Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by admin in Pakistan's Nuclear Deterrent, Pakistan's Nuclear Targets, Pakistan's Strategic & Security Focus, Pakistan-A Polaris of Earth on June 1st, 2015
With national zeal and fervour in different parts of the country, Youm-e-Takbeer (The day of greatness) is celebrated every year on May 28 as a national day to mark the conduction of nuclear tests when on the very day in 1998; Pakistan became the first Muslim and the 7th nuclear power in the world.
While showing aggressive designs, on May 11, 1998, the then Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee surprised the international community by announcing that India has conducted 3 nuclear tests earlier that day. On May 13, 1998, India conducted two more nuclear tests.
However, both the neighboring countries have waged three wars, especially on the issue of the Indian occupied Kashmir, so Pakistan’s arch rival compelled Islamabad to follow the suit. In this regard, it took only 17 days for Pakistan to successfully carry out its five nuclear tests which were done on May 28 and the sixth one on May 1998, at Chaghi in Balochistan in response to five nuclear explosions detonated by India, threatening the security of Pakistan. For the purpose, about five thousands scientists including Dr Samarmand Mubarik and especially Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan had worked day and night and made the defence of the country impregnable.
As regards Pakistan’s atomic experiments, renowned journalist, Majid Nizami said, “Pakistan faced tremendous pressure from India after it detonated five nuclear devices and America in this scenario also did not want Pakistan to become a nuclear power. US President Clinton telephoned the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif five times besides offering him billions of dollars to refrain him from nuclear tests. In this perspective, he further stated, Nawaz was receiving opinion from different sections of society, and in the same connection, he also convened a meeting of the editors wherein he (Majid Nizami) also gave the input.”
New Delhi’s war-mongering strategy against Pakistan could be judged from the fact that in 1974 India conducted first nuclear test at Pokhran Range in Rajhistan so as to pressurise Islamabad.
It is mentionable that when ZulfikarAli Bhutto, (The late) came to power, he paid much attention to the nuclear programme of Pakistan, as he knew that India would apply its coercive diplomacy on Islamabad or could attack our country. In this context, while talking on a TV channel on May 28, 2012, Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan appreciated the efforts of former Prime Minister Shaheed ZulfikarAli Bhutto for providing the opportunity to make the nuclear programme of Pakistan successful.
He also made it clear that Pakistan’s nuclear programme was totally indigenous, but acquired materials from some Western countries.
During many crises such as Kargil issue of 1999 and attack on the Indian parliament by the militants in 2001, New Delhi concentrated its troops across the Pakistan’s border, with the intention to attack Pakistan, while raising a series of false allegations against Islamabad. Pakistan was also compelled to deploy its Army along the Pak-India border. But, India did not dare to initiate a war because of Pakistan’s ‘Nukes.’ Similarly, in the past, Indian rulers had intended to implement their doctrine of limited war in Kashmir, but they could not do so owing to our nuclear weapons.
Particularly, in the aftermath of Mumbai terror attacks of 2008, India accused Pakistan’s spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of supporting the militants. Although Pak diplomats denied Indian self-fabricated story regarding Mumbai catastrophe, but New Delhi adopted a threatening posture against Islamabad. It one again deployed its troops across the Pakistani border. Again, Islamabad also concentrated its military in order to give a matching response to India.
Notably, when US special forces killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan on May 2, 2011 in violation of Pak sovereignty—though Islamabad had repeatedly made it clear that its government and intelligence agencies did not know anything about Bin Laden’s whereabouts including any official involvement regarding the 26/11 Mumbai catastrophe, but, New Delhi continued its aggressive style which could be judged from the statement of Indian Army Chief Gen. VK Singh who claimed on May 4, 2011 that if situation arose, the Indian defence forces were competent to undertake a US-like operation inside Pakistan, which killed Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. Indian army’s Northern Command chief also expressed similar thought.
In this respect, Indian top civil and defence officials clearly said that their country could conduct a US-type military operation or surgical strikes inside Pakistan.
