Managing Pakistan's failure

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

shiv ji,
only the ultimate objective is clear and determined. On the way to the objective, we can make alliances and eneimes as we wish. But if we are making temporary alliances, that does not mean we will not make enemies out of them in the future - if we do not want them in our ultimate objective.

But at the same time I will not make friends with someone merely because I find it temporarily useful, but will also calculate whether that will make it more difficult for me to make an enemy out of the current ally - in the future, targeted for elimination.

I have a very clear goal: complete and lasting elimination of the regime and state-like structure that occupies the current region called Pakistan. Everything else is subsidiary. I would rather not go into a detailed discussion of the military side of things. If people have inflated images of the TSPA and the role of the USA in further inflating that image - good for me. History moves in mysterious ways. Perhaps it is better that the most prolific voices do not grasp that mystery and thereby throw in spanners in the works or alert those who should be allowed to sleep in their confidence.

I can see you are worried about the destructive capacity being enhanced by USA. I am worried too, but based on a rather cold-blooded calculation. It will not be as bad as you think. But of course I am not a military commander and hence cannot assure you in any way. There are too many gaps in the projections of both USA and TSPA in terms of protecting the state and the regime. It is not merely a matter of arms or nukes. Let us just stop at that, if we may? We need alliances and deceptions to pull it off. But it can be and will be done. Meanwhile let us all publicly tremble at the prospect of an invincible and ever-causing-pain TSPA.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ShauryaT »

B Ji: With due respect, nothing we write on these boards has any impact on any plans of any government anywhere. All it does is contribute to the public discourse. So, if you have something in mind, will ask you to clearly say it. After all this is only one forum and one outlet and opinions of a poster(s) here cannot be attributed to the forum as a whole. It is individuals for themselves, with some agreeing and some disagreeing. If you have a cold blooded calculation, then spell it out. No kids on the forum, who cannot read about blood being spilt.

If you have a goal, of complete and lasting elimination of TSP - then I for one would like to know the details, especially as it relates to policies (in all its dimensions) and as it relates to a time and space context of current realities and not just wishes expressed without timeframes or any context with likely realities. What I am saying is, I for one would like to know your version of the details around such a goal.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Iran vs. Baluchistan Trade-Off

X-Posting from 'India-US Strategic News and Discussion' Thread

Altair
Altair wrote:
Altair wrote:Is India giving a cold shoulder to US?
Jhujar wrote:No, SD is showing contempt for Indians and expect them to jump at the command, unmindful of the economic harakiri . India cant afford to loose both Iran and Afghanistan at the same time when Munna is being rewarded with lethal toys.
Let me re-phrase the question. To what extent can India repel US pressure regarding Iran?
Options:
We will agree in principle that we will negotiate cutting Iran oil import if US cuts all military-military ties with Pakistan effective immediately.
We will cut down 10% of current oil import from Iran if US declares Pakistan Terrorist State effective immediately.
We will cut down 25% if you level Rawalpindi etc...
This is how I start negotiating terms with Americans. If interested they will come to table or India will increase oil import from Iran 5% every month as they do have surplus from stopped exports to EU.
Lets see who can afford to play the bluff game.
RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:It is a no-brainer trade-off. India will ditch Iran if USA delivers on Baluchi Partition from Pakistan!
Carl
Carl wrote:Is it that simple? After all the sunk costs in Iran. Control of an Afghan-CA corridor without Iranian co-operation is possible?
RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:Carl ji,
.
I think USA can consider this option. It will benefit it too. Indian troops with Baloch help can secure Baluchistan.

What we would further need is a North-South Corridor through West Afghanistan (Herat). There the Pushtun population is less, the Aimaks and Tajiks are more. Iran has of course here considerable influence. But we could play the Shia-Sunni card to keep the Tajiks in our corner of the ring! In fact, we get a direct line to supply the Northern Alliance, bypassing Iranian veto over help to the Northern Alliance.

So for the military support to Northern Alliance, they help us secure Western Afghanistan as a open and free route between Baluchistan and Central Asian Republics.

So we can replace Iran with Baluchistan as a corridor into Afghanistan and to preserve our strategic interests there. But more importantly, it gives us access to Central Asian energy - Oil, Gas, Uranium!

And energy is one of the two big reasons why India is reluctant to dump Iran. If USA delivers Baluchistan, we can look after two of our main interests without resorting to help from Iran. So if USA wants us to cut off relations with Iran, US needs to ensure our national interests through alternative means - Baluchistan.

Even so, we don't need to dump Iran completely in exchange for US support in liberating Baluchistan, only for the time US is dealing with the Iranians problem.

But it is a US decision. Right now India would be very unwilling to cut off our ties with Iran.
venug
venug wrote:RajeshA garu,

That is a nice idea, Balochistan is also oil rich, not sure about how much oil can be extracted practically there or if it already being extracted. If oil is promised to us from Balochistan, it will be very viable plan for India to sever ties with Iran at least till Balohistan is free, then we can move again based on realignment of chess pieces.
shyamd
shyamd wrote:RajeshA ji/ Carl ji just to contribute to your discussion - latest news:

India ignores US, keeps Iran ties
Even as US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has gone public with a "blunt and intense" message to India to isolate Iran, New Delhi has continued with functional and transactional relationship with Tehran. :P

In its efforts to shore up peace efforts in Afghanistan, India has for
the first time used the Chabahar port to move 100,000 metric tonnes of wheat to Kabul.

Chabahar, in south Iran bordering Pakistan, is the port closest to and directly linked with Afghanistan. India's usual route to Kabul is the longer Zaranj-Delaram highway.


"We have had very intense and very blunt conversations with each of those countries (India, as well as China and Turkey) and I think that there are a number of steps that we are pointing out to them that we believe they can and should take," Clinton said on Tuesday.

The steps include reduced dependency on Iranian oil and isolation of Tehran for its alleged nuclear programme.

Notwithstanding American assertions, which were answered in equal terms by foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai during his US visit this month, India is taking practical steps to pay for Iranian oil without violating UN sanctions.

A Central Bank of Iran team is in Delhi to find a way out for crude oil payments from India. India buys $12 billion worth of crude from Iran but cannot make payments due to sanction on banks.

Since India, for strategic reasons, cannot afford to put all it eggs in the Saudi crude basket, it is sending an official trade delegation to Iran on March 10-14 to increase imports in non-sanctioned items to balance the oil payments.

In this context, India will increase wheat, rice and medicine exports to Iran so that it can pay for the Iranian oil in kind.

The Centre knows that despite sanctions, European countries are minting money supplying drugs to Iran. :P

New Delhi needs Tehran's ports, particularly Chahbahar, to reach out to Afghanistan and Central Asia as the US has never put pressure on Pakistan to provide the Wagah-Khyber axis for its goods. :P
RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:venug ji,

There will be many Congressmen and Administration officials in the coming days who will be playing up India's uncooperative behavior. We Indians should write to them, explaining this trade-off, and showing them how beneficial it would be for USA also in the long run.
Jhujar
Jhujar wrote:Cuting Balochistan off from Poaq playboard also effect China , a major plus for USA. Once the proposal is seriously considred , Poaq will become 70% Yateem as Massa China is very cold, cruel and calculative in abusing the lowly servants. The Baloch alternative should also be offered to Saudi and Gulf states as part of Shia Sunni equation. More Indian economic weight grows , more the Poaq become irrelevant for all these Chodhries of Poaqland. Ideally, we should be able to feed many small and big players and simultaneously starve the litle Poaqlets.
Carl
Carl wrote:RajeshA ji and others,

I think if that were a route to take, then Iran's wings would first have to be clipped a lot before it can simply be ignored in a Baluch solution. Bahrain would have to move firmly into the Saudi sphere. Iranian states of East and West Azerbaijan would have to secede, and Iran would have to lose its control over the Kurdish movement. Only then can India afford to ignore Iran in its north-south Baluch-Afghan-CA corridor. This looks quite unlikely in the near future. Besides, we cannot ignore tha multiple other potential benefits of the Persian ally for Indian outreach into CA and ME, and India's vision for creating a multipolar order in the longer term.

Moreover, right now the Iranians are engaging very aggressively with China, and so is TSP. Iran's markets are flooded with cheap Chinese products, such that it has become the subject of common jokes in that country over the past few months. there is no doubt that the regime there is ingratiating itself with the Chinese. So there is no doubt that a Baluch-Afghan corridor - even assuming the Afghan Tajiks co-operate - will not succumb to a strategic squeeze from either side.

So I think we cannot see the Baluchi issue in isolation from India's wider multipolar vision. We need to create strategic space for the Baluchi cause by working closely with Russia (which will control the northern end of that corridor) as well as Iran. Russia and Iran already work together on Armenia vis a vis Azerbaijan, so that same common work can be replicated in Afghanistan, at the cost of China-TSP-US. In the meantime, if the US-Turkey-GCC manage to crush Iran's ambitions on its Western flank, it will be good for us, and Iran will turn East and North-East.

