Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

[Rudradev]

^^ As I said: "Night of the Long Knives" in TSP?

[CRamS]

One thing I never understand is that how can anyone (even the USA) force us (India) for anything, it does not make any sense to me. What leverage do they have with us? Nil in my opinion!

It is not as if we live on their mercy like TSP.

Which world are you living in? All US has to do is issue travel advisories and you will see how the Dhothiwallahs in Delhi and Indian middle class run as if their tails are on fire. Even more, US has to change its verbiage a little bit more pro-TSP on Kashmir. That would send India into a tizzy. These are just bengin leverages. Even mildy offensive strategy: increase arms sale to TSP tp even greater levels, India-specific offensive weapons. The list goes. It is India that does not have any leverage over US; thats why it can p!ss on India whenever it wants and gets away with it, matter of fact, it still gets SDREs to bow in obeissance.

[Anujan]

The current spate of islamization of Pakistan began with Zia sowing the seeds in Pakistani society. It reached its peak with OBL and 911 when the abduls began to think they were invincible. They had challenged the mighty US, they thought Srinagar and Delhi was within reach too.

Gagan-ji

Agree with your post. Though disagree with one of the points you made. Islamization did not begin with Zia.

Going back,

ZAB signed a law saying Ahmediyyas are not muslims in 1973

Ayub & had his 1 Muslim = 8 hindoo during the 1965 war.

Jinnah used "armed tribal raiders" (or taliban of the 1940's) to storm JK in 1948

Going even further back, you have "Direct action days"

The point is, they have always been this way. Zia is just a convenient excuse.

[Tamang]

Which world are you living in? All US has to do is issue travel advisories and you will see how the Dhothiwallahs in Delhi and Indian middle class run as if their tails are on fire. Even more, US has to change its verbiage a little bit more pro-TSP on Kashmir. That would send India into a tizzy. These are just bengin leverages. Even mildy offensive strategy: increase arms sale to TSP tp even greater levels, India-specific offensive weapons. The list goes. It is India that does not have any leverage over US; thats why it can p!ss on India whenever it wants and gets away with it, matter of fact, it still gets SDREs to bow in obeissance.

May be I am not as informative as you guys. But I think we are overestimating uncle's powers, they need us more than we do them. Why would they issue travel advisories, and if they do they will suffer too. They need Indian market esp in such difficult times, they can not ignore lucrative Indian market. And why would they sell large amounts of arms to TSP, TSP doesn't have the money in first place. US has played this equal equal play on both sides game in the Indian subcontinent precisely because we allowed them to. I think we need to realise that we are a significant power now and not a pushover esp when we are amongst world's biggest economies.

What can uncle possibly do if we don't talk to TSP?

US and China don't like each other one bit but just look at how China ignore Uncle's attempts at pressurising them. It is all about will power IMO.

JMT!

[Rangudu]

Is the ISI engineering coups against the leaderships of Taliban groups it influences, so as to replace their leaders with fellows more likely to be amenable to the shifting needs of TSPA political agenda?

I'm not sure if Haqqani would fall in this bucket.

Regardless, if TSPA wants Haqqani's people as proxies, then it needs to have them "renounce" Al Qaeda.

That is simply not likely.

[Gagan]

False alarm onlee.

[shravan]

^
NO!!!

[Gagan]

Check TV news NOW.

Doesn't look like another 911 yet. But too early to say

[pgbhat]

^ looks like dude was pissed about taxes.

[Gagan]

False alarm onlee.

Guy pissed about taxes.
1. Burns down his house.
2. Goes to the small airfield gets on his small plane.
3. next thing everyone knows is that this plane has crashed into the multistory building which has the offices of the IRS.

Meanwhile, Ombaba on his way to Andrews AFB in Maryland next to Washington DC via motorcade. (Which means he is getting there via air)

But for a few minutes, I thought the Purelanders had struck again.

[Sanku]

It is also obvious that there will be trade offs.

What is not true however at all is that there is a linear dependency between one problem and the other. I.e. solving one problem must come before or after the other problems

Sigh no trade off happen only when processing in parallel, there is no need for trade off when allocating resources linearly.

This is basic maths, sigh.....

BASIC definitions

Perhaps GOI does not want to rock the boat?

No no no no no no no

There is no perhaps, GoI DOES NOT want to rock the boat.

IT IS OK with people dying a a fair clip as long as the material growth happens.

