Pakistan is going to betray India the moment US pressure is off. Till then it will be Hindi-Paki Bhai Bhai.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Nov 2011 20:00

shiv wrote:As a rhetorical question - unfair maybe, let me ask. What if an attack such as Mumbai 26/11 or Kaluchack is committed tomorrow?

By going "further" in making our neighbours feel comfortable, what sorts of assurances are we getting? You see if we do not bitterly criticise Karnad now and put these questions to him, it would be tragic to look back after giving Pakistan a lot of concessions only to find that they think that they can do a Hudaibya on us. Are Karnad and the Indian government too secular and are blind-siding themselves to contemporary reality?

Either Karnad and the government know something that we don't know or they are recommending hope as a policy.

No. BK is not proposing MMSique peace and tranquility.

BK suggests any and every Paki terror attack must be replied with precision strikes, that too very violent type. It is a different matter that such response might invite further terror attacks.

AFAIU, BK is separating the terror attacks from war (like) strategies. He thinks CSD, if unleashed in response to a terror attack, will lose its effectiveness as CSD will be done mainly in plains and since it it international border any gains will have to be returned once the ceasefire is announced; unless Pakistan is destroyed 400%. That probability is very limited, so why wasting Brahmastra on a sparrow?

I think BK is making a forward moving strategy here without absorbing Pakis. Will it work? Probably not. But it is no worse than current dossier-doctrine.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Nov 2011 20:07

abhischekcc wrote:Anybody who says that pakistan is not a threat to India needs to have head examined, no matter how high he is.

Pakistan is going to betray India the moment US pressure is off. Till then it will be Hindi-Paki Bhai Bhai.

+1

Rudradev-ji remember our conversation

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Nov 2011 20:11

RamaY wrote:
No. BK is not proposing MMSique peace and tranquility.

BK suggests any and every Paki terror attack must be replied with precision strikes, that too very violent type.

Hmm - I seem to have missed this in the audio. Does he really say that? He is contradicting himself if he asks for Prithvis to be withdrawn and then ask for "very violent precision strikes" Using what? Hot air?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Nov 2011 20:21

Yes he said that precision strikes are the way to go and not CSD.

The violent type could be my addition

let me check again.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2011 20:37

TSP might make a trade of that a few precison or dumb strikes are worth periodic pressure relief by staging terrorist strikes. Deterrence is mind game. What they fear is the dash to Indus. They don't fear any other options. All interlocutor proposals are to blunt the dash to Indus since Brasstacks: overt transfer of nukes, delivery missiles, bolstering Fizzleya by US with AMRRAMs, JDAMS and Pave whatnot etc. Now moving the Prithvi away from Western borders is another measure. A miscreant won't change his behavior when the policeman's lathi is locked up in the thana.

All these moves, proposals, walk more than half way are all to blunt the means of retribution when the other side fears only retribution. Sama, dana, bheda are all shown to have not worked since 1947.

To make the miscreant behave normally like a good neighbor is to issue the danda to the policeman.

It might be India will never have to use the Prithivi, but by issuing them to corps level arty and removing the ambiguity the threshold is raised as the TSP has to take them inot consideration when the dash to Indus is considered. And raise the number of IBGs from 8 to 12.

When I say threshold I mean all adverse activity including terrorist strikes. Currently by keeping the ambiguity the threshold is lower.

wrt PRC I submit we need to think a little bit more.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Nov 2011 20:44

This linear thinking really surprises me. How about spending 5 minutes on thinking the concept to its logical conclusion?

For example:

Terror Strike---> India Precision Strike---?Pakistan Response---->India response?????

What if TSP responds with its own Precision Strike using PAF or Babur cruise missile on India targets? How do we respond to that?

Is it hard for people to realize that in any such situation it is important that we control the escalation ladder? That we need to carry a real big and potent stick to ensure that any 'punishment' from India does not allow pakees to get any fancy ideas of retaliation(s)? That we need to have a baseball bat and tell pakees that we are going to smash them into pulp in case of any 'riposte'?