Nevertheless, in the aftermath of Mumbai attack, India left no stone unturned in frightening Pakistan through a prospective invasion. Violation of Pakistan’s air space by New Delhi had created an alarming situation, as Islamabad had also taken defensive steps in response to meet any aggression or surgical strikes by India. Situation was so critical that Pakistan started moving thousands of military troops from the Afghan border and the tribal areas to its border with India. But, India failed in implementing its plans of any military action or aerial strikes on Pakistan due to the fact that the latter also possesses nuclear arsenal which could destroy whole of India.
It is noteworthy that America dropped atomic bombs on Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as Tokyo had no such devices to retaliate. After the World War 11, nuclear weapons were never used. These were only employed as a strategic threat. During the heightened days of the Cold War, many crises arose in Suez Canal, Korea, Cuba and Vietnam when the US and the former Soviet Union were willing to use atomic weapons, but they stopped because of the fear of nuclear war which could culminate in the elimination of both the super powers. It was due to the concept of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that the two rivals preferred to resolve their differences through diplomacy.
Political strategists agree that deterrence is a psychological concept that aims to affect an opponent’s perceptions. In nuclear deterrence weapons are less usable as their threat is enough in deterring an enemy that intends to use its armed might.
While both the neighbouring adversaries are nuclear powers, Indians should not ignore the principles of deterrence, popularly known as balance of terror.
In these terms, India is badly mistaken, if it overestimates its own power and underestimates Pakistan’s power. As our country lacks conventional weapons vis-à-vis India, so it will have to use atomic devices during a prolonged conflict which would result into national suicide of the two countries. So India may apply its blackmailing diplomacy on the non-atomic states of South Asia in exerting psychological pressure, but it is useless in case of Pakistan whose deterrence is credible, making its defence invincible, as it possesses a variety of nuclear weapons and missiles which could be used against India as the last option, if the latter attacked our country.
Moreover, it is due to atomic bombs that Islamabad can talk to New Delhi with honour and dignity, discouraging India from casting an evil eye on our motherland.
Furthermore, as Pakistan is the only declared nuclear country in the Islamic World, hence, it has become special target of some western top officials and media persons who continue their propaganda against Pakistan’s nuclear programme. They have especially hired the services of media anchors and writers who work on their payroll and have been creating doubts about the safety and security of Pakistan’s atomic weapons and nuclear plants. Particularly, in 2009 when the heavily-armed Taliban entered Swat, Dir and Buner, US high officials and their media had exaggerated the ‘Talibinisation’ of whole Pakistan, while showing concerns about Pakistan’s atomic arms. In that regard, the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had warned that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. But, when Pakistan’s armed forces ejected the Taliban insurgents out of these areas by breaking their backbone, She started appreciating the capabilities of Pakistan Armed Forces.
Similarly, when terrorists had attacked on Pakistan’s Naval Airbase in Karachi on May 23, 2011, US-led some western countries including India and Israel exploited the situation through disinformation about the security of Pak nukes. And, terrorists’ assault on Kamra Base was successfully foiled by the personnel of Pakistan Air Force, but, a baseless report, published in the New York Times had indicated that suspected militants attacked a major Pakistani Air Force base where some of the country’s nuclear weapons were considered to be stored in the early hours of the militants’ attack. The ex-US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta also stated day, “There is a danger of nuclear weapons of Pakistan, falling into hands of terrorists.”
Undoubtedly, Pakistan’s nuclear assets are in safe hands-well-protected and are under tight security arrangements, having the best command and control system.
Nonetheless, May 28 is celebrated as Youm-e-Takbeer by various political parties and social organizations including general masses with a pledge to make Pakistan a stronger country, militarily and economically, among the comity of nations. No doubt, on this very day of 1998, Pakistan became nuclear power.
Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations
Email: [email protected]
Posted by admin in PAKISTAN'S MISSILE DEFENCE, Pakistan's Nuclear Deterrent, Pakistan's Nuclear Targets, Pakistan's Strategic & Security Focus, Pakistan-A Polaris of Earth on July 23rd, 2014
Why should a nation love its Army? by Ali Raza Mudassar An army consists of disciplined unique individuals overwhelmed with devotions and ultimate sense of patriotism. The army is the most important living organ of the state that should not only be strong but also active, brave and vigilant. Armies are pride of nations because of their savior role in testing times of nations. They are uniquely motivated people and rich with spirit of utter sense of sacrifice for their fellow citizens and motherland. Madam Noor Jahan (late) has sung a melodious Punjabi song to narrate an unique character of soldiering (Ay putar hattaan tay nahi wikday, ki lab-ni aey wich bazaar kuray? – these great sons are not saleable commodity, what are you looking for in the market?). Nations that do not respect and honour their armies are perished by their enemies because the men can fight only with the strong support of their nations. The famous quote of George Patton – “The wars may be fought with weapons but they are won by men”. There are five fundamental logics that Army must be respected and honoured by nations for their own survival. Firstly, Political Reason. Army is a tangible living organ of the state which provides defense against the internal and external physical threat to the nation. Without strong and motivated soldiers this physical threat cannot be averted and this physical threat has potentials to devastate the existence of the state. A nation state needs a strong and potent force for its survival in this realist world, otherwise continued existence as a nation state is in danger. In 1991, Iraq ruined the Kuwait in matter of few hours because Kuwait was not maintaining strong Army for response. Secondly, Psychological Reason. Motivation is critical factor in psychological mechanism of fighting. It is only motivation which arouses the individual’s feelings and convinces him to fight against the enemies of the country and fellows. Un-motivated individuals are destined to loose or prepared to die dejectedly. Armies only win when they fight with spirit and motivation which comes with love of their countries men. Loves and affection inspire the soldiers to take ultimate step (scarification of life) for the honour and wellbeing of their nation fellows. This motivation is evaporated, if their countrymen are not standing behind them. Motivation is the sole reason of taking bullets on chest with smiling face. If nations don’t love their fellow soldiers then the strongest Army can’t guarantee the survival of state. Soldiers of Islamic state fights because they believe that it is legitimate cause and thousands mothers, sisters, brothers and fathers are praying for them – that gives him inner satisfaction. Thirdly, Islamic Reason. Soldiering is sacred and Islamic profession. Loving and respecting own Army is an Islamic tradition. In the state of Medina, when the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) along with his companions left for Badr to fight with the enemies of state and Allah, they were seen off by men, women and children with love, affection and lots of prayers to fight well and demonstrate perseverance against the enemy. That exuberance of the people gave unflinching loyalties and strength to remain steadfast against their superior enemy. Finally victory kissed their feet at Badr and again they were received back with love and affection at the gate of Medina. There can’t be any better reason for honouring and respecting the Army of Islamic country. Fourthly, Social Reason. Soldiers are above the controversaries of religion, sectarian, linguistic and ethnicity. Army should be kept aloof from the divisive tendencies which can adversely affect the social fiber of the Army. They have to be kept mentally and physically united to take on the enemy of the nation. Army must not be dragged into internal politics or any other petty conflicts which can cause polarization and fragmentation on any pretext because polarization can generate conflict. Army is symbol of unity for nation and it is only possible if united nation stands behind them after shunning their differences for unity of army. Fifthly, material reason. Contrarily, Soldiers experience rough life – away from families and loved ones for months and years. They breathe in inhospitable environment, drink dirty water and eat unhygienic food for one reason only – live for nation. Soldiers often sitting alone in their bunkers and are dreaming about the love, affections and honour of their companions and fellow countrymen. They know that the army is responsible for his fellow countrymen, so they sleep peacefully at nights while he stands guard of the country’s frontiers. Solider also knows, if he loses his heart, he will loose honour of his countrymen. And if he loses his life, it will add life to his motherland. In war, there is no substitute for victory and the army strives with all its might to sacrifice their lives for the country. Every citizen of the country should proudly and with gratitude salute each and every man of the army because the patriotism is at peak with army men. The nation ought to reciprocate with lots of love, affection and honour in their larger interest. Let me conclude with outstanding words of Sir Winston Churchill which emphasized on the maintaining robust and live army, ” Armed forces are not like a limited liability company, to be reconstructed from time to time as the money fluctuates. They are not inanimate things, like a house to be pulled down or enlarged or structurally altered at the caprices of the tenant or owner. They are living things, if they are bullied, they sulk, if they are happy, they pine, it they are harried, sufficiently they get feverish, if they are sufficiently disturbed, they will wither and dwindle and almost die, and when it comes to this last serious condition, it is only revived with lots of time, effort and money.” (The writer is a Ph.D Scholar on Peace and Conflict Studies at the National Defence University, Islamabad).