It is buying money with Indian blood, other Indians blood whom it is duty bound to protect. Short term money too.

I think you will need to define what you mean by an overt posture. Blustering and bullying is not a posture - as China realised in 1969 (?).

I think I can only shake my head when the word overt posture == blustering, sigh....

Not sure how Japan's status matters here. Even if true, we can only translate it to 'US handles North Korea with kid gloves'.

Because YOU raised Japan, BTW I did not know that a UN enforced total blockade == kid gloves, you learn something new every day I guess.

[vera_k]

US and UK forced India to talk to Pak

[Sriman]

US and UK forced India to talk to Pak

Last question on that interview: "Sorry to use a cliche, but you sound hawkish". I despair. It's truly a sad state of affairs when such a position, well articulated is considered hawkish.

[Sen_K]

A fine view from Rajiv Dogra, former consul general in Karachi on Indo-TSP talks

As the proposer of talks we should have taken the initiative to spell out the agenda. Since we didn’t do it, Pakistan is busy setting an all-inclusive agenda for a composite dialogue. It wants the primary focus to be on the Kashmir issue and on water.
...
India appeared to be in a tearing rush to propose the talks, as if it was keen to report the completion of an assigned task to some external superior. In fact some, in the government too, seem to have been caught unawares. The external affairs minister was breathing fire against Pakistan till just a few hours before that offer was made public. He seemed almost as surprised by this decision as was the Congress which distanced itself quickly from the government’s initiative.
Pakistan was in no rush. It took its time in responding officially to the Indian offer of talks. For a military-led society, it made a great show of holding largescale internal consultations before formulating its response. This tactic had the benefit of keeping India on the tenterhooks, and within Pakistan it helped the establishment carry its opinion-makers along. In contrast people in India can only sniff the air to divine what their government is up to.
...
This is unfortunate especially when the international dice is not rolling in India’s favour. Despite tall claims about being the darling of Afghan people, the fact is that India was not in the core group of countries that met in London to take vital decisions on Afghanistan. India’s marginalisation at that conference can be judged from the fact that its minister was seated insignificantly in a back row, and that it wasn’t invited to the preparatory meeting in Turkey.

With India baiter Robin Raphael back as a senior member of Richard Holbrooke’s team, there is little chance that Pakistan could be dissuaded from maximising its gains over Kashmir and the water issue. The US needs Pakistan on its side to ensure an honourable exit out of Afghanistan. Under these circumstances Pakistan will loathe to let an opportunity like this slip. It will want satisfaction on Kashmir.

[skaranam]

How big a success is MINK in TSP? I believe lot of Muslims already see an emotional connection to it. Following is a quote

I'm a muslim and I really liked the fact that this is the first movie with the genre of terrorism with the correct message. As a muslim, I feel so proud about that! Stupid movies as Fanaa and Kurbaan always show terrorists as muslims... And MNIK is a movie that makes that statement false. That is one of the reasons why I really liked it...

[ramana]

How big a success is MINK in TSP? I believe lot of Muslims already see an emotional connection to it.

Its MNIK not MINK. IMHO, the film is about IM in USA. There is only one Hindu character in the film. The film says IM from India not Pakis feel affected by being lumped with the others. And gets to say quite a bit about the Paki brand of religion although while under an autistic mileu. After initial curiousity the film is losing audiences in India.

[CRamS]

US and UK forced India to talk to Pak

He is pretty blunt and honest about India's military capabilities or lack thereof to strike TSP. So question is, talks or no talks, what does India do s TSP rachets up its LeT weapons against India?

[archan]

I already have my dark corner picked out. Now all I have to get is nice comfortable dhoti.

[ramana]

US and UK forced India to talk to Pak

He is pretty blunt and honest about India's military capabilities or lack thereof to strike TSP. So question is, talks or no talks, what does India do s TSP rachets up its LeT weapons against India?

CRS, The Pakis have been beaten every single time since 1947. Its just that GOI doesnt want to whip them at this time yet. So when the time comes it will be done. So dont worry about rhetoric.

[nachiket]

CRS, The Pakis have been beaten every single time since 1947. Its just that GOI doesnt want to whip them at this time yet. So when the time comes it will be done. So dont worry about rhetoric.

In case the GOI does decide to punish TSP for the terrorism what would our goals be as far as military action is considered? Bombing terrorist camps won't accomplish anything as they would just be moved and in any case there are probably too many of them scattered about. I am sure we don't know all of their locations anyway. So if we start a war what should we try to do? Occupy territory and use it as a bargaining chip?

