As India rises, what does it have to lose if it goes to war?

Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
14,529
Likes
32,685
Country flag
The India problem
The writer is a member of staff.
TRY this one for a conspiracy theory. Two months ago, on July 8 to be precise, the Indians did something stupid in the Valley: they killed Burhan Wani.
Stupid not because Pakistan says so, but because many Indians themselves did: killing a charismatic 22-year-old who had stirred up Kashmiris was a recipe for unrest.
And unrest is what India got. An own goal had been scored.
What happened next was also fairly predictable: India went into repression mode. Compounding the original error, it used disproportionate violence against civilians and made a mess of things there.
Curfew was imposed. The state of India was sucked back into a familiar cycle of repression and violence in held Kashmir. The people wouldn’t back down; the state wouldn’t relent.
All right, but where’s the conspiracy theory, you’re wondering.
The state of India had an advantage that the people of Kashmir didn’t: much of India didn’t care about the violence and the outside world sure as heck didn’t — contrary to what we were being told here in Pakistan.
Sure, the human rights lot and the Kashmiri diaspora had shone a light on abuse and repression by Indian security forces and that had started to attract international media attention at the fringes, but it was nothing remotely alarming for India.
If Uri was not done by non-state Pakistani militants, then India has managed an even more spectacular own goal.
As for Pakistan’s efforts to internationalise the issue, the derision with which the parliamentary junkets to foreign capitals was met with pretty much summed up the effort: desultory, weak and embarrassing.
Now, look away if you’re easily disorientated by theories other than what the state propagates.
Two months of unrest in reaction to Indian repression had created a dilemma for the anti-India non-states here.
India was getting away with murder, literally, and India wasn’t being forced to pay. Violence in response to violence is the non-states raison d’être.
What the hell kind of jihadi outfit are you if you don’t act when India is on the rampage against Kashmiris?
And violence by the Indian state is also a recruiting tool, especially if you can amp up the outrage here in Pakistan at Indian atrocities against Kashmiris.
Plus, the world’s attention needed to be focused and there’s only one way for the world’s attention to focus on Pakistan and India: the threat of war.
Put all of that together and you have the makings of a spectacular attack.
Like, y’know, Uri.
That’s madness, you’re thinking. A two-bit conspiracy theory. What the hell was the advantage to Pakistan?
Even well-meaning folk here have had trouble digesting the possibility. But then they also have long had trouble digesting the value of non-states to begin with.
There is, of course, a straightforward way to separate conspiracy from fact. The Uri attackers were either Pakistani or they were not.
India has the bodies and those bodies are tied to families, handlers and networks that exist either here or over there. Identification is not only possible it is inevitable.
And you can bet the Indian and Pakistani intelligence apparatuses — and probably of a handful of other countries — already know the attackers’ identities.
Attacks and their aftermath usually unleash a torrent of intelligence that is impossible to miss.
Handlers have to coordinate. The families have to mourn their dead. The networks have to eulogise the act. Fellow jihadis have to dissect the operation and marvel at their brethren’s bravery and success.
LOL, this moron is giving tip to jihadis.
I hope IA gets it from DFI before them.
If Uri was not done by Pakistanis, then India has managed an even more spectacular own goal. It would mean a new generation of armed and trained insurgents to contend with.
And it would mean that India’s raging against Pakistan has drawn the world’s attention, however briefly, towards what India is doing to Kashmiris.
But if Uri was done by Pakistani non-states…
In truth, it would be more depressing than frightening. Not frightening in a peculiar Pak-India sense because already we’ve shown that we can get away with it.
Because what, really, can India do about it? A rageful India can threaten war, but that only brings the outside world rushing in to counsel peace.
Plus, in a hard-nosed way, would India go to war with Pakistan — a Pakistan with an explicitly lowered nuclear threshold — over a handful of dead soldiers and citizens?
As India rises, a two-and-a-half-trillion dollar economy paired with global ambitions, its pain threshold will also rise — what is worth losing all of that over will become progressively higher in the next decade or so.
And if India does decide to double-down on stirring up mischief inside Pakistan, nothing like it. Few things would enthuse the boys here more than hunting down some India-lovers doing harm to the homeland.
The counterterrorism infrastructure is anyway in full-blown expansion mode because of the fight against the anti-Pak militants. And an endless war would extend the boys’ internal predominance.
So not really that frightening in the peculiar way that is India-Pak.
But depressing because of the circularity of it all. A security state with an insecure worldview. An India obsession that is fed by India’s own antics.
A Kashmir dispute that we refuse to be pragmatic about and which India gives us a reason to not be pragmatic about.
A democratic transition too weak for the civilians to influence foreign policy or national security, but weak enough to not invite a military takeover that could place a peace-making general at the helm.
So, yeah, God bless the Kashmiris. Fire and brimstone on the Indians. But feel sorrow for Pakistan and Pakistanis — you and me, the regular folk.
Conspiracy theories or facts, all we have is the knowledge that, either way, we get hurt.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
14,529
Likes
32,685
Country flag
As India rises, a two-and-a-half-trillion dollar economy paired with global ambitions, its pain threshold will also rise — what is worth losing all of that over will become progressively higher in the next decade or so.
Caring about our pain threshold ignoring that pakistan can be wiped out from map.
For next decade, we will become a $6-8 trillions economy.:D
And eventually, second or first in mid century, nearly 40 times bigger than pak.
But as the pak has higher population projection, calculate GDP per capita.:p
Using word State of India and Indian State (probably to eqaute with state of Israel, pakis often love to do so), this idiot must know that India is a Union of States.:facepalm:


And for his conspiracy theories about Indian Atrocities (equating Tienanmen square or Imperial Japan in WW2), I conclude that Pakistanis live in their own small world.
 
Last edited:

AbhinavTheBrahmin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
184
Likes
64
If India gets in war and if it does not hurt investments and the supply chain then it would not lose much and if it could destroy any incoming missiles
 
Last edited:

AbhinavTheBrahmin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
184
Likes
64
Another porki jihadi verbal masturbation :rofl:

India killed wani n also killed another 80+ kashmiri rioters to teach them a lesson.If India rises it becomes ISRAEL ... Jews DAILY kills muzzies n branded them as illegal PALESTINIAN trespassers.

Wait n see!! Hindus also start hunting them like pigs under Modi n branded them as ILLEGAL paki/bd's apart from supporting Afg/TTP/BLA to crush porkis. :bounce:
I say Kill all the anti national terrorist syampathisers and if human rights appeared then we can tell them we are just killing the anti nationals cause they are supporting the anti national easy to identify
 

busesaway

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
370
Likes
173
There's additional factors to take in too.

2050
Sri Lanka's population will rise by 10%.
India's population will rise by 20%, mainly in North India and among Muslims.
Pakistan's population will rise by 40%.
Bangladesh's population will rise by 45%.
Nepal's population will rise by 60%.


Pakistan's GDP will be 1/10 of India, but its population only 1/4 of India.
Bangladesh's GDP will be 1/14 of India, but its population only 1/6.
Nepal's GDP will be 1/16 of India, but its population 1/30 of India.
Sri Lanka's GDP will be 1/20 of India, but it's population will be 1/75 of India.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world2050_rank.html
http://www.pwc.ru/en/press-releases/2015/economic_forecast_2050.html
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
14,529
Likes
32,685
Country flag
Pakistan's GDP will be 1/10 of India, but its population only 1/4 of India.
Your info is outdated mainly based on projections from 2010, but India has done much better than expected.
Pakistan's GDP is already 1/8 it 1/9th of India, will be 1/10th in 2020-25.
Even before 2030, India will become a second world country.
For 2050, pakistan will have just 1/40th of Indian economy.
If you can understand Hindi or Urdu, I have above provided pakistani panel discussion over this.
I can also provide official documents from World Bank, IMF and several to prove it.
India was projected to achieve $7 trillion in 2030 as of 2014 but was found out to reach $10.3 trillions in 2030 of 2015.
But Indian Government has a target of achieving $10 trillions in 2026, so nearly $12-15 trillions in 2030.
In terms of per capita income, India had just half of pakistani per capita income in 70s and 80s but today leads by 20% given that we have their double per capita income growth rate.
We are further projecting their triple rate (we have already achieved even higher than China). So, it's nowhere next to India.
 