Therefore, India should not see the Baluch issue as if only the US can facilitate it. Rather, we have to get Iran and Russia also involved, while we reassure the US in other ways. But if we antagonize Russia + China + Iran, then we will find ourselves isolated, at the mercy of US pleasure, and multipolar world order vision in the trash can. JMT.
venug
venug wrote:Carl ji, that means we need to have the cake and eat it too. This also means as your said, Balochistan needs to be freed not at the cost of Iran, because if your analysis is right, too many pieces have to be moved for us to move in that direction. And more over why should we be even worry about US blessings? it ain't going to be easy with/without US for sure, if it unilaterally wants to break away Balochistan, we must support US, and Iranians need to be taken into confidence that Iranian side of Balochistan wont be disturbed. China might not favour any moves to break it away from TSP, Russia and Iran might join hands.

Since one of the objectives of PRC to prop up TSP is to tie down India, it will lose the advantage if it supports India/Iran/Russian involvement. Sure it might benefit financially if Balochistan can trade with it freely, but that is an assumption. Not sure PRC would play ball with us on Balochistan.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Carl ji,

I've often advocated that we should support any policy which tries to cut off Iran's wings - Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Khuzestan, Sistan-Baluchestan, etc. It would make Iran a much smaller country, which can be brought into an Indian orbit.

I've also advocated that we Indians should not start any 'panga' with Iran. We should continue to treat them as civilizational 'brothers', though they understand that terms in very different way than we do. Memories in the region are long, and Indian involvement in any punishment on Iran would not be looked on in favorable light by a nation we want to make our future allies.

As far as freedom for Pakistani Baluchistan is concerned, we will get only strong opposition from Iran. It isn't really much use trying to tell them that freedom for Pakistani Baluchistan would not affect them. Of course it would affect them. It breaks their duopoly with Pakistan on Central Asian access. Although Iran would not become irrelevant to the Central Asia, it would allow many other powers to bypass Iranian interests and vetoes on Central Asian issues. It would break their contiguity with Pakistan, a land over which the Iranians theoretically hold deep cultural influence, and thus some political influence.

So it is no use trying to bring Iran on board any program concerning political changes in Pakistani Baluchistan. The only powers which could have vital interests in seeing the Independence of Baluchistan is India, USA and Russia. Even Saudi Arabia and Oman could consider this as favorable. Iran, China and of course Pakistan would be dead-set against any such changes. Lines are clear on this, and there is no use beating about the bush, postponing Baluchi freedom out of consideration for Iranian interests and approval.

I personally don't think that we need wait for Iran to become much leaner before we strike at Baluchistan. Freedom for Iranian Azerbaijan, Iranian Kurdistan, Khuzestan, etc. are work in progress and would take their time.

I think we can bring USA, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Russia on board this project of Baluchistan's freedom (or accession to the Union of India).

Saudis can be enticed by the set-back it would cause to their Shi'a bête noire, Iran. It would separate Iran from Pakistan enabling Saudi Arabia to pull Pakistan exclusively into its own orbit, making them a mercenary force for the protection of the Royal Household.

Russia can be enticed by enabling Russians to sell its Oil, Gas and other Minerals to the markets in India. Russians too would be able to build their Gas Pipelines all the way to the Indian Ocean, being able to sell their energy much more efficiently to the Indian Ocean Rim countries.

USA can be enticed with having a land and air supply line into Central Asia. Moreover if Russia sells its Oil & Gas to India, less of its Gas would be supplied to Europe making Europe somewhat less dependent on Russian Energy, something USA would see as positive.

Oman will be able to renew its ethnic and cultural relations with Baluchistan, and would come in stone's throw distance to a major ally - India, to which it too can sell energy through pipelines passing through Baluchistan.

India need not have a fight with Iran over Western Afghanistan. We can agree to cooperate there. Moreover Iran would also be interested in selling us their energy. Through Baluchistan in Indian hands, it would become much more easy. Even Iran would be able to find a silver lining in the clouds.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

ShauryaT wrote:B Ji: With due respect, nothing we write on these boards has any impact on any plans of any government anywhere. All it does is contribute to the public discourse. So, if you have something in mind, will ask you to clearly say it. After all this is only one forum and one outlet and opinions of a poster(s) here cannot be attributed to the forum as a whole. It is individuals for themselves, with some agreeing and some disagreeing. If you have a cold blooded calculation, then spell it out. No kids on the forum, who cannot read about blood being spilt.

If you have a goal, of complete and lasting elimination of TSP - then I for one would like to know the details, especially as it relates to policies (in all its dimensions) and as it relates to a time and space context of current realities and not just wishes expressed without timeframes or any context with likely realities. What I am saying is, I for one would like to know your version of the details around such a goal.
I am not so sure that it does not have an impact. It may have a negative impact, as I have known data points discussed here being used against issues close to our desires.
This goes into discussing TSPA positioning of resources, the realites of Paki mobilization, deceiving PRC and the "west", the utility or otherwise of Paki nukes, and internal "provocations" to be organized. It does appear that our intel do a lot of web-combing, and the strategy of inventing a saffron terror could have been inspired from what we ourselves have written about the need to deceive Paki/Islamists using kaffir "agents" feigning support and even helping them carry out spectaculars.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

RajeshA ji,

India already has sunk costs in building Iranian infrastructure, and continues to push in that direction. These infrastucture developments actually consolidates Iran's connectivity and influence in Afghanistan:

Undeterred India for moving ahead with Iran
Notwithstanding the U.S. pressure to scale down its engagement with Iran, official sources here said the country not only remains an important source of oil for India, but is crucial to opening up routes to Central Asian and Caucasian countries, where New Delhi's quest for hydrocarbons and minerals is gathering critical mass.

“We recognise that Iran is the key to connecting with Central Asia,” said the sources while referring to a major meeting last month on a proposed Russia-Iran-India promoted North-South corridor that would originate from Bandar Abbas leading to Russia and other countries via the Caspian Sea.

India has “taken the lead” and is “pushing hard” to put the missing rail links in place so that a seamless route from Bandar Abbas port to Russia and Central Asia opens up by next year by when the customs union of Russia-Kazakhstan-Byelorussia would have expanded to include other Eurasian countries.

Customs procedures

Besides the three original signatories, over 15 countries have joined the north-south project. In addition to putting in place missing railways links of about 200 km, all the sides will have to harmonise their customs procedures to make the endeavour workable. Currently Indian goods enter Russia through the Baltic ports of St. Petersburg and Kotka, the European port of Rotterdam and the Ukrainian ports of Illychevsk and Odessa.

Iran, said the sources, was also critical to stabilising Afghanistan as part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) grouping after the NATO forces scale down their operations in 2014. Nearly all the countries surrounding Afghanistan are either members or observers to the SCO and they said, “we take it [the SCO] as an important platform to discuss the post-2014 situation in Afghanistan.”

India is also closely following the development of another route into Central Asia via Iran and Afghanistan into Uzbekistan. Currently a portion of the route (part of the the Northern Distribution Network) — from Termez in Uzbekistan to Mazar-e-Sharif — is used by the NATO to transfer non-lethal supplies for its forces to Afghanistan.

Alternative route

A western spur from Mazar to Herat would go to Delaram, follow an India-built road till the Iran border and, if the missing rail link is constructed, will connect to the Iranian port of Chabar. India is also interested in another alternative route that would go from Mazar to Iran's Sangan and Kerman cities and ending at Bandar Abbas port.

Both these routes bypass Pakistan and the insurgency-hit southern Afghanistan, while giving it access to Central Asia. In both cases as well as the North-South route, India will have to ship its goods to the Iranian ports and then transport them by land into Afghanistan and Central Asian countries in the north and the east.

However, the sources admitted that the intense U.S. pressure has put the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline on the back burner for the moment. While not involving Iran, a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan's South Yolotan gas pipeline to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India is making rapid progress. But Iran remains central in plans to source gas and oil from Central Asia, where political goodwill for India has resulted in allocation of the Satpayev oil block in Kazakhstan despite intense interest shown by China. India is also discussing the sourcing of gas from Uzbekistan's Karakalpakstan region with talks having gathered pace during its President Islam Karimov's visit last year.
Also, there are some indications from Iranians that, as long as their province of Sistan-Baluchistan is not threatened, they will remain neutral about the developments in Pak-occupied Baluchistan. If this is true, then it opens up spaces for more aggressive Indian involvement there. Iran will not become irrelevant if Baluchistan opens up, because it will still have leverage in the area.

Northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan need to be cultivated as an alternative Iranic block - emphasizing different civilizational iterations of Iranic history that are at odds with what the Tehran regime wants to emphasize. This will add to the pressure on the regime and its ideology, and could cause some tectonic shifts. This is a point for further discussion in another thread perhaps.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Carl ji,

we can view our investments from the following perspective.
1) If the GCC-USA-Israel bloc make a move against Iran and exploit the Iranian Baluchi Sunni discontent with Teheran to also "liberate" Sistan-Baluchestan province from Iranian grip, then all the infrastructure we have built becomes part of a freed Sistan-Baluchestan Province, which can consider joining with former Pakistan Baluchistan. I think, Pakistan Baluchistan should be part of India, because only India can guarantee continued Baluchistan integrity from hostile neighbors - Pushtuns, Pakjabis, Iranians. In this case, Iranian Baluchestan too would become part of India, and India would stretch almost to the mouth of Hormuz Straits. The GCC-USA-Israel alliance may just be interested in cutting down Iran to size and may not object to India taking over the area, especially as it would ensure that Iran doesn't get it back, once it is part of India, secured by Indian forces. In this case, all our current investment eventually ends up with us, in our hands.