[CRamS]

CRS, The Pakis have been beaten every single time since 1947. Its just that GOI doesnt want to whip them at this time yet. So when the time comes it will be done. So dont worry about rhetoric.

Sure, that has been the record. But a recent & former NSA sounding so pessimistic of India's capabilities is a bit unsettling.

[Jarita]

Interview in May, 2009

http://www.transnational.org/Columns_Po ... andhi.html

Talking to Sonia Gandhi


I push on. “What about nuclear weapons? You are one of those with your finger on the button.” She grimaces. A God-spare me kind of look. (Clearly, with her and Manmohan Singh in charge, the Pakistanis must know that the Indian government will never threaten to use its nuclear weapons. Why doesn’t that lead to disarmament, a question that nobody anywhere would give me a straight answer to.
“Zbigniew Brzezinski has recently given me his latest book. I realize from that how none of us have thought seriously about nuclear disarmament.”

[Rudradev]

CRS, The Pakis have been beaten every single time since 1947. Its just that GOI doesnt want to whip them at this time yet. So when the time comes it will be done. So dont worry about rhetoric.

Sure, that has been the record. But a recent & former NSA sounding so pessimistic of India's capabilities is a bit unsettling.

I agree with CRamS here.

The Pakis have been "beaten" every time, only if you are generous enough to interpret that most minimal of conditions... thwarting the immediate purpose of an enemy military expedition... as "victory".

Not once have the costs of war been so great for the Pakistanis that they did not simply adopt some other method of warfare and continue with hostilities.

Only once out of four times, have we been able to impose *our* will on Pakistan militarily, rather than simply preventing that much smaller, much poorer nation from imposing its will on us. And even then we did not impose costs that would have settled the matter once and for all.

And we complain about hyphenation!

The truth is, if the Pakis are "tactically brilliant", then our military is only capable of "tactical victories" (and that only by the most magnanimous of yardsticks.) That has never been enough and is not enough today, to ensure what we really need... a *strategic* victory. One that removes Pakistan's capacity to be a thorn in our side for all time... one such as Marshall Zhukov inflicted on the Reich.

Brajesh Mishra is absolutely right about the state of our armed forces and the appalling nature of the military acquisitions system (even though, his government did not do a much better job than the present one of modernizing them). If we cannot handle Pakistan as Russia handles Georgia or China handles the Philippines, we *are* weak. We are not even equal-equal.

In no other pair of nations between which such disparities exist across the board, is the weaker one able to pose the kind of threat to the stronger as Pakistan does to us.

[Rudradev]

Interview in May, 2009

http://www.transnational.org/Columns_Po ... andhi.html

Talking to Sonia Gandhi


I push on. “What about nuclear weapons? You are one of those with your finger on the button.” She grimaces. A God-spare me kind of look. (Clearly, with her and Manmohan Singh in charge, the Pakistanis must know that the Indian government will never threaten to use its nuclear weapons. Why doesn’t that lead to disarmament, a question that nobody anywhere would give me a straight answer to.
“Zbigniew Brzezinski has recently given me his latest book. I realize from that how none of us have thought seriously about nuclear disarmament.”

Madam Maino's foreign policy ideas are shaped by Zbigniew Brzezinski?

Now that explains everything.

[shiv]

One thing I never understand is that how can anyone (even the USA) force us (India) for anything,

"The wicked witch was severely reprimanded and banished and she went away for ever"

I grew up with stories like these and nowadays I will believe anything similar - like US tells India and India listens. It is my upbringing

[SSridhar]

Regional Disputes

Sir: This is with reference to Mr Ishtiaq Ahmed’s letter ‘Arms race’ (Daily Times, February 18, 2010). Analyses of contemporaneous events are always fraught with the danger of being misinterpreted, especially when done by the involved parties themselves. The Indo-Pak relationship cannot be an exception to that, especially when Mr Ishtiaq Ahmed and I look at it. However, certain facts stand out. The ‘no-war pact’ was initially offered by India and several times at that. Each time it was rejected by Pakistan citing the J&K issue. The wars of 1947/1948, 1965 and 1999 were initiated by Pakistan and not by India. The 1971 war on the western front was also initiated by Pakistan. Had there been no genocide of the Bengalis, the resultant influx of over ten million refugees into India straining its already dismal economy, and the world community’s deliberate silence, there would have been no war on the East Pakistan front either.