Posted by admin in Pakistan Army Pakistan Air Force Pakistan Navy Fight Against Taliban & Alqaeda Terrorism, Pakistan's Strategic & Security Focus on June 16th, 2014
RAWALPINDI: Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif has emphasized that all terrorists along with their sanctuaries must be eliminated without any discrimination.
According to an Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) press release the COAS visited Corps Headquarters Peshawar on Monday where he was given a detailed briefing on the progress of Operation Zarb-e-Azb.
The ISPR adds, that the Army Chief expressed his satisfaction over the preparation and progress of the operation so far, adding that the operation is not targeted against our valiant tribes of North Waziristan but against the terrorists holed up in the Agency who have picked up arms against the state of Pakistan.
IDP Management
Additionally, the COAS directed all concerned to undertake special measures towards diligent management of IDPs in coordination with the relevant civilian agencies.
The Army Chief reiterated that with the support of the nation, operation Zarb-e-Azb will be concluded successfully and comprehensively.
Posted by Azahir in Pakistan's Hope, Pakistan's Strategic & Security Focus, Pakistan-A Polaris of Earth on June 21st, 2013
Pakistaniaat : A Journal of Pakistan Studies Vol. 3, No. 3 (2011)
Pakistan: Beyond the ‘Crisis State’
Reviewed by David Waterman
Pakistan: Beyond the ‘Crisis State.’ Maleeha Lodhi, ed. London: Hurst and
Company, 2011. 391 pages. ISBN-13: 978-1-84904-135-5.
Maleeha Lodhi, as the editor of Pakistan: Beyond the ‘Crisis State,’ has managed
to assemble some of Pakistan’s most influential academics, writers, economists
and policymakers in one volume, designed to give an insider’s perspective on
Pakistan’s “crisis” from diverse angles, and more importantly, to suggest
solutions regarding Pakistan’s obvious potential for a better future. The book is
not a collection of conference proceedings, but rather the product of a virtual
conference in cyberspace, discussing themes of “governance, security, economic
and human development and foreign policy […] what binds all the distinguished
contributors is their belief that Pakistan’s challenges are surmountable and the
impetus for change and renewal can only come from within, through bold reforms
that are identified in the chapters that follow” (3).
The first few chapters concentrate on Pakistan’s history and the sense of a
Pakistani identity, now that the country has existed in very concrete terms for
sixty-five years or so. Ayesha Jalal suggests that Pakistan’s path toward a
national identity for its heterogeneous people has been interrupted, as its history
has been co-opted for “political and ideological reasons” (11). Pakistan’s position
vis-à-vis India, militant Islam and 9/11 are all important factors in the equation as
well. Akbar Ahmed recalls Jinnah’s role not only in the founding of the nation,
but his continuing legacy in terms of an equilibrium between Islam and the State;
Jinnah’s thoughts are in large part gleaned from his speeches and letters, as he left
no monograph before his death (23). Mohsin Hamid, author of Moth Smoke and
The Reluctant Fundamentalist (filming for the movie has apparently begun),
assumes his mantle of engaged journalist in an essay entitled “Why Pakistan will
Survive.” His argument is best summed up as follows: “we are not as poor as we
like to think” (41), highlighting Pakistan’s strength in diversity, and in economic
terms, Hamid suggests that something as simple as a coherent, fair tax code could
allow the nation to concentrate on schools and healthcare, while cutting the
strings of American aid and its corresponding intervention in Pakistan’s affairs.
Maleeha Lodhi’s own chapter is a detailed overview of contemporary history,
calling attention to political asymmetry, clientelist politics and borrowed growth
David Waterman
as well as security concerns and regional pressures on national unity; ultimately
she calls for a “new politics that connects governance to public purpose” (78).