2) If the GCC-USA-Israel combo do not "liberate" Sistan-Baluchestan, then there is still the possibility that Iran becomes a hostile neighbor to India, as India sits in Baluchistan (formerly part of Pakistan). If such a relationship should develop, then India may decide to play the Baluchistan card herself and give military help to Baluchestan rebels and walk in on our own. This could even have the support of GCC-USA-Israel. In this case, also all the investments we have made in the region, end up being part of India.

3) If Iran however turns out to be a good neighbor, outside of Chinese influence, India and Iran can work to calm down the passions of Iranian Baluchis, allowing them increased integration with Baluchis on the Indian side. In this case, Baluchistan can become an economically integrated region with sufficient infrastructure. This then can help India and Iran to integrate our two economies with each other. In that case there would be even more infrastructure build up in the Baluchistan region, with express highways, Oil & Gas pipelines, high-speed rail, ports, etc. Even if the infrastructure in this case is on the other side of the border, it would still help India economically. Increased connectivity would not harm us.

So if India sits in Baluchistan, and whichever scenario comes true in Iranian Sistan-Baluchestan Province, it does not really harm India.

We have to start thinking positively about Baluchistan being an integral part of India, in order to better appreciate what our investments in Iranian Sistan-Baluchestan means for us..
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by member_22872 »

Rajesh ji,

I have a feeling that getting Balochistan to be our integral part is not going to be that easy. It is true that Balochistan is geographically nearer to us, but then Balochis want to be independent, they would perhaps welcome Indian involvement, but that's it, they may fight any power which wants to sit there, that means, insurgency from the western borders to our annoyance. Secondly Balochistan being resource rich, PRC would support tooth and nail and with the help of TSP would crush any insurgency, it is going to be bloody. US too would want a piece of Balochistan, why will PRC/US gift it to India just because we are closer? with that logic even Afg is closer, but we are not even invited to the party there, of course US doesn't want to upset TSP's feelings, but when it comes to Balochistan, US can play dirty, I doubt PRC/TSP/US combo will make our job easy. Where ever there are resources, there is going to be blood, well lots of it.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by member_22872 »

Already US talks about regional balance crap. With India instigating Balochi unrest, with Balochis willing to be Indian Union for argument sake or at least willing to be nice to Indian interests, for US, this is not something it can let it go. With India already trading with Iran in spite of US's objections, how do you think it will perceive India/Iran/Balochistan union? I don't think it will let India have it's way. it will throw it's weight around, I am sure it will supply TSP more arms, not that it isn't doing now, but will turn a blind eye when TSP bombs Balochistan to stone age, when it obliterates Balochi leaders, US would not even say a word. Getting past the US means having a strong resolve on our side and the ability to check mate Unkil's plans of helping TSP, right now we are not even voicing our concerns to unkil regarding arming TSP, leave alone check mating unkil's plans. So long long way to go, and time is not on Balochis' side.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote: I have a very clear goal: complete and lasting elimination of the regime and state-like structure that occupies the current region called Pakistan. Everything else is subsidiary.
This is the pillar on which Pakistan has survived, in many ways.

Of course, Pakistanis are not referring to you personally but have frequently stated that "india has not accepted Pakistan" and that "India does not want Pakistan to survive". Pakistani policy of unifying its diverse groups has revolved around the "India threat" and the "Threat to Islam and Muslims". That threat has demanded "sacrifices" from Pakistanis wherein the army has taken 25% of the budget for most of Pakistan's existence. While this has made the army rich, it has made it powerful as well. Powerful against internal opponents of the Army in Pakistan of any political or religious hue.

The "India threat" is also used for foreign aid. Scores of articles from foreign commentators in Pakistan speak of "fear" of India expressed in Pakistan. On BRF Pakistan observers frequently point out that this "fear" is contrived. Of course it is contrived. Indians are not required to believe it, as long as the foreign aid giver understands that health care programs cannot be funded because of the "india threat" or that loans cannot be repaid because of the India threat. Floods and droughts occur because of Indian perfidy. The "India threat" looms, or is made to loom large inside Pakistan.

If any Indian were to say about Pakistan as you did, that your goal is elimination of Pakistan, that would be the oldest and most well known information to any Pakistani. Pakistan has been preparing to fight India for decades because the India threat is well known to them. They expect Indians to be anti-Pakistan. Their (abomi)-nation is built on the edifice of surviving with a "hostile India" next door.

Does a threat to Pakistan exist from India or is it contrived/cooked up by Pakistanis? What do you think?

I used to think that the "India threat" to Pakistan is fake/contrived. But I think I was wrong. India is an existential threat to Pakistan and India is not going away soon. Quite apart from an India military capability that can threaten Pakistan there is a sizeable body of Indians who do not feel goodwill towards Pakistan and would quite happily be willing to see Pakistan punished for its support to terrorists and criminals and Pakistan's general state of being such a bullshit country full of bigoted Islamic racists. India and Indians actually do not have much goodwill for Pakistan. Not many Indians, and that includes me, really give a flying fuk for that country. If you leave out the peaceniks (who feel as threatened by Indians as Pakis do) the "mango Indian", the aam aadmi has enough issues of his own to waste time sympathising with Pakistan.

So the idea that "Indians do not want Pakistan to survive" is perfectly true and Pakistanis know that well. There is a dispute here and the US and Chinese too can see and hear the dispute loud and clear. No matter what the Indian government says officially, the fact that India poses a threat to Pakistan is something that is easy to believe for any meddling foreign nation.

In the 1960s a nation like the USA did not think that turd world nations like India and Pakistan were very significant. Disputes and wars could be fought, one could invade the other or break up the other and all that was par for the course. The US had no way of knowing if India would survive or Pakistan would survive. Any well informed man who was 60 years old in 1960 would know that nations and wars would come and go an borders could change. For various reasons the USA chose Pakistan - not least because Pakistan was offered (by Paki leaders) to the USA as an ally when Indian's non alignment was accused of being a cover for support to the USSR. The US has actually seen and "felt" a Pakistan that seemed like and Asian Tiger - expected to be an economic miracle in the 1960s (with US aid) sink to a broken country in 1971. If i were to sit in moral judgement of the USA, I would say that he USA cynically sat back and said "Balls to Pakistan" just as they might have said "balls to India" in 1971.

The US was not in the business of advising Pakistan what was good. The US was in the business of using whoever they got as allies for their own benefit. The USA that supported a disastrous Yahya regime that oversaw the break up of Pakistan in 1971 jumped right in and pumped that army regime full of money and arms 8 years later when the Soviets entered Afghanistan. The US rightly recognized that the Islamic revivalism that Zia ul Haq was creating in Pakistan to recover a fractured post 1971 Pakistan was a perfect tool to fight the Godless Soviets. The eternally brainless martial mussalman could be coopted to die for a few crumbs and 72 virgins in paradise. The US coopted the ISI and taught them about covert warfare (that the Brits had used in Arabia and the US in South America). They funded them and printed the jihad textbooks that were fed to the "students" - the Taliban. And in this period - Pakistan was fed with the most juicy arms and equipment that any country could dream of. But that all ended in 1989. The US dropped Pakis like a hot potato and walked out of Pakistan.

So while we may not like Pakistanis, many Pakis are right on two counts
1. There is an India threat
2. The US has "used" Pakistan as and when it pleases.

Of course Pakistan was used because of the utter greed of its military leaders. That fact causes me and many indians no end of cheer. Stupid is as Paki does. Once a Paki, always a moron.

But still. India is a threat and the US has used Pakistan. Guess what? Even Hafiz Saeed is saying this.

In fact Islamist forces in Pakistan are gathering strength now. But as they oppose America, it is theoretically possible that Pakistanis could reassess their relationship with India. We need not be sympathetic to them, but the ball is very definitely in the Pakistan's court. Pakistanis - including the extremely rare species of "thinking Pakistani" in the brainless martial mussalman army will have to pick up their history textbooks and reassess what history tells them about the subcontinent rather than the fart they have been sniffing since 1947. Echoing what someone said in the Pakistan thread, this is a time when India actually has the option of doing nothing. It is another matter that India did nothing when something needed doing, but that is a digression.

Other than being willing to die, a gift that we could give with gladness to the jihadi mussalman, I don't think they are incapable of thinking. It is not only the Islamic jihadi who has long term thoughts about civilizations. Others do too.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

Yes because the existential threat stuff is well - known, that is the part I have no hesitation in saying openly. In fact whether we said it or not, whether we really had it or not - Paki leadership would always project such an existential threat from India. So if anyone cited the logic - that even for the purpose of disarming or relaxing the vigil by Pakis, we should make them believe that we are not an existential threat - that logic would be false.

Beyond that, yes a lot of common Pakis might be tempted to think otherwise towards India as part of a so-called common union against USA, if and onlee if, they no longer had the Paki brainwashing sturcture of the Dawaist+feudal+army controlling the Paki state.