Large scale induction of modern and lethal arms was first done by Pakistan starting in the mid-1950s when it became a member of SEATO and CENTO and also entered into a Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement with the US, thus bringing the Cold War to the region. Pakistan inducted state-of-the-art F-104 Starfighters, B-57 Bombers, M-47/48 Patton Tanks, F-86 Sabre jets, the likes of which India did not possess. India’s arms modernisation did not start until after the 1962 debacle against the Chinese. It may be that India today has committed larger resources to its borders with Pakistan because of earlier wars, continuing terrorism, infiltration and threats, but it has also committed significant military assets along its borders with China. Besides, the terrain with China restricts what can be deployed there. China remains a much more significant threat to India than Pakistan and in multiple ways. India’s acquisition of arms is dictated by necessity, not only of its land borders but also of the sea lanes of communication of interest to it. It also has far-flung territories from mainland India that need to be guarded. Besides, India also needs to contend with collusion of powers in the region directed solely against it. India pays hard cash for its purchases and therefore if anybody needs to complain about the burden, it should be India.

Rather than trying to match India militarily, Pakistan will do well to match it economically. This will not only enhance Pakistan’s security but would also not lead it to ruin by forcing it to use nuclear weapons in anger as Mr Ahmed says. That would be an intelligent response to perceived Indian designs perhaps.

[shiv]

I don't believe that there is any intention within the GoI to punish Pakistan as a whole. While most Indians certainly do state offhand that Pakistan should be nuked or punished or hit, I don't believe that Indians rate Pakistan as enemy number one requiring priority attention.

In fact a series of Indian governments require praise and not criticism for ensuring that the real hated entity is the Indian politician and government employee who are seen as being to blame for most ills - with the non punishment of Pakistan as being just one more example of government incompetence, bumbling and corruption. OK it takes two to tango. You have political parties agitating about rise of fuel prices and another bunch to hold the prices down by subsidies that bleed the exchequer from some other route. And you have people who support both these groups.

Pakistan too has degenerated. They had such a great self image and such great confidence that they knew that they could always start a war. They knew that Indians could lift their dhotis and run in retreat, but they had not yet discovered that dropping a shalwar around the ankles prevents one from running and allows GUBO as you bend to lift it. Pakis have lost confidence. they are not starting wars. They require to do something on the scale of 26/11 or Mumbai blasts to gain Indian attention for 12 months - after which they are forgotten.

I am trying to locate that last opinion poll of Pakis that was linked off here. Maybe I will go through my back issues of Aman ki Asses. I just wonder if India is still considered enemy number one among Pakis or is somebody else winning? I mean could Pakis really begin to ask themselves if defeating India is more important than the fact of eating grass? There must be some serious Phosphorus in the grass to give them such intense brain power.

But seriously I am on the lookout for opinion polls of what Pakis are thinking. There was one recently. Because I suspect Goi is out to woo a constituency of Pakis who are less anti-Indian than others and split Paki opinions down the middle.

[Airavat]

Strategic depth has other meanings. The pakistan army sees afghanistan as a source of opium money for the core commanders and the elite. this is also the route to CAR. If pakistan blocks this route, china benefits by making inroads. If pakistan opens this route, the americans and the west benefits.

That is the strategic depth for pakistan. It is not about pakistan hiding all its military hardware away from India.

You are right. "Strategic depth" is an eyewash for gullible Western commentators.....the truth is that Pakistan's war on terror is a war for control over the Pashtun population, on both sides of the Durand Line. And it has used every means at its disposal: money, opium, jihad, etc. to try and achieve that end all through the last 53 years.

Afghanistan was the only country in the world that opposed the creation of Pakistan back in 1947, and after that was done by the British, it opposed Pakistan's admission into the UN. Afghanistan supported Pashtun and Baloch independence in Pakistan, while the latter country introduced jihad and tribalism into Afghanistan.

It is a myth that global jihad began after the Soviet invasion; the Pakistanis had started funding jihadi groups years before that in Afghanistan. And the Soviets invaded partly to crush these jihadis. No country has done more to damage Afghan society than Pakistan; apart from the jihad menace, tribalism also increased sharply under Pakistani influence. Funding different groups and families, encouraging tribes to fight each other, has been the traditional Pakistani strategy to keep the Pashtuns down.

"Strategic depth" is simply code for "we will not allow an independent Afghanistan to exist."

