On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Perry E. Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > Giving up Kashmir would be dumb. > > Well, lets consider the positives: > > 1) Elimination of a major, perhaps the major, cause of conflict > between India and a neighboring state. > a) Lowered military spending. > b) (probably) lowered terrorism. > c) Lowered risk of conscripts and civilians dying. > d) Lowered risk of nuclear warfare. > e) The possibility of opening up valuable trade, and significant > resultant economic benefits. > I have to wonder if I'm rushing in where wiser heads would stay away but still, I couldn't resist piping up :-) I don't agree with the argument of lowered military spending or generally lower chances of military buildup. There is a simpler geographical reality to consider - as the Capital city of a country with enemies on both sides, Delhi is vulnerable - located as it is at the "neck" of India with hostile states only a few hours away by road on both sides. This is not a pleasant though for most of Indian military strategists. Consider for example that Kashmir was given a plebiscite and did secede to become independent. It is not too outrageous to argue that a state with no industry, limited agriculture and no direct trade routes is going to become a vassal state of its nearest powerful neighbor. Given the inclination of those in Kashmir who demanded the plebiscite in the first place, we can expect that neighbor to be Pakistan. Suddenly, the Indian military establishment is faced with the prospect of having Pakistani MBTs parked about 500 kms away from Delhi. Given the top speeds of the frontline MBTs in the Pakistani army, that's about an overnight drive before you see Pakistani T80s rolling down Rajpath. [1] Compare that to the 900+ Kms that the Indian Army has today, not to mention part of that route is basically fair-weather roads that are only passable in Summer. [1] Also consider that the Indian Army and Pakistani Army are far more evenly matched in the types and quantities of armor they possess today [2] [3] [4] [5] then 40-odd years ago [6]. The above is admittedly a doomsday scenario, but isn't that what all military establishments survive on? To me atleast, there is a simpler truth underlying the political establishment's stance on Kashmir - "you give up land, you give up safety". IMO, it's why no expense was spared in fighting Khalistan but the Naxalites are ignored, and why Aksai Chin doesn't matter but Kashmir does. [1] http://is.gd/1L9l [2] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-equipment.htm [3] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/army-equipment.htm [4] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-80-specs.htm [5] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-72-specs.htm [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965#Tank_battles -- Balaji (who is going to regret sending this email 2 minutes after clicking send)