With the Dawaists flourishing - there is no alternative idea in front of the common Pakistani. They have been kept away from education that might have empowered them to bypass their state and mullahcracy controls - and gain alternative perspectives. Preserving the Paki state has yielded its latest perpetuating element - a wide-ranging censorship of the web for Pakis. Pakistan is insulating itself increasingly from external ideas. Its elite and portions of its middle class are avidly supporting this insulation programme.

Every ideological input that you may try to put in -even the anti-USA campaign- will be filtered through the Dawaist network. Taqyia and Tawryia will be applied - to make you believe that they are really sympathetic and willing to turn a page : just as the majority of Muslim leadership successfully did in the Khilafat movement, and in the buildup to he partition, and a process that goes on in the border regions with Muslim contiguity on both sides - even now. But that page will never be turned as long as a single mullah remains to remind them of the divine sanction for lying to the non-Muslim with the eventual intention of getting the non-Muslim's land and their women if possible also after culling the males.

At the moment the Indian regime is dominated by a thinking that wants to quarantine the "Paki Muslim" inside Pakistan - and wants desperately to preserve the regime and the state. This should be drummed into Paki heads - to show that as long current dispensation in India continues - they have nothing to fear from India. Even more than the Paki leadership themselves - it is the dominant section of Indian opinion [by the decibel level of their voices] which desperately wants pak to continue.

Since this opinion wants Pak to be preserved, in turn this implies that this Indian opinion is therefore supporting Paki projection of India being the existential threat, and in turn this Indian opinion is virtually supporting the US "white Christian" intention to continue to arm the Pakis against India. Back to square one.

If the basic intention and drive to supply TSPA comes out of "white Christianity" - until either the "whiteness" or the "Christianity" goes - USA has no reason to stop supplying TSPA. So any Indian desire to protect and preserve Pakistan is equivalent to inviting USA to continue to support TSPA.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote: Since this opinion wants Pak to be preserved, in turn this implies that this Indian opinion is therefore supporting Paki projection of India being the existential threat, and in turn this Indian opinion is virtually supporting the US "white Christian" intention to continue to arm the Pakis against India. Back to square one.
No. It is saying exactly the opposite, but is lying. India is a threat but the loudmouthed opinions are trying to reassure Pakistan that it is not. Reassurances are of no use until India breaks up. Pakistanis know that regimes can change and will hardly be fooled by the "current dispensation". India will remain a threat to Pakis , but for me that does not mean that I will not do whatever I can to stop the US supply of arms. Even if it means reminding Pakis of how the US has used them.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

As far as I can tell, Pakistanis, or those in Pakistan who are in control and seek to perpetuate and preserve Pakistan have the following choices:

1. Continue to accept US aid which is conditional, continue to play second fiddle to US interests, but accept that because it helps them oppose India with the eventual goal of breaking up India

2. Continue to hate India, but make a break with the USA as well because of all the ways in which the US has used and insulted Pakistan. By choosing this route Pakistanis risk losing US support especially arms and money, and will have to look for alternate sources to continue their jihad against India even as they make a break from the US

3. Continue to hate India and kick the US out of Pakistan, but seek to strike a deal where the US continues to support Pakistan while Pakistani Islamists/Taliban control Afghanistan. This is a de facto return to the 1990 to 2001 period.

4. Have a total rethink that makes a break from the above 3 choices. Note that the only constant in the above 3 choices is hate of and opposition to India. Taqiyya with India is an option. They will have willing allies to welcome them in India.
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Altair »

RajeshA
There is significant area of Baluchistan under Iranian occupation also. Everyday Baluch people get butchered by Iranian security forces. But since the media in Iran is so tightly controlled news seldom gets out. Just yesterday Iranian security forces murdered protesting unarmed women demanding an end to Iranian occupation of Baluchistan. If we are to support Baluchistan overtly, Iran goes for a toss. Make no mistake about that.
Altair
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Iran vs. Baluchistan Trade-Off
Altair wrote:RajeshA
There is significant area of Baluchistan under Iranian occupation also. Everyday Baluch people get butchered by Iranian security forces. But since the media in Iran is so tightly controlled news seldom gets out. Just yesterday Iranian security forces murdered protesting unarmed women demanding an end to Iranian occupation of Baluchistan. If we are to support Baluchistan overtly, Iran goes for a toss. Make no mistake about that.
Altair
Altair ji,

1) There is one axiom I'm holding on to, and that is, that Baluchi Independence (Pakistan's Baluchistan Province) and integrity can only be guaranteed by one army only and that is the Indian Army.

Among all those countries, which may wish to see Baluchistan freed from Pakistan and exploitable for its connectivity to Central Asia or for its minerals or for using Baluchistan as a launching pad against Iran or for whatever purpose, they all must be knowing that they cannot secure Baluchistan from subversion and occupation by either the Pakjabis, the Pushtun or by the Iranians, unless it is through the use of Indian jawans! Only Indian Jawans can secure Baluchistan for all the above stated purposes. Otherwise Pakistan would walk right back in!

2) Today we see Syrian regime being undermined by GCC+Turkey+USA combine. There are several reasons, one being to dislodge Iran from the region and break the Shi'a crescent, which right now extends all the way to Israel and Mediterranean. The other reason is to provide Gulf energy to Europe through Syria and Turkey, something which helps US consolidate its interests in the Gulf as well as Europe.

I think a similar dynamic can be brought to bear in Baluchistan.

3) Let's consider Saudi interests for a moment. I don't know whether they are aware of them or whether they think they can do something about it, or whether they are already doing something there.

Let's consider Saudi control over Pakistan. We see that Wahhabism has spread into Pakistani society. The Saudis have been quite successful in that endeavor. But the question is: Have they been successful in pulling Pakistan strategically into their corner. No, they have not!

Why did Pakistan give Iran nuclear technology? It gave them the tech for two reasons:
  1. To coerce Saudi Arabia to look for a nuclear umbrella with Pakistan, thereby forcing Saudis to become both dependent on Pakistan for the Sunni Bomb, as well as to continue to support its nuclear program.
  2. To make Iran strong enough to resist any dismantlement of the state. This is important for Pakistan because Iran helps it preserve its duopoly in Central Asia! USA remains dependent on Pakistan for giving them access to Central Asia. What makes Pakistan's location of great geostrategic importance? Of course, it is 'Duopoly for Central Asian Access' and furthermore the fact that it has better relations with the West than Iran.
So even as Pakistani Establishment milks Saudi Arabia for money and for providing superficial security, Pakistan knows that it has strong convergence of strategic interests with Iran. Of course Pakistan is in competition in Iran regarding the nature of regime in Afghanistan, and Pakistan would do anything to ensure that its dog wins there. So both strategic alliance with Iran as well as competition with Iran would continue!

But at any given time, both Pakistan and Iran can come to a strategic understanding that they will close access to Central Asia under the blessings of PRC - Pakistan would not allow USA entry into Central Asia and Iran would not allow India any entry to the region.

Iran is at the moment allowing India entry into the region, simply because Iran doesn't mind India building all that infrastructure there, and as a means of persuading Pakistan to cut off US access as well. Iran is also doing its best to get Pakistan into an alliance with it. Iran is willing to provide Pakistan energy for free almost. Iran has agreed to build a gas pipeline to Pakistan and to provide Pakistan with gas. Considering that Pakistan hardly has any money to buy gas, the gas would be sold to Pakistan at extreme discounted rates.

Considering that China would want to see this Duopoly to become active, closing the Central Asia to the outside world, it is safe to presume that both USA and India would get the kick sooner or later. All three countries win! Pakistan would simply be satisfied with the assurance that India stays out and that it has its own regime in South and Southeast Afghanistan. Iran would be satisfied that USA is gone from Central Asia and that it need not fear USA on its Eastern flank, and that it can again exert its cultural influence over Western and Northern Afghanistan as well as Tajikistan. China would be happy that all of Central Asia is there only for the exploitation by it.

This is not something either India or US wants!

More interestingly it is also not something that Saudi Arabia would want! A Pakistan that has that level of strategic understanding with Iran, is of no use to Saudi Arabia.

So basically Iran is willing to dump India any time, provided Pakistan is willing to dump USA. This in fact is becoming a reality too! China is willing to grandfather such an understanding.

shiv saar has been saying repeatedly that we should incite Pakistan to kick out USA for one or the other reason, like White Christianism, etc. But the fact is, that the moment Pakistan closes itself to USA, India will lose Iran's services the very same day, and Central Asia would be slammed closed on us!

As long as Pakistan shares a border with Iran, it gives Pakistan the incentive to continue to preserve its 'Duopoly on Central Asian Access', and Iran gets to breast-feed Pakistan with free gas! That is definitely against Saudi interests and Saudi Arabia cannot trust Pakistan in its struggle with Shi'a Iran!

That is why India needs to build a coalition! We have to pull Saudi Arabia too into this coalition. Oman is already in. USA needs to be prodded.

3) Yes it is true that Iran would find itself threatened should (Pakistani) Baluchistan be freed (and decides to accede to India)! Its restive province of Sistan-Baluchestan too would be up in revolt. That is a given.