[Malayappan]

DT quoting a 'private TV network' says it is Mohammed Haqqani. Another son? Looks like escalation to me..
Haqqani’s son among four killed in NWA drone strike

[Suppiah]

If attacks on Haqqani is true, Unkil is creating facts on ground that will force ISI's hand. As we all know there is privately, a HUGE trust deficit between Unkil and animals and Unkil has own intelligence setup thru Afghans and who knows, even India. By creating such facts, he must be hoping to convince al-qaeda that by relying on pakbarians they achieve nothing and convince Pakbarians that by playing this double game they are not going to get much ahead either..

[shiv]

No country has done more to damage Afghan society than Pakistan; apart from the jihad menace, tribalism also increased sharply under Pakistani influence. Funding different groups and families, encouraging tribes to fight each other, has been the traditional Pakistani strategy to keep the Pashtuns down.

"Strategic depth" is simply code for "we will not allow an independent Afghanistan to exist."

Airavat - Pakistan has existed only for 60 odd years, while Afghanistan and Pashtun society have been around for centuries. Don't you think that Pakistani actions in the area are exact copies of the methods used by colonial forces all over the world in an earlier era - a skill that was passed from Britain to the US and from the US to Pakistan?

While it is tempting to blame Pakistan, I am somewhat in agreement with the egregious Pakis that the US has a role in this and the US role must not be forgotten by history in our anxiety to pin down Pakistan. It is another matter that we cannot do anything to bring accountability from the US even as we thrash about helplessly imagining that we can get accountability from Pakis.

I find it an ironic joke that we call ourselves slaves on here while we pompously forget how far down the ladder of slavery we actually are (as Indians). It is laughable to see people complaining that 90.000 POWs were not punished as per convention (as great white man did to Germans). Given the level that India occupies in the scheme of things in this world today, it is easy to follow the graph back in time to 1971 to see where India stood then relative to Pakistan. With the US at the top of the international heap, and Pakistanis being their trusted slaves - India did not have the chance of a fart in a hurricane to do anything worthwhile to Pakistan or its 90,000 fathers of todays Bangladeshis.

India's choices are stark. Either bandwagon with the US and get things done as per the US's requirements or show some independence and get kicked. We complain when we get kicked. We complain when we bandwagon with the US. When we get kicked we blame Pakistan, and not the US (which has a role). When we bandwagon with th US we call the government "slaves" and act as if we are somehow superior and independent thinking. That is itself mental slavery of a type.

Complaining is the only realistic thing we can achieve as long as we are unable to read reality.

[shyamd]

We need to start monitoring statements on Af-Pak from KSA. THey are doing all unkils work from behind the scenes. It was apparently Turki Al Faisal, who asked TSP to have a chat with Taleban in 2008, after which Mullah Omar sent 3 guys to Makkah. Then some KSA officials went to NWFP to have a chat with some taleb officials apparently - no one senior though.

[Gus]

Pakis had this planned all along. They picked up an obscure statement from our army chief and cried "look look we r trying to help u and look what the cunning hindoos are doing. Reign them in" and clueless (and even those who know paki perfidy only look to use it stour cost) USAmerican officials put pressure on India for talks with no concessions and our completely clueless netalog went along with it probably based on American assurances that there won't be any Mumbai style attacks. Pune is fine though.

Our current policymakers don't have a strategy or plan or a clue on what to do w r to pak. We just react to attacks by making inane statements to Indian public and moan to unkil.

[shiv]

Saudis are the prostitutes of the wealthy. I believe that what is called "Islamic fundamentalism" in the world today is only partly Islam. A large part is anger among Muslims about how low their ummah has sunk - with the self proclaimed foremost protectors of Islamic holy places being the whores of the West and Pakistan being their whores in turn.

The biggest leaders of Islam today are all licking the ass of some western entity or the other and I am certain this is causing some pain in Islamic circles. Any opposition to licking ass is called Islamophobia. Naturally - the US loves it. Wouldn't you love it if your harem of whores defended you with her life and religion?

[Muppalla]

US and UK forced India to talk to Pak

Very blunt and I am surprised that he came out and gave such a detailed interview.

[Airavat]

Airavat - Pakistan has existed only for 60 odd years, while Afghanistan and Pashtun society have been around for centuries.

Pashtun society has been around for centuries but Afghanistan has it's roots late in the 18th century. It is the remains of Ahmad Shah Abdali's kingdom. By the way Pakistan also claim to have existed for "centuries" as you well know .