I have no idea why people think that one strategy is exclusive of other. GOI needs sticks of different sizes to deal with different situations - a bigger stick to back the smaller stick. The pain needs to be caliberated. If some day GOI has balls to launch PGMs from SU-30MKI flying at 30,000 ft, it will also need a CSD to ensure that pakees don't have wet dreams of using the doctrine of riposte.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2011 20:46

You are saying same thing as I am.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Nov 2011 20:54

RamaY wrote:Yes he said that precision strikes are the way to go and not CSD.

The violent type could be my addition let me check again.

Fair enough, but it seems to me that we have to tell Pakistan "We will be friends and stop threatening you but will hit you if you hit us". But heck from 2002 onwards when have we actually hit Pakistan? Not after the parliament attack. Not after Kaluchak. Not after 26/11. Now we are saying that not hitting them has failed, so we should talk and be friends. Be friends with whom? Did no one ask Karnad that?

India has no Pakistan policy.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Nov 2011 20:58

ramana wrote:You are saying same thing as I am.

Sirji, the post was not is response to yours. It was what RamaY ji had written about proposal from BK.

In fact, your post about 'dash to Indus' has given me a light-bulb moment. Will post a short-analysis soon.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2011 21:15

Think of liberating Kashgar too while at same time. That is what will give PRC something to think about.

See all these are like Swiss army knife type options. If only the blade is there then one can think of cutting only. India needs more.

Official Indian secularism is blunting the most effective option vis a vis PRC.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Nov 2011 21:49

shiv wrote:
RamaY wrote:Yes he said that precision strikes are the way to go and not CSD.

The violent type could be my addition let me check again.
Fair enough, but it seems to me that we have to tell Pakistan "We will be friends and stop threatening you but will hit you if you hit us". But heck from 2002 onwards when have we actually hit Pakistan? Not after the parliament attack. Not after Kaluchak. Not after 26/11. Now we are saying that not hitting them has failed, so we should talk and be friends. Be friends with whom? Did no one ask Karnad that?

India has no Pakistan policy.

Yes Shivji. That is exactly what I wrote in my summary post at http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1195058

Please read when you have a moment.

RamaY wrote:However, IMHO, for such a strategy to be implemented and managed over long periods of time, it cannot be the personal initiative of one or two individuals. It has to be institutionalized from bottom-up -
* Such a policy should be institutionalized to the extent that even a low-ranking policy/military official can order suitable punitive strike, the moment such an intention is observed in Paki society
* The strategic leadership community is continually aware of our Paki-management policy and is in complete agreement.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Nov 2011 21:56

rohitvats wrote:This linear thinking really surprises me. How about spending 5 minutes on thinking the concept to its logical conclusion?

For example:

Terror Strike---> India Precision Strike---?Pakistan Response---->India response?????
...

Completely agree with you there Rohitvatsji.

That is why I am not (completely) convinced of BKspeak. But I can see the glimpses of his view; it may or may not work. I am trying to figure out the alternatives.

The final solution is to remove Pakiness out of Pakis, because they are Indics to begin with. How do we do that with our state sponsored (sic) secularism syndrome (S^4)? Please note that I am not calling for some religious (like a Buddhist Ashoka) state in its place (Please read the constituent assembly debate I posted in Indian Interests thread to see what the concern was in 1947 and how it got morphed in 2011).

The permanent solution to Pakistan is not in Pakistan. It is in India (first) and the distant desert lands (second). The Paki tribes repelled greek under Chanakya's leadership. The same can be achieved again IMHO.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Nov 2011 23:02

we can still do precision strike with prithvis.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Nov 2011 23:30

Indian military wherewithal will be strengthened in both conventional and nuclear realms. Even in a nuclear scenario, conventional sphere is important as it is part of the escalation process.

IN by 2030
- Military goal is to make Indian Ocean (from Gibraltar Straits to Vietnam) into Indian Lake
- Will have a capital ship fleet of 150
- 50 of them will be mainline stealth missile destroyers
- 3 ACs
- 1 Akula + 1 more SSNs
- Our own SSNs - Arihant class 3 + A2 6 more
- Capability is judged by replenishment to capital ship ratio - will be 1:5 by 2030. Same as USNs (only difference being USN ACs are nuclear powered)

* Agalega mauritius will be our own Geo Garcia (The main problem is UPA2 which failed to govern)
* Nha Trang, Vietnam is given to IN base. Virtual line of sight to Hainan, China (The underwater naval base). Cameron Bay was offered to India but we didn't take (wrong move). Would be good threat to china with our Talwar class frigates.Mentions an NRI developed Sonor - Reminded me of Dileep's story

China's southern fleet is being made as strong as its northern fleet. Eventually it will be more powerful than their NF, depending on what PRC thinks.