Last edited:

AbhinavTheBrahmin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
184
Likes
64
Your info is outdated mainly based on projections from 2010, but India has done much better than expected.
Pakistan's GDP is already 1/8 it 1/9th of India, will be 1/10th in 2020-25.
Even before 2030, India will become a second world country.
For 2050, pakistan will have just 1/40th of Indian economy.
If you can understand Hindi or Urdu, I have above provided pakistani panel discussion over this.
I can also provide official documents from World Bank, IMF and several to prove it.
India was projected to achieve $7 trillion in 2030 as of 2014 but was found out to reach $10.3 trillions in 2030 of 2015.
But Indian Government has a target of achieving $10 trillions in 2026, so nearly $12-15 trillions in 2030.
In terms of per capita income, India had just half of pakistani per capita income in 70s and 80s but today leads by 20% given that we have their double per capita income growth rate.
We are further projecting their triple rate (we have already achieved even higher than China). So, it's nowhere next to India.
till that time Paksitan would be a state of HINDU BHARAT
 

busesaway

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
370
Likes
173
But the crux of the matter is that Pakistan will achieve lower GDP growth, but far higher population growth; in theory, the population of Pakistan will rise by 50%.

They will not be able to support a lifestyle anywhere near the lifestyle found in Sri Lanka in 2050.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
14,529
Likes
32,685
Country flag
But the crux of the matter is that Pakistan will achieve lower GDP growth, but far higher population growth; in theory, the population of Pakistan will rise by 50%.

They will not be able to support a lifestyle anywhere near the lifestyle found in Sri Lanka in 2050.
Well, India can catch up near to Sri Lanka, not equal but India with current growth can achieve 70% GDP per capita of China (very close to Sri Lanka) and HDI in just range of 50-75 points lower.
 

busesaway

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
370
Likes
173
Well, India can catch up near to Sri Lanka, not equal but India with current growth can achieve 70% GDP per capita of China (very close to Sri Lanka) and HDI in just range of 50-75 points lower.
I'm sure India will do well. I think the North-Eastern and South Indian states in particular will be able to match the HDI of Sri Lanka. There's a chance that Kerela might overtake Sri Lanka in terms of prosperity.

It's the gangetic belt I'm worried about. I think that's where the bulk of India's population growth will be, and among their Muslims probably.
 

AbhinavTheBrahmin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
184
Likes
64
I'm sure India will do well. I think the North-Eastern and South Indian states in particular will be able to match the HDI of Sri Lanka. There's a chance that Kerela might overtake Sri Lanka in terms of prosperity.

It's the gangetic belt I'm worried about. I think that's where the bulk of India's population growth will be, and among their Muslims probably.
muslims would be converted to Hinduism
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
14,529
Likes
32,685
Country flag
I'm sure India will do well. I think the North-Eastern and South Indian states in particular will be able to match the HDI of Sri Lanka. There's a chance that Kerela might overtake Sri Lanka in terms of prosperity.

It's the gangetic belt I'm worried about. I think that's where the bulk of India's population growth will be, and among their Muslims probably.
Well, South India is already ahead of Sri Lanka in many aspects (Kerala has an HDI 0.821). So, will be at par with high income economies.
NE can be equal to something as that of Eastern Europe and So will be North.
In western India, Rajasthan may be poor unlike Gujarat and Rajasthan, but it has a high growth. So, poorest States primarily eastern like Eastern UP, Bihar, Chhatisgarh etc. must be in primitive developing stage somewhat India is today.



For Muslims, Indian Muslims are much moderate than middle Eastereners and will be further less radicalized in upcoming generations given secularization, and soaring income levels over long time period.
 

republic_roi97

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2016
Messages
1,952
Likes
2,635
Country flag
States primarily eastern like Eastern UP, Bihar, Chhatisgarh etc. must be in primitive developing stage somewhat India is today.
I can't say about Bihar and Chhatisgarh, but here in central UP, people are waking up rapidly, my hometown which happens to be Ayodhya-Faizabad is seeing significant developments with better energy availability, however, nothing close to what MP and Chhatisgarh are experiencing right now. Hence, I think that people should bring in a government that is more close to the center.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
14,529
Likes
32,685
Country flag
From Pakistan Today:
Media Watch: So, you think you’re a tough guy?