Would that be in the interest of any powers? That too would be in the interest of Saudi Arabia. The more Iran shrinks, the better would Saudi Arabia feel. The chances of Sistan-Baluchestan seceding from Iran are much greater once Pakistani Baluchistan manages to secede from Pakistan. Secession of Sistan-Baluchestan would mean Iran loses much of its coastline on the Indian Ocean.

It can happen then that Sistan-Baluchestan also decides to unite with Baluchistan, which already may have acceded to India, thus also acceding to India, bringing India all the way almost to the Straits of Hormuz. This has the added effect, that countries like Qatar, Oman, Emirates can now sell India gas through (almost) overland gas pipes, making all the Sheikhs even richer! Also India can better serve the security interests of the Sheikhs providing them with a second layer of protection.

With this discussion, I am trying to show that we could convince GCC that it is in their interest to see to it that Baluchistan is separated from Pakistan. It delivers to them both countries as allies - India AND Pakistan!

I don't know whether India should become an overt prominent sponsor of Baluchistani Independence, but I do know that we should influence both GCC and USA to try to separate Baluchistan from Pakistan. Also Russia needs to be brought on board.
member_20617
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by member_20617 »

RajeshAji

Let’s assume that Baluchistan becomes part of India. That still leaves Pakistan sandwiched between Baluchistan and India. Pakis would NOT allow any trade including oil/gas from Iran and potentially from Baluchistan. This would be their revenge!

However, if we can get the complete coastal region of Pakistan in our hands, in addition to Baluchistan, then we can achieve the following:
(1)Oil/gas from Iran and Baluchistan can freely flow into India
(2)Reduced Pakistan would become completely landlocked and would be at our mercy
(3)China’s plan of alternative supply route via PoK is completely thwarted. The Chinese would probably lose interest in PoK.
(4)We would have better access to Afghanistan and CAR, reducing our dependency on Iran

The downside is that we inherit Karachi and the associated massive problems.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Shankaraa ji,

Everything can only be done in stages. I've written quite a bit in this thread about various possibilities and options of separating Southern Sindh away from Pakistan.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

RajeshA wrote:Iran is at the moment allowing India entry into the region, simply because Iran doesn't mind India building all that infrastructure there, and as a means of persuading Pakistan to cut off US access as well. Iran is also doing its best to get Pakistan into an alliance with it. Iran is willing to provide Pakistan energy for free almost. Iran has agreed to build a gas pipeline to Pakistan and to provide Pakistan with gas. Considering that Pakistan hardly has any money to buy gas, the gas would be sold to Pakistan at extreme discounted rates.
Iran offers financial aid to build Pakistan pipeline
Tehran has agreed to provide Islamabad with US$250 million to help build a gas pipeline linking Pakistan to Iran against the wishes of the United States. That is half the amount cash-starved and energy deficient Pakistan was looking for. - Syed Fazl-e-Haider
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Altair »

RajeshA wrote: Altair ji,
1) There is one axiom I'm holding on to, and that is, that Baluchi Independence (Pakistan's Baluchistan Province) and integrity can only be guaranteed by one army only and that is the Indian Army.
I completely agree and I also posted about committing our armed forces for long term presence in Baluchistan. The current general feeling in the Army is "defend a two front war at home". Overseas deployment is completely ruled out atleast as of now. So, I stopped posting on the topic of Indian Armed intervention. GoI through MEA has its own plans for Baluchistan. I guess GoI is pulling the strings on Baluchistan in international scene.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Altair ji,

Indian Army posted in Baluchistan is part of two-front war doctrine! :) How is the Pakistani Army going to save themselves if the Indian Army moves from both East and West and bifurcates Pakistan in two, taking away Southern Sindh!

No Pakistani Army can attack India after that, if Indian soldiers are stationed both in Pakistan's East and West! The Pakistani Army would have to radically change its whole military policy towards India. No better way to keep Pakistan on good behavior.

Before 1971, Pakistan posed a danger to India from both East and West Pakistan. In 2021 India could pose danger to Pakistan from both East (mainland India) and West (Baluchistan) India.
GopiD
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 18 Jul 2011 14:57

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by GopiD »

shiv wrote:As far as I can tell, Pakistanis, or those in Pakistan who are in control and seek to perpetuate and preserve Pakistan have the following choices:

4. Have a total rethink that makes a break from the above 3 choices. Note that the only constant in the above 3 choices is hate of and opposition to India. Taqiyya with India is an option. They will have willing allies to welcome them in India.
Shivji........ I have been following the above set of posts and really interesting views from you and Brahaspathiji.... But I have a query...

If TSP has a total rethink, and as you propose, TSP chooses the Taqiyya with India option, how can we verify that this Taqiyya is not the same form of Taqiyya that TSP uses with US where it back stabs US after receiving so much financial, logistics, moral and weapons support from US for so long without which TSP couldn't have survived this long?

How can we be sure that TSP has had a TOTAL RETHINK and won't bite us in the future with all the vengeance after we prop it up with all the pappi jhappi, MFN and other economic aids etc. and make it much more stronger than what US has done?

Or isn't it better to take ques from TSP's history of habitual backstabbing, which as Brahaspathi-ji says, is ideological and genetical after 1000 years of brainwashing, and not fall for this nautanki of total rethink??

instead wouldn't it be better not to repeat our historical mistakes and finish off the devil once and for all when it is at it's weakest and when we have the chance??? ......

After all you are the proponent of the idea that following the US's footsteps is not the ideal choice always (and very rightly so)...... aren't we trying to emulate what US has done and failed with TSP? (maybe we won't supply weapons, but as US has strengthened the sword arm of TSP, wouldn't we be strengthening the other legs holding TSP together at our own peril??)

Just a thought........
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

GopiD wrote: If TSP has a total rethink, and as you propose, TSP chooses the Taqiyya with India option, how can we verify that this Taqiyya is not the same form of Taqiyya that TSP uses with US where it back stabs US after receiving so much financial, logistics, moral and weapons support from US for so long without which TSP couldn't have survived this long?

How can we be sure that TSP has had a TOTAL RETHINK and won't bite us in the future with all the vengeance after we prop it up with all the pappi jhappi, MFN and other economic aids etc. and make it much more stronger than what US has done?

Or isn't it better to take ques from TSP's history of habitual backstabbing, which as Brahaspathi-ji says, is ideological and genetical after 1000 years of brainwashing, and not fall for this nautanki of total rethink??

instead wouldn't it be better not to repeat our historical mistakes and finish off the devil once and for all when it is at it's weakest and when we have the chance??? ......
Taqqiya will be taqiyya only until demonstrated otherwise.

Things like "Trust but verify" don't work with Pakistan. It will have to be "Don't trust. Verify"

But let me cut the rhetoric. Not only is Pakistan militarily inferior to India (It will hurt us badly to attack them) but economically and culturally too things are weighed against Pakistan. India is bound to overwhelm Pakistan if any "serious" normalization of of relations were to occur. I will define "serious normalization" later because it cannot be one step but many incremental steps.

So Pakistan will be overshadowed by India in every sense. Pakistan can hurt India only by war/terrorism or violence. If you remove those options Pakistan will be overshadowed by India. Everyone know this. The people who propose to keep Pakistan an independent state also know this. Basically normalization of ties with India means "Pakistan" is finished as a "rival" to India/alternate India/Mughal India.

Who would benefit from "normalization"? This is the question that vexes everyone.
  • 1. I will start with the most problematic entity. The Islamists of Pakistan. The Islamists of Pakistan are in two camps. One is the pro-Pakistan army camp - the LeT/JuD, and the other are the real Moslems who realise that sharia is first needed in Pakistan itself. These people can work in several different ways. One is by taqiyya - where they accept normalization with India but work behind the scenes to subvert. The other would be by being in open opposition to any "normalization" with India. The latter attitude, taken by the LeT/JuD is easier to handle rather than by letting in pissful people who will set up oil droplets in India for 20 years and have a new "Direct Action day" in 2035. This basically means that any sort of "normalization" with Pakistan will have to come with open discussion in India of the role Islam will play. Islam can have no role. This will have to be a relationship between two "nation states". Indians citizens have a role here is laying open the role that Christianity from Europe as well as Islam have played in demonizing Indian religions and traditions.

    In short any "normalization" with Pakistan will have to leave the islam question pending. In many ways that might suit Pakistan and India if the goal is merely to have trade routes and pipelines. "Pure Islam" with no kafirs, shias, Ahmedis is the only pillar on which Pakistan can survive separate from India. That defines the "state" of Pakistan. If you remove that, the last pillar of Pakistan is gone, and the people who made Pakistan will resist having that pillar touched. As I see it if we forcefully attack that pillar - they will run to India's bigger enemies and rivals (USA/China) for help. So "bypassing" that pillar, or leaving the issue "pending" is an option that needs to be looked at in the short term.

    2. There is a second group of Pakistanis who are counted by Pakistanis as "moderate" and not "islamist" who would be against "normalization" with India. These are the people whose businesses and personal fortunes would be shut down by kissing up to India. This includes the Pakistan army as well. So this group would find allies among the Islamists.

