Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : India Coffee House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (5967)	8/27/1999 3:37:00 PM
From: Shivram Hala	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12475

> those weapons last year. But what has really changed is > the steady deterioration in the relations ever since India > indulged in nuclear Diwali in Pokhran last year. Wrong again. The international community hailed the Lahore bus diplomacy and accord as a changing point in the relationship. They had high aspirations that maybe things were really changing. [Pakistan's calculation was to internationalise the kashmir ] > Which they did. Ask a few people in the West who are > reasonably knowledgeable about international affairs about > where in the world they think there is a possibility for > the next nuclear exchange to take place, and they are very > likely to rattle off the name of Kashmir. A year ago, it > was doubtful if many would have even heard of the place. People with a reasonable knowledge about international affairs HAVE FOR A LONG TIME identified that kashmir is one of the top flash points for a war anywhere. For a long long time. The only thing that is changed is the addition of nuclear dimension. Pakistan's gamble was to use the fears of the flashpoint escalating into a nuclear conflict. That didn't work because pakistan was seen as the bully and not india which traditionally was. Given the hopes that Lahore raised, Kargil, which was supposed to force kashmir as the issue that the world could not ignore any more, resulted in pakistan being seen as the culprit. It was pakistan that was punished, and it was pakistan that was rejected even by close ally china. The result, kashmir was a non issue. It was kargil. and only kargil and the perpetrator was pakistan (to many weterners a state that supports terrorism). A few weeks ago the pakistani high commisioner was grilled/barbecued on kargil by WESTERN experts (CSPAN). His performance was pathetic when he tried to resolve conflicting comments from gen. pervez musharraf, that the infiltrators were freedom fighters, then mujahideen helping their kashmiri brothers and then they were soldiers, then they were mercenaries,.... [no first strike policy ] > Why? The answer is fairly simple. Correct. > adopted a similar strategy and hinted that it could > contemplate a nuclear first strike if its security were > seriously threatened. Makes perfect sense, from Pakistan's > point of view. Correct. What pakistan doesn't realize is that it's security is not threatened by india, but rather by pakistan itself.