Sam Manekshaw. He was one of India’s only two Field Marshalls. And he didn’t give himself this fifth star like our own Field Marshall did; the Indian government gave it to him without his asking for it.
The Indian government was kind to him because, amongst other things, he led the military through the ‘71 war.
At the precipice of this very war, in a cabinet meeting, the then prime minister Indira Gandhi had wanted to know about army preparedness for a by-then-certain coming war.
The army wasn’t ready, he said. Not at all. The monsoons were coming and the situation in East Pakistan is always precarious by that time of the year. To transport the number of required armoured and infantry divisions within this time period would use up all of the railways network, which was otherwise being used at that time to transport grain and food across the country. If the railways were to be redirected, he cautioned, it would lead to mass famine in mainland India.
That is how professional soldiers speak. Evaluate situations and realise their own shortcomings. Have perfect situational awareness. Don’t let professional pride get in the way.
He was not speaking out of turn. He was only speaking his mind when asked for an assessment. And he was most certainly not disobeying any possible order either. When asked if he was not ready for war then, he shot off to the prime minister that wildly famous, stylish, cheeky, perhaps-inappropriate, probably apocryphal line. (“I’m always ready, sweetie.”)
He won the war.
Fast forward to today, and we will still find measured words of caution in the Indian military’s communication. A caution that is a bit more muted than that of Manekshaw’s, but still similar. They are baying for blood. They want revenge, but are also cognisant of several shortcomings on their part, chief of which is the lack of intel that they have on the targets of the proposed surgical strikes.
In the current tense media maelstrom between Indian and Pakistan, we can see a similar situation. Whereas the mass media of both countries are unbearably jingoistic (the Indians can out-Pakistan Pakistan), we can still hear voices of sanity amongst the Indian media.
Don’t get me wrong. When I speak of voices of sanity, I’m not talking about the peaceniks. Because we do have a smattering of those in Pakistan as well.
I’m talking about the realists amongst the hawks in India. The ones who don’t think the Indian defence apparatus is ready for a conflict. We won’t see any of this sort in Pakistan. The Pakistani commentariat does not allow, specially at a time like this, any pundit who doubts the professionalism and preparedness of our military machine.
“Our air defence is in a shocking state,” says Ajai Shukla, an Indian defence analyst. “What’s in place is mostly 1970s vintage, and it may take ten years to install the fancy new gear.”
“The danger of being trapped in your own rhetoric,” he says, “is that you can be forced into an aggressive response and then be ill-equipped to handle the escalation.”
We don’t have Shukla’s equivalents in Pakistan. We might find the don’t-go-to-war types here, but we won’t find the sort that have the gumption (and the knowledge) to say that the Pakistani army is perhaps not as competent as it might have us believe. In fact, the term “defence analyst” in Pakistan only means a pundit who makes his or her living off the largess of the military. Few don’t roll their eyes when they hear this term.
Expect lesser and lesser honest assessment of our prowess as time goes on.
Will end this on a video (online readers only) of an Indian talking head on TV. Imagine the same being said in Pakistan.
 

busesaway

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
370
Likes
173
Well, South India is already ahead of Sri Lanka in many aspects (Kerala has an HDI 0.821). So, will be at par with high income economies.
NE can be equal to something as that of Eastern Europe and So will be North.
In western India, Rajasthan may be poor unlike Gujarat and Rajasthan, but it has a high growth. So, poorest States primarily eastern like Eastern UP, Bihar, Chhatisgarh etc. must be in primitive developing stage somewhat India is today.

For Muslims, Indian Muslims are much moderate than middle Eastereners and will be further less radicalized in upcoming generations given secularization, and soaring income levels over long time period.
Apart from Maharashtra, I think Gujarat and Punjab will be the only states that are well-developed in the stereotypical definition of Northern India.

The extreme north and north-east (i.e. the area bordering Tibet/China) will also be fairly developed, particularly due to Chinese influence.

All of Southern India will be fairly developed, on par or exceeding Sri Lanka, but it will lack the mega-cities of Northern India; Bangalore and Chennai are the only competitors against the Northern Indian supercities.

Where I think the "southern nations/states" can really beat the north is through their low population growth. The south has been investing heavily in socialized welfare infrastructure that the north lacks, and coupled with the declining population, there will be a higher quality of life for the youth.

From the top of my head, I believe that southern India already has lower fertility rates than Sri Lanka, meaning that their population growth rates are below 10%. It also means that North India must have high birth rates.

180 Million Muslims now. 250 South Indians now.
40% Muslim Growth = 250 Million
10% S.Indian Growth = 275 Million

Muslims could literally overtake South Indians as a demographic! If the dravidian parties of yesteryear had succeeded in their goal, imagine what politics would have become...
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,117
Likes
4,990
Country flag
Caring about our pain threshold ignoring that pakistan can be wiped out from map.
For next decade, we will become a $6-8 trillions economy.:D
And eventually, second or first in mid century, nearly 40 times bigger than pak.
For 2050, pakistan will have just 1/40th of Indian economy.
It seems you are eternally living in 2030-2050 rather than 2016. Always hallucinating of a rosy future when the present is filled with lethal thorns.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top