    3. Would anyone in Pakistan benefit from "normalization" with India? This is the trump card. Most Pakistani citizens would benefit from trade with India. The entire goddam dysfunctional Pakistani state would benefit and here one must think what the hell India is going to get out of the "normalization" if fu*king Pakis are going to benefit in large numbers, especially if taqiyya doing Islamists set up shop in all corners of India preparing for jihad in 20 years. If you look at it in this way, this whole "normalization" business looks like a bad deal for india.
For India "normalization" with Pakistan is a kind of combination "Russian roulette plus Trillion dollar lottery". Unless India is cautious we could get more trouble from islamic Pakistan, but the rewards are high. What I am looking at is being undisputed Maharaja of the subcontinent with both the USA and China being sidelined, with India controlling and allowing their access to trade routes. It is the large powers who are our real rivals. Not Pukistan. Pukistan is a hurdle. And they know it.

The more Pakistan fails economically, militarily, socially, the more attractive the "normalization with India" will appear. What this means is that "Allowing Pakistan to stew in its own juices" cannot be an end in itself. It has to be a means to an end to eventually have trade routes and mineral resources and export routes to Africa, west and central Asia from India, and a free land route from Southern Africa to Singapore.

This is where the US and its "White Christian Imperialism" and arms supply comes into my calculus. To me it does not matter if the US is White, Christian or Imperialist. It is the US's greed, self interest and total lack of morality when it comes to Pakistan that is useful. I would love Pakistanis to understand that they have to cooperate with and be the slaves of the "White Christian Imperialists" (LOL) to get arms and money to hold back India. No one else comes anywhere close. Islamic Pakistanis, including the likes of Hafiz Saeed have two choices. One is to be slaves of USA. The other is to kick out USA and accept whatever comes after that. If this dilemma sets up an internal dispute in Pakistan, so be it. If it contributes to Pakistan's internal strife to know that India is laughing at the dilemma of the Great Mughal "Rulers of India" being slaves of the Christian world. So be it. Who cares? :lol: More strife is better.

Now a word about "serious normalization". For a start this has to be just no war, no terrorism, only trade. Nothing more. Even this sets up a dilemma in Pakistan, but if we do not offer to "make peace" we are making it easy for Pakistanis. We need to offer them this extra choice just to bring in one more factor that Pakis must wrestle with.

Finally I would not join any military campaigns in Baluchistan or Afghanistan. In each case we would need more oil and more imports of refuelling tankers, missiles etc from the usual culprits, putting our campaign at their mercy.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

X-Posting from "Baluchistan: The Story of Another Pakistan Military Genocide" Thread

Some resources on Baluch people and Baluchistan:

The Baluch: Video

The Baluch and The Brahui and Their Rebellions: Tribal Analysis Center

The Baloch Race
By M. Longworth Dames
London 1904

Murakhta Supreme!
• The Khan of Kalat in March 1946 deputed Samad Khan - a member of the All India Congress Commitee (AICC) - to plead Kalat's (the then Balochistan's) case with the Congress leadership.

• The interim Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru rejected Kalat's claims, presumably due to the party's general attitude to the princely states.

• Ghaus Baksh Bizenjo, president of the Kalat State National Party, went to Delhi and met Congress President Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.

• Azad argued that Kalat would never be able to survive as a sovereign, independent state and would have to ask for British protection.

• Such a demand, Azad said, would render the sovereignty of the subcontinent meaningless. This was why Indian help for Kalat was ruled out.

• Afterwards, an All India Radio (AIR) broadcast of March 27, 1948 reported a press conference by VP Menon, Secretary in the Ministry of States.

• Menon revealed that the Khan of Kalat was pressing India to accept Kalat's accession, but added that India would have nothing to do with it.

• The Khan was upset by this. He reportedly told Pakistan's President Muhammad Ali Jinnah to begin negotiations for Kalat's treaty of accession to Pakistan.

• The Cabinet minutes of that meeting, as well as Nehru's reply to a question on March 30, 1948, made it clear that Menon was misquoted. But the damage had already been done.
Man, :x because of one man, we lost
  • Tibet
  • Gilgit-Baltistan
  • Aksai-Chin
  • Baluchistan
  • 1962 War
:x :x :x :x :x :x :x
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Originally posted by Ravi Karumanchiri in 'Baluchistan: The Story of Another Pakistan Military Genocide' Thread
Posting in full because of relevance

Published on Mar 03, 2012
By Eddie Walsh
Should the US support an independent Balochistan?: Al Jazeera
A handful of US congressmen support creating an independent Balochistan, carved out of mostly Pakistani land.
Washington, DC - Over the last few months, a small faction of congressmen, minority Afghan groups, Baloch nationalists, and their supporters have laid out the framework for an alternative US policy approach for Southwest Asia.

This alternative policy centres on backing remnants of the Northern Alliance and Baloch insurgents, who seek to carve out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.

While supporters of this new approach are motivated by a variety of interests, they appear unified in their rejection of what they see as three cornerstones of the Obama administration's current regional policy approach: 1) Normalising relations with Pakistan's government and military; 2) Incorporating the Taliban into the current Afghan political system; 3) Overly accommodating an emerging Iran.

In one broad stroke, this new approach would attempt to advance US national interests by redrawing the political borders of Southwest Asia - contrary to the the sovereignty and territorial integrity of three existing states.

While its advocates clearly do not yet have broad support for their initiative, the campaign for an alternative Southwest Asian policy approach is maturing and garnering increased attention in Congress and beyond, especially as a result of three recent high-profile events: a Balochistan National Front strategy session in Berlin, a US congressional hearing on Balochistan, and the introduction of a Baloch self-determination bill before the US Congress.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, it's nevertheless critical to understand how this alternative policy approach framework has evolved over the past few months.

The 'Berlin Mandate' as a loose framework

In early January, a bipartisan congressional delegation, led by Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican-California), held a "strategy session" in Berlin with Afghan opposition leaders, including the country's former intelligence chief. The meeting addressed constitutional reforms that would make Afghanistan a federal system.

Meeting participants argued that vesting political and economic power in the provinces, instead of centralising power in Kabul, would protect the US' Northern Alliance allies from retribution at the hands of Pashtuns once the Taliban is fully reincorporated into the Afghan political system.

"Let's talk about creating a Balochistan in the southern part of Pakistan. They'll stop the IEDs and all of the weaponry coming into Afghanistan, and we got a shot to win over there."

By advancing these policies, the attendees portrayed the Taliban's incorporation into Afghanistan's political system as a greater risk than the threat posed to Afghanistan's territorial integrity by their alternative - which would risk the partition of "Afghanistan between the minority-dominated north and the Pashtun south". This clearly runs counter to the the interests of Hamid Karzai's government.

A few weeks later, Representative Louie Gohmert (Republican-Texas), a Berlin meeting attendee, added fuel to the fire by arguing in a video interview that the US should not just push for a new political system in Afghanistan but go further by rearming the Northern Alliance.

In the same breath, Gohmert provided one of the first definitive links between support for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and Baloch nationalists in Pakistan: "Let's talk about creating a Balochistan in the southern part of Pakistan. They'll stop the IEDs and all of the weaponry coming into Afghanistan, and we got a shot to win over there."

With these remarks, the two pillars of an alternative Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) policy approach were now set: To advance its interests, the US should support the carving out of an independent Baloch state and semi-autonomous Afghan territories - even if it undermined existing US partnerships with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In early February, Rohrabacher convened a public congressional hearing on Balochistan. While human rights violations in Pakistan's Balochistan province were discussed (per the agenda), the hearing also provided a forum to start a larger (and arguably off-topic) national dialogue on the viability of Southwest Asia's state borders.

As a result of the hearing, witnesses - including Ralph Peters and M Hossein Bor - were able to argue that the dismemberment of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan would serve the United States' long-term strategic interests. But, even more importantly, the hearing allowed the witnesses to inject their views into the larger debate on US foreign policy in Southwest Asia. This included Bor's controversial assertion (which was later censored in Pakistan) that supporting an independent Balochistan stretching from "the Strait of Hormuz to Karachi" would be a better policy approach than ongoing US efforts to counter the Iranian and Pakistani regimes.

Rohrabacher, Gohmert, and Representative Steve King (Republican-Iowa) followed up the hearing by introducing a new bill in Congress stating that the Baloch nation has a historic right to self-determination. With this action, the congressmen went from "familiarising themselves" with Balochistan to calling for Congress to recognise the Baloch nation's right to sovereign independence in roughly a week.

In many ways, this brought the "Berlin Mandate" full circle. In less than two months, a small group of congressmen, minority Afghan groups, Baloch nationalists, and their supporters had gone from voicing displeasure with the current Obama Administration's Af-Pak policy approach to advancing a revolutionary alternative policy approach that called for supporting the minority interests of the Northern Alliance and Baloch against the sovereign interests of Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan.

Reflecting upon this effort a few days after the bill was introduced, Rohrabacher confided to me in an on-the-record interview:

"There is a natural extension from the Berlin meeting with the Northern Alliance to the Balochistan bill. I have always stood for self-determination, but there are certain things that activate me to start pushing more on that philosophy. Clearly, the whole issue of the Taliban being reintegrated in Afghanistan and Pakistan, providing safe haven to terrorists like Bin Laden, are major factors.There is also my support for immediately withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. To do so, we need to have a major policy dialogue on what our policy is in Southwest Asia, how we properly transition out of Afghanistan, and what will be our ongoing relationship with Pakistan. Balochistan is clearly part of that debate."