The essays then move into more political themes, and the first among them
discusses the army as a central element of Pakistani political, and indeed
corporate, life. Shuja Nawaz argues that while the army has historically been a
significant power broker, the generation of commanders from the Zia and
Musharraf eras is about to retire, thus promising the possibility of change,
including the realization that “counterinsurgency operations are 90 per cent
political and economic and only 10 per cent military” (93). Saeed Shafqat also
discusses the political role of the military, saying that while elections are of
course essential to democracy, more attention needs to be paid to the rule of law
and the incorporation of cultural pluralism (95), never forgetting the role of
various elites within the process; he suggests that the emergence of coalition
politics is a hopeful sign. Islam’s role in politics is the focus of Ziad Haider’s
essay, tracing its evolution from Jinnah’s comments through the Munir report,
Islamization under Zia and Talibanization to the “This is Not Us” movement
(129) and the hope that moderate Islam represents the future of Pakistan. A
chapter entitled “Battling Militancy,” by Zahid Hussain, continues the discussion,
tracing the development of jihadist politics given the situation in Afghanistan.
The focus then shifts to economic policy, beginning with Ishrat Husain’s
insistence that economic policies cannot remain sound without solid institutions
behind them; he cites the long-term nature of economic progress, while successive
governments seem interested only in short-term horizons (149-150). Meekal
Ahmed follows the Pakistani economy from the early sixties and periods of
relative health, through Ayub Khan’s era, also a time of economic stability, which
changes under Bhutto and his nationalization programs, and since then has gone
from crisis to crisis, both the government and poor IMF oversight bearing a share
of the blame. Competitiveness is the key concept for Muddassar Mazhar Malik,
who reminds us that Pakistan is “open for business” despite many challenges to
overcome, citing economic potential, natural resources and strategic location as
strong points (201). Ziad Alahdad then shifts the focus to energy, a sector in
crisis which then has an enormous impact on Pakistan’s economy, all of this in a
country with abundant natural energy resources; a more coherent exploitation of
Integrated Energy Planning would be part of an overall solution (240).
Strategic issues then occupy several chapters, beginning interestingly with
education as part of the formula, as advanced by Shanza Khan and Moeed Yusuf,
who suggest that politically-neutral education is the foundation not only of
Pakistaniaat : A Journal of Pakistan Studies Vol. 3, No. 3 (2011)
economic development but also the means to resist violent extremism by building
expectations and supplying hope, especially for the young. Pakistan of course
possesses nuclear weapons, and Feroz Hassan Khan asks the question, wondering
if its nuclear capability has allowed Pakistan to focus itself on other priorities, in
other words averting wars rather than fighting them, to paraphrase Bernard
Brodie, cited in Khan’s essay (268). Munir Akram’s essay, “Reversing Strategic
‘Shrinkage,’ highlights Pakistan’s current challenges: the Pakistani Taliban’s
attacks in KP and large cities; Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan; Balochi
alienation; economic stagnation; energy crises; growing poverty, all of which
have contributed to “a dangerous mood of national pessimism,” according to
Akram (284). Afghanistan occupies Ahmed Rashid’s attention, as it has for over
thirty years now; he critiques strategic claims that have become worn with time,
such as the need for strategic depth for Pakistan (although the notion of ‘strategic
depth’ changes when a country becomes a nuclear power), or India’s desire
(among other countries) to gain influence in Kabul (314-315). The final essay,
“The India Factor,” culminates the volume by tracing the tumultuous relations
between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, the bumpy road to peace, the effect of
the 2008 Mumbai attacks, all within the context of peoples who have not
forgotten the trauma of Partition and the secession of East Pakistan. In spite of
the obstacles, Syed Rifaat Hussain lists many of the promising agreements that
have been reached or are in progress, an encouraging sign and a reminder that
good relations are beneficial to both nations.
Human development, Maleeha Lodhi remarks in a concluding note, must
be Pakistan’s priority, and is within reach, as all of the contributors to the volume
insist. Lodhi summarizes thus: “Electoral and political reforms that foster greater
and more active participation by Pakistan’s growing educated middle class will
open up possibilities for the transformation of an increasingly dysfunctional,
patronage-dominated polity into one that is able to tap the resilience of the people
and meet their needs” (350). Pakistan: Beyond the ‘Crisis State’ is a fine piece
of work, written by specialists for an audience of intelligent non-specialists, and
achieves its objective admirably. Maleeha Lodhi has succeeded remarkably in her
edition of this gathering of clear-sighted experts, who never lose sight of
Pakistan’s potential beyond its current challenges.