China is behind IN operationally. China has the platforms but do not have the sea-going competence. That is why they keep their PLANAF very close to their ACs (within line of sight).

IN has 25-30 year lead w.r.t PLAN before PLAN can become a credible naval adversary. We need to keep our advantage in this time.

IAF by 2025
- 250-300 FGFAs
- 200-300 (MMRCA) hmmmlikely to be Rafael (unlikely to be JSFs - hanger queens. US is trying to make India the white knight (a fool separated from his money). Thing to note is that We have the money. Not a butter Vs guns scenario
- 100 M2k
- 100 Jaguars (will be upgraded)

by 2013 (delayed a bit) we will have our own 6-7 satellite based GPS (will be purely military assets)

- will have 18 refuelers
- will have 15 Phalcon AWACS

Indian Army
- Strategic vision is hampered by their wherewithal.
- Have 3500 tanks in 3 groups - more of WWII mindset. BK's recommendation is to get rid of 3 strike corps, consolidate them in to 1 strike corp. Put the money into developing offensive mountain warfare divisions.

They finally are raising 2 and 2 more in plans. This is not sufficient. Either you have the capability or you dont, nothing like half-pregnancy.

We end up developing positional warfare capability. We have this ~100 mile behind LAC. That means we are conceding 100 mile belt to PRC even before the war. Finally waking up to infra development. BK doesn't have much hope on the timeline (to get it done fast/in time).

Raja Menon's case is that "we know we are behind, but our alternative is to sink some merchant naval assets."

BK think this is useless because we are losing thousands of sq.miles territory to PRC on one hand and in return we are destroying some merchant naval assets. PRC can rebuild/regain these capital assets but it will not be that easy to regain the territory (same logic as PoK, AksaiChin etc). Under international law one can keep the control over "disputed territory".

RM's group is working on this doctrine.

More later...

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 16 Nov 2011 23:43

Agalega is not a done deal.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 17 Nov 2011 01:21

First of all I dont think it is Dr. (BK) ..maybe Mr. BK but I may be wrong.

Second, BK is right in saying that we need to get peace and Aman ki Asha going. The TSPA needs to lose its importance in Pakistan and that will happen when there is not too much of a threat emanating from India.

Now, trading with Pakistan is dangerous as it allows the buggers to set up their networks in India and later we have a shitty immigration/jihadi problem on our hands. Its like America opening up its borders to trade with the mexican druig lords.

So, we might think of trading via a third route (UAE?) and keeping away from the jihadi viruses.

Does anyone know how useful the fencing of the JnK border has been? How about the US fencing the Af Pak border ..are they doing it?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Nov 2011 02:01

The 1993 Peace and Tranquility agreement that PVNR had signed has restrictions on short range missiles. So deploying them towards the East is not viable.

Ramanna,when the PRC has liberaly provided Pak with a series of ballistic missiles,why can't we also provide the Vietnamese with their own indigenously missiles which by coincidence might look like Prithvi?!

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Nov 2011 02:13

Philip wrote:
The 1993 Peace and Tranquility agreement that PVNR had signed has restrictions on short range missiles. So deploying them towards the East is not viable.
Ramanna,when the PRC has liberaly provided Pak with a series of ballistic missiles,why can't we also provide the Vietnamese with their own indigenously missiles which by coincidence might look like Prithvi?!

Philip: BK wants to go a step further. He want to arm the Vietnamese with full blown desi nukes. Now, I am sure BK is peddling the same message as MMS!!!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Nov 2011 02:19

I remember that quote as I murmured "give it to the one who uses it" when he wanted to give "Hypersonic Brahmos" to Vietnam even before giving it to IA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Nov 2011 02:22

Writing Vietnamese characters on desi nukes would make it appear as good as chinese nukes. I guess they use similar scripts.