Cross-linking with other congressional causes

While the introduction of the Baloch self-determination bill marks an important milestone for their cause, it is important to point out that there has been an equally big change in how "Berlin Mandate" supporters have advocated their cause. Over the last month, these supporters - particularly Baloch nationalists in the US diaspora - have increasingly sought to extend their cause beyond US foreign policy in the Af-Pak region. They appear to recognise the need to latch onto larger foreign policy issues as part of their efforts to garner mainstream support for their cause. Four of the most important include:

I. Punishing Pakistan for supporting terrorism and nuclear proliferation

Rohrabacher, Gohmert, and other key supporters of the alternative policy approach for Southwest Asia have been unabashed in overtly linking the need for policy alternatives to Pakistan's "betrayal of America's trust". It is even alleged that the Balochistan hearing was called specifically to "stick it to the Pakistanis" for their arrest of a reported key informant in the bin Laden operation. Even after widespread criticism for his past remarks against Pakistan, Rohrabacher does not shy away from his criticism: "Quite frankly, the Pakistani military and leaders that give safe haven to the mass murderer of Americans should not expect to be treated with respect."

Such rhetoric almost certainly will find a receptive audience in Congress - even among the many members who have never heard of Balochistan or know little about the Northern Alliance's struggles over the last year. For this reason, Peters pointed out to me recently as part of a yet unpublished post-hearing interview that the current high levels of anti-Pakistani sentiment in Congress probably provide the best opportunity that the Baloch may see to advance their cause.

II. Containing a rising China and an emerging Iran, and preventing Pakistan from achieving strategic depth

According to supporters, an independent Balochistan, "extending from Karachi to the Strait of Hormuz", would help to contain a rising China and an emerging Iran, provide a long-term security guarantee against China, Iran, and Pakistan emerging as maritime powers, and undermine the strengthening of strategic relationships between these three potential adversaries.

In an interview after the congressional hearing, Bor made this case:

"There are many interrelated issues at play. When one discusses Balochistan, you are discussing a way to contain China. You are also discussing economic relationships between Iran and Pakistan … If (the Chinese) build their port in Gwadar, they will have a land route from Western China to the Indian Ocean.

This is of strategic interest to the United States because Chinese ships would have a direct route to China and no longer have to transit past the Indian and American navies. It therefore is logical that Balochistan should be concerned as part of the larger shift to the Pacific announced by the Obama Administration. … (Separately,) Iran is an empire and they are using Baloch lands to try to become the dominant regional player. The Iranians are using the Strait of Hormuz as a choke-point for a huge percentage of the world's oil. They also are building a pipeline to Pakistan which violates UN sanctions. Such growing Iran-Pakistan cooperation is a major concern."

Other supporters have advanced similar arguments with respect to Afghan minority groups against the Pashtun-dominated central government. They assert that support for the autonomy or independence of the Northern Alliance serves as an insurance policy against Pakistan's military achieving strategic depth once the Taliban is fully integrated into Afghanistan's political system.

III. Providing the West with an opportunity to profit off of Southwest Asia's natural resources

Recognising "the tremendous deposits of oil, gas, and minerals" found within or made accessible through the Baloch and Northern Alliance territories, some supporters have argued that the West should advance the "Berlin Mandate" if for no other reason than self-serving economic interests.

They have asserted that an independent Balochistan and autonomous Northern Alliance territories would provide Western companies with valuable new economic opportunities, which could help offset the costs of two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and spur economic growth following the global economic downturn. They have also said that the West should do so to prevent potential strategic adversaries, including China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, from profiting off the natural resources of Central and Southwest Asia at their expense.

While Rohrabacher has called this "a bunch of leftist garbage from liberal professors", it must be said that his committee purposely selected a witness whose expertise lies in forging such partnerships in the Middle East region and who remains a vocal advocate for their consideration in the context of an independent Balochistan. Baloch nationalists clearly have started to reach out more aggressively to Western commercial interests on these grounds in recent months as well.

IV. Preventing gross human rights violations and providing post-colonial nations their right to self-determination

While members of Congress have long condemned the Taliban and the Pakistani government for human rights violations, supporters - particularly Baloch nationalists - have used novel approaches in recent months to win over members of Congress. They have increasingly restrained themselves from leading with the genocide argument. Recognising that this argument has failed to win over Congress in the past, they have instead turned to a more complex argument: that the Baloch, like the South Sudanese and numerous minority groups in the former Yugoslavia, have won their right to self-determination because Pakistan and Iran have failed to provide basic human rights protections. Pakistan and Iran have, they argue, thereby forgone their sovereignty over Baloch territories - regardless of historical precedent.

While few in Congress will support their cause on these grounds alone, Baloch nationalists acknowledge the moral power of the argument for members of Congress who may be seeking to justify their support for an oppressed group on other grounds. This argument could become a powerful advocacy tool for Baloch and Afghan minority interest supporters, especially when reaching out to congressmen serving on other minority group interest caucuses with their own claims to self-determination.

Eddie Walsh is a senior foreign correspondent who covers Africa and Asia-Pacific. He also serves as a non-resident fellow at Pacific Forum CSIS.
It is good that the Free Baloch Movement has got itself organized. They are going about this very intelligently, considering that they are tapping into those political dynamics of Washington DC, which allow a fast speed progress of a issue to prominence!
Last edited by RajeshA on 04 Mar 2012 13:30, edited 1 time in total.
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Altair »

RajeshA wrote:Altair ji,

Indian Army posted in Baluchistan is part of two-front war doctrine! :) How is the Pakistani Army going to save themselves if the Indian Army moves from both East and West and bifurcates Pakistan in two, taking away Southern Sindh!

No Pakistani Army can attack India after that, if Indian soldiers are stationed both in Pakistan's East and West! The Pakistani Army would have to radically change its whole military policy towards India. No better way to keep Pakistan on good behavior.

Before 1971, Pakistan posed a danger to India from both East and West Pakistan. In 2021 India could pose danger to Pakistan from both East (mainland India) and West (Baluchistan) India.
I agree but I am not a military guy. I have no idea why IA does not share the same idea. Perhaps we need to discuss this topic with military guy rather than discussing among us civilians. we are obviously missing something very very basic.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

Altair wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Altair ji,

Indian Army posted in Baluchistan is part of two-front war doctrine! :) How is the Pakistani Army going to save themselves if the Indian Army moves from both East and West and bifurcates Pakistan in two, taking away Southern Sindh!

No Pakistani Army can attack India after that, if Indian soldiers are stationed both in Pakistan's East and West! The Pakistani Army would have to radically change its whole military policy towards India. No better way to keep Pakistan on good behavior.

Before 1971, Pakistan posed a danger to India from both East and West Pakistan. In 2021 India could pose danger to Pakistan from both East (mainland India) and West (Baluchistan) India.
I agree but I am not a military guy. I have no idea why IA does not share the same idea. Perhaps we need to discuss this topic with military guy rather than discussing among us civilians. we are obviously missing something very very basic.
The issue is logistics. Fighting men require huge amounts of material, fuel and ammunition. That is ignoring the medical facilities for the wounded and the transport back for wounded. I think anything less than 100,000 Indian soldiers in Baluchistan backed by tanks, APCs, helicopters and artillery would be insufficient. These men will have to be supported from the sea and air, leaving the routes vulnerable to Pakistani disruption.

It would take many weeks to move men to that area and unless a Normandy type invasion is attempted the men would come under attack from day one. Normandy was a matter of a few tens of Km and we are talking several hundred km here all along the Pakistan coast.

To me the idea sounds like asking for disaster. We have no inherent advantages to mount such an invasion. We do not have the means to transport such a large number of men and support across that distance and continue to support them to mount an invasion on a militarily powerful country like Pakistan. Of course I am no military expert. Just general knalidj onleee.

The other point is that by doing a "pincer like" attack on Pakistan from the two sides we would be attempting the obvious - i.e trying to split Pakistan. If you were Pakistani, what would you do? If I was a Paki general I would nuke Indian ports supplying Baluchistan - staring from Mumbai. 10 nukes would convert our plans into a fizzle and start a nuclear war.

If we are talking nuclear war we could as well attack from the Indian side, let them nukes us and then smash them in retaliation. Why go through this convoluted route of trying to put men in Baluchistan? The worst thing would be for Pakis to stem the attack without resorting to nukes. The US is giving them 8 more Orions, each armed with Harpoon anti-ship missiles. If the Pakis sink 8 Indian ships that would break the back of any sea-borne invasion.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Here are some of the geostrategic axioms I see.

1) Control of Central Asia would remain a major tussle among the various powers. Through Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Russia and China have tried to bring the region under their joint control. They have brought in almost all states of the region as members of the grouping. They are willing to give India some diluted presence and influence, but are adamant about keeping the Americans out! Any power which controls Central Asia, controls the soft bellies of all powers - Russian Caucasus and Siberia, China-occupied East Turkestan, Iranian East, Indian Kashmir, etc.