Don't you think that Pakistani actions in the area are exact copies of the methods used by colonial forces all over the world in an earlier era - a skill that was passed from Britain to the US and from the US to Pakistan?

Pakistani actions of jihad copied from Britain and the US?

Britain gets the blame for creating Pakistan, but not radicalizing Pashtun society. Britain was ambivalent on Pashtun nationalism till WWII; they were thinking of creating a tribal state instead of Pakistan, but ultimately threw in their lot with the upper caste Muslims of India in the shape of the Muslim League.

Britain also gets credit for attempting to modernize parts of Pashtunistan, the so-called settled areas of the Frontier today. Their modernization project was not only discontinued by Pakistani strategists, but even reversed with the introduction of jihad. These people have also intensified tribal/family clashes in Afghanistan as a means of keeping the Pashtuns under control.

This is why Pakistan is the most hated country in Afghanistan.

[ramana]

SSridhar we should put your charts on Abdur Rehman and formation of modern Afghanistan. Sorry for being tardy.

[shiv]

How can India punish Pakistan?

What does "punishing Pakistan" mean?

Not talking is not punishment. When we talk of punishment someone must feel pain in Pakistan. So who must feel pain? After all there are 165 million Pakis but we should ideally aim punishment at those who cause the most pain to us. Perhaps your guess may be as good as mine, but my guess is that the Pakistani army and the jihadi groups of Pakistan need to have their leaders targeted. i will leave out the details because even thinking of those details how how they can be hit gives my joy.
But what happens when we hit them?

Their ability to hit back at us, be it by F-16s, Howitzers, Special Forces or nuclear weapons have all been acquired courtesy of the US. Imagine if we could neutralise the US and tell them to keep off, how long would Pakistani forces survive?

But we cannot neutralise the US. They will not keep off. So what are we to do? Do we beg the US? Yes I believe begging the US is one possibility. But all Indians are not agreed on begging the US. Any Indian who begs the US is called a traitor, sometimes by he very people who make their living by being paid by employment in the US or by US entities. When the US pays me and employs me, I should know better than anyone else how bad and selfish the US is and therefore I am the most powerful opponent of begging the US and I will advise everyone who is not already dependent on the US to avoid dependence on the US.

This is fine and dandy. But if Indians do not beg or bandwagon with the US, action against Pakistan is just not possible. Even economic growth is hugely dependent on the US which offers the largest economy which must be tapped if possible. But anything India does to align with the US is opposed as slavery and kowtowing to the US. Half the opponents of this are commies, and the other half are capitalists.

So India must not align with the US and India must fight and punish Pakistan. The US on its part is supporting the very entity that is totally anti-India and most dangerous to India - the Paki army and the Paki army in turn maintains and funds the jihadi groups. And the US is still splitting hairs about which jihadis can survive.

Under the circumstances would it not be right to say that fighting Pakistan is a bogey? A red herring. By fighting Pakistan - India is fighting a US stooge and the US gains as India expends itself. However we also say that by not fighting Pakistan we are kowtowing to the US. A classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't for India.

As long as the Pakistani army is a firm US ally there is bugger-all that India can do. No change in that situation from 1971.

So what leeway does India have. The only leeway that India has is to try and erode the support base of the Pakistani army in Pakistan. There is a powerful anti US constituency in Pakistan. They get nothing from the US in tangible terms although they get echandee as their army gets powerful. I am not sure if Aman ki asses is the right way but India's situation is such that we have to get some Pakis on our side and not allow the Paki army to keep Pakis on their side while they lick an adoring US's ass.

I believe we need to start looking at realistic options for India given that
1) The US does not give a sh1t about India's concerns
2) The US is in it up to here
3) India cannot defeat the US directly and cannot therefore defeat the US's stooge - the Paki army, which continues to survive after defeats courtesy Unkil

[shiv]

Pakistani actions of jihad copied from Britain and the US?

No Sir. Not funny. I quote you

Funding different groups and families, encouraging tribes to fight each other, has been the traditional Pakistani strategy to keep the Pashtuns down.

These are the very methods used by colonialists and later the US. And by Pakistan as per your statement. Jihad is the red herring here.

[vera_k]

I would not use as strong a word as "punishing" Pakistan. What India needs is the ability to carry out targetted strikes on the non-state actors in Pakistan while simultaneously deterring retaliatory strikes from the Pakistani state on India.