But the message is terrific.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 17 Nov 2011 02:25

mahadevbhu wrote: How about the US fencing the Af Pak border ..are they doing it?

OT .... A'stan has not recognized its border with P'stan, even when TSPA sponsored Tellibunnies were in power.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 17 Nov 2011 02:41

Okay.

Formally speaking, I am happy with the status quo, the way things are, right now in the AfPak Kashmir region.

Not too much halla gulla in Kashmir.

The rogues of Pakistan are well and truly inside Pakistan, and their creator, the ISI-TSPA is dealing with them and bloodying its nose itself in the conflict.

All is well.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Nov 2011 03:30

mahadevbhu wrote:Okay.

Formally speaking, I am happy with the status quo, the way things are, right now in the AfPak Kashmir region.

Not too much halla gulla in Kashmir.

The rogues of Pakistan are well and truly inside Pakistan, and their creator, the ISI-TSPA is dealing with them and bloodying its nose itself in the conflict.

All is well.

No it is not Sir. Without a settlement forced or negotiated with TSP, the great power ambitions of India cannot be realized. A security architecture in the region is needed so that future generations can hopefully live with lesser animosity. A plan that achieves such a negotiated peace has a direct bearing on the economic well being of the region. India is a virtual island, with its land access routes blocked. Opening up these access routes is essential and TSP holds the keys to these locks.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Nov 2011 03:49

and it should end up shutting down all clandestine nuclear reactors, and rolling up their wmds.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 17 Nov 2011 04:03

ShauryaT wrote:
mahadevbhu wrote:Okay.

Formally speaking, I am happy with the status quo, the way things are, right now in the AfPak Kashmir region.

Not too much halla gulla in Kashmir.

The rogues of Pakistan are well and truly inside Pakistan, and their creator, the ISI-TSPA is dealing with them and bloodying its nose itself in the conflict.

All is well.
No it is not Sir. Without a settlement forced or negotiated with TSP, the great power ambitions of India cannot be realized. A security architecture in the region is needed so that future generations can hopefully live with lesser animosity. A plan that achieves such a negotiated peace has a direct bearing on the economic well being of the region. India is a virtual island, with its land access routes blocked. Opening up these access routes is essential and TSP holds the keys to these locks.

disagree. and hold pretty much a 180 degree opposite view.

The Land routes to Afghanistan are not that important for India. I would much rather focus on walling Kashmir up and making it so airtight that no sister loving Pathan/Taliban can come in.

Then, develop a port in the south of Iran to;
a. Provide a land route for shipping to Afghanistan. Man this land route and provide it security, along with Iran, and have the US transport its materiel through this route rather than through Pakistan.
b. This reduces the US need of Pakistan and thus it gives the US more options and leeway to deal with the ISI.

[ Kisne kaha ki kewal US aur ISI apana Mujahideen bana sakthi hai? Hum log bhi US army ko apana Mujahideen bana sakthe hain kyon ji?

]

Methinks India's plodding along pretty well. 50 years down the line, folks will be looking at Pakistan for being such an idiot, so as to not join the Indian bandwagon of prosperity.

Doing well is the best revenge. The amount of influence that we need to consciously wield is not that much vis a vis Pakistan.

The more important problem I am thinking about is, how to influence the Pakistani army, which means having them love us and like us, without trading and dealing commercially, in person with them. I dont want to deal with them, because they have a negative influence and might use the increased access to Indian soil, in the name of trade for nefarious purposes.

At the same time I would love to sell them our stuff that is made in India and pocket a profit for myself. Make Pakistan a solid client state without having one Paki on our soil to do no good.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Nov 2011 06:24

ramana wrote: It might be India will never have to use the Prithivi, but by issuing them to corps level arty and removing the ambiguity the threshold is raised as the TSP has to take them inot consideration when the dash to Indus is considered. And raise the number of IBGs from 8 to 12.

What do you do about the red lines and the after math? Dash to Indus (Grand Trunk Road) is a red line. Severe destruction of their armor would be another one. India's attack fronts are a clear give away with the existing strike corps, with IBG's there is more ambiguity. Any territory gains across the IB will have to be retruned? What does a war do to the next generation is a serious question to ponder, for it should not lead to more animosity. Are you also of the view that a managed situation is not possible? If danda has to be used, it has to be for geo-political gains, which means, cutting down TSP's rent seeking capabilities forever. There seems to be zero appetite for the latter option - anywhere!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Nov 2011 07:07

ShauryaT, Their red lines are like Hiranyakashyap's conditions:neither man nor beast, neither day nor light, neither man nor animal and so on and they add new ones all the time.