2) Till now Americans got their access to Central Asia through Pakistan using the services of the Pakistani Army. Using Pakistani Army, USA was able to project its power into the heart of Asia.

3) Now the Pakistani Army is being brought to align itself with PRC and Iran, and thus close this access to Central Asia.

4) As Pakistan moves to align itself with PRC and Iran, it would mean Pakistan would get more influence in the grouping. Using Sunni Islam, it would try to expand this influence. Even though all the other powers would feel plagued by the phenomenon, they would probably feel better about being blackmailed by the Pakistanis than being at the losing end of Great Power politics with the Americans playing mischief. None would be too enamored by the Pakistanis but then that is Pakistan's card and it will play that card. In exchange for keeping some control over the Taliban and Jihadis, others like Russia, China and Iran would be forced to give Pakistanis some concessions - free gas, investment, budgetary support, political support in the UN, armaments, and above all support in keeping Indian influence in Central Asia to a minimum.

5) Pakistanis are still unsure whether they can extract enough from the other Asian powers if they give up USA. But they are working on the transition.

6) USA and India are being cut off from Central Asia, because we don't have a route independent of the Great Central Asian Powers - Russia, China and Iran, or independent of the Joker in the Pack - Pakistan.

7) Baluchistan and Northern Alliance held North and West Afghanistan enable the left out powers to still box their way in. For India it is important to be there for economic reasons as well as to neutralize Pakistan's strategic depth. For USA it is important because otherwise it loses an important lever on which its superpower status hinges.

8 ) Azerbaijan and Baluchistan would become two heavily contested regions, as these are the regions which enable the Americans an independent gateway into Central Asia.

9) America cannot secure Baluchistan. The Baluchis cannot secure Baluchistan. The only force that can secure Baluchistan is the Indian Military.

10) Due to reasons of neighborhood and threat of nuclear conflagration, Indians would not be in a position to support Baluchi Self-Determination openly. Through some friendly interaction, Pakistanis have been able to thwart Indian adventurism in Baluchistan.

11) So the only way Baluchistan can be separated from Pakistan and secured is
  1. If USA and its allies liberate Baluchistan. This India cannot do!
  2. If India secures Baluchistan post-liberation.. This USA and NATO cannot do!
12) If Baluchis want their liberation through USA, post-liberation some Baloch Government would have to give written permission to USA for use of Baluchistan as a corridor into Central Asia, and the Baloch would have to give guarantees for such a permission beforehand.

13) If Baluchis want their liberation to be secured by India, post-liberation some Baloch Government would have to formally accede Baluchistan to the Union of India, because otherwise the Indian Government would not feel sufficiently politically empowered to make such a considerable deployment of Indian Troops into Baluchistan. This is something on the lines of how India sent its forces into Kashmir. Accession to India may also need subsequently to be affirmed through a referendum.

14) Indians would be increasing their strength and logistics in Baluchistan only after it has been liberated, and the increase would be in stages, so as not to alarm the Pakistanis into any adverse action.

15) All parties would need to get their pound of flesh - Americans would get their pound of flesh, Baluchis would get their pound of flesh, Indians would get their pound of flesh and even the Russians would be getting their pound of flesh.

16) Even though, I am not thrilled that India would not play a more direct role in the liberation of Baluchistan, it is something I have resigned to. Still even if India chooses not to play an overt role in this liberation, India should do her best to give Baluchis any logistic support they require - sanctuary, arms, training, money, connections, etc!
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

RajeshA ji,
Baloschistan should be encouraged - but no direct invasion. The mistake of BD should not be repeated so early on. There are three points of moving in - and you cannot make such formal moves on Balochistan without an even stronger move by land across Sindh. But it should perhaps be part of a four pronged move. In the south - it is more about securing the sea-entry and exit - weapons in and high value refugees out - prevention.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

RajeshA wrote: 1) Control of Central Asia would remain a major tussle among the various powers. Through Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Russia and China have tried to bring the region under their joint control. They have brought in almost all states of the region as members of the grouping. They are willing to give India some diluted presence and influence, but are adamant about keeping the Americans out! Any power which controls Central Asia, controls the soft bellies of all powers - Russian Caucasus and Siberia, China-occupied East Turkestan, Iranian East, Indian Kashmir, etc.

2) Till now Americans got their access to Central Asia through Pakistan using the services of the Pakistani Army. Using Pakistani Army, USA was able to project its power into the heart of Asia.

3) Now the Pakistani Army is being brought to align itself with PRC and Iran, and thus close this access to Central Asia.
Rajesh - the direction of transport of good throughout history via Central Asia has been east-west from nation to nation. India is one eastern branch of that route. China is the other eastern branch. There was never any "north-south" route of any great consequence that did not involve India. The only North-South axis from Afghanistan is along the Sindhu or its tributaries.

Baluchistan is a hostile place. Coming to India from the west always meant overland via Afghanistan and then south. Not via Baluchistan. Baluchistan is harsh desert - so it does not support large populations. US senators talking of a free Baluchistan are the usual ignoramii who are blowing hot air. The route to Baluchistan is through current day Pakistan. The Brits actually considered a free Baluchistan before they sold the idea of Pakistan to their slaves the Brit shit eating loyal martial mussalmaans who made Pakistan. The latter are now having a smell the coffee moment IMO.
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Altair »

I am planning to rise the Baluchistan issue today at a meeting with Gen.KV Krishna Rao and Bharat Karnad. Let me get back with their feedback.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:Rajesh - the direction of transport of good throughout history via Central Asia has been east-west from nation to nation. India is one eastern branch of that route. China is the other eastern branch. There was never any "north-south" route of any great consequence that did not involve India. The only North-South axis from Afghanistan is along the Sindhu or its tributaries.

Baluchistan is a hostile place. Coming to India from the west always meant overland via Afghanistan and then south. Not via Baluchistan. Baluchistan is harsh desert - so it does not support large populations. US senators talking of a free Baluchistan are the usual ignoramii who are blowing hot air. The route to Baluchistan is through current day Pakistan. The Brits actually considered a free Baluchistan before they sold the idea of Pakistan to their slaves the Brit shit eating loyal martial mussalmaans who made Pakistan. The latter are now having a smell the coffee moment IMO.
shiv saar,

ROADS
I am aware that Baluchistan is quite an inhospitable place! Below is a video, which besides giving one an idea of the Baloch struggle, also gives us a peek into the kind of terrain one would find in Baluchistan.



Actually the world over, people have adjusted themselves to the inhospitable geography and made the most of it. You see all kinds of highways crisscrossing the deserts in Australia, USA, Saudi Arabia, Western China, etc. Only in the Indian Subcontinent are the people still "pampered" and rely on natural hospitable terrain to build their roads. Indians could afford to do so. But if we have to expand our interests, we need a rethink.

So the inhospitable terrain in Baluchistan should not be a concern as far as movement of people and troops is concerned, say during an Indian presence in Baluchistan. We can build roads and highways and railroads there.

WATER
The problem in Baluchistan is that being an arid place, there is scarcity of water resources. Interestingly USA too showed interest in water resources of Baluchistan and were proposing to do a water survey there. Some Pakistani material on this from Pakistan Water Gateway says:
Water is life. Its is absolutely true in a place like Balochistan with minimum sources of perennial water available for survival. Scanty rain is the permanent feature of Balochistan. Maximum average rain recorded is 200mm annually barring a small region with extended monsoon rainfall.

In case of drinking water supply, the situation is very bad in Balochistan. Less then 15 percent population has access to bacteria-free water supply in Balochistan. In other words, overwhelming majority of the people had no facility of running water. According to reports, four children die every second in the world due to water related diseases. In case of awareness about the proper use of water with proper conservation, only 15 percent population is observing discipline and the rules in the whole world.

More then 58 percent of its land are not available for cultivation. The province is spread over to an area of around 347,185 square kilometers, around 43 percent of whole of Pakistan. The wasteland comprises of mountainous ranges, vast deserts with ever shifting sand dune in Chagai, Kharan, Iviekran coastal region, Lasbela and Marri - Bugti Tribal Areas. This Trans Indus province has more then 13 major river basins. Almost all of them are seasonal. For the past half a century, seldom efforts were made to tame the floods, build water storage facilities or construct dams, small or medium. Even check dams and delay action damns were not built in required number to meet the basic requirements of the people. However, the people did use their indigenous wisdom building earthen dams to store floods or rains water in all parts of Balochistan.

It was the community that built earthen or Karez (underground water channel linked with open well system) making the life sustainable for centuries. Balochistan is a classic case of rural push as the whole province cannot feed its growing population. The Urban pulls in medium size townships and cities is a latest phenomena of past three decades. There is a constant influx of people to other regions. The constant migration is reported to Muscat, UAE, some of the African countries. But overwhelming majority of the people migrated to Sindh and Punjab for a sustainable life.

In the 1960s, the only dam was built on Hub River. Thanks to the powerful Press of Karachi that forced the Ayub Regime to construct the dam to augment drinking water supply to metropolitan Karachi. The Hub Dam was more than to meet the basic needs of Lasbela District. However, some water was spared