You can manage only when the prospect of danda is there. If no danda, no manage. The appetite is not there as right now the cost benefit is not right. How can we say that in future? So we cant remove options due to indigestion.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Nov 2011 08:57

There was a recent line from a US analyst or politico,who said that "China had centuries (600 years) of a miliatry tradition based upon duplicity",and it worried him that there was no clear answer from China about its motives and intentions today.Frankly,nothing has changed.It is indeed heartening if the country's PM in name only,has seen the light-possibly after the PRC's claim to Arunachal Pradesh and stapled visas,and has realised the gravity of the situation today.That it also falls in line with the US's scheme of things to pit India against China,as a US proxy suits his ideological bent,which is a horizontal line facing westwards,does not matter,as possessing the capability to deter China on our won is the avowed goal.

Nevertheless,and notwithstanding his "bent",if the armed forces and diplomatic mandarins have now realigned their focus from being eternal Paki-watchers and have turned their face to the real threat from the East,also using Pak in the west as part of the Han Empire's global expansion,AND AKA gets off his saddle and accelerates vital decisions impinging upon the modernisation and augmentation of the armed forces,we would've turned the corner.Since we have now decided to engage with Vietnam,Mauritius and the maldives even more closely in security affairs,then we must go the whole hog. There can be no half-way measures,which will only reinforce in Chinese minds that India is a funk and even dependent upon its newly found "Big Brother".

archan · Post by **archan** » 17 Nov 2011 09:27

Philip, for the nth time, kindly stop making up names for MMS. I have warned you officially many times, banned you for 1 month and 3 months respectively but you just cannot resist the urge. Please figure out whether taking cheap shots at Indian PM is more valuable to you or your membership of this forum. Thanks.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 17 Nov 2011 11:03

Anujan wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Errr.....well, if CSD is a such a joke as BK would have us believe, why would the Pakees fear, hain ji? And why is Prithvi missile a threat and not the Brahmos which has higher accuracy and longer range - not to forget the speed? What gives?
You have to understand the Pisko of seeing mirror images.

Pakis see themselves in India. Statement by TFTA jernails carry much more weight in Pakistan than statements by the civvies. Pakis see themselves in the world and think that its how the world works. That is why if a Khakhi makes a statement (Like Mullen accusing Pakistan or some random Indian jernail talking about CSD) it makes Pakis brown their shalwars. Because they think that the threat is very real. On the other hand, LBS or IG or ABV or BO or HC for that matter do not inspire any fear. India on the other hand doesn't work that way. LBS, IG and ABV proved to be very dangerous for Pakistan. Going to war, and with what intensity is firmly controlled by the civvies. CSD will happen only if our armed forces are tasked with it by our Netas. Which wont happen because they recognize terror attacks as "accidents" and are busy handing out Pappi-Jhappis. Pakis wont understand this.

Indians on other other hand see their mirror image in Pakis. They think, "ABV visited Lahore in a Bus, why did Pakis do Kargil?!" and feel betrayed. We feel betrayed that AZ with his cheshire cat smile was all friendly towards India, but 26/11 was still perpetrated on us. It is because we see our mirror image in them, and dont understand that none of Paki actions are controlled by any civvies. I am not talking about *reduced influence* of civvies, I am talking about *no control*. It is like expecting your postman to fix interest rates in RBI.

And that is why MMS thinks Gilani is a man of peace and can bring about a grand India-Pakistan rapprochement. That is the same reason why Pakis hang on to some random statement by some random Jernail about CSD in India and the role of Prithvi in CSD and decapitation strikes to brown their shalwars to this day*.

*It is easy to test my Piskoanalysis. Some Indian Jernail after imbibing whiskey should make a statement that Prithvis are duds and Brahmos will tear Paki chaddis. You will start seeing Paki statement about Brahmos being the danger and pooh-poohing Prithvi.

There might be something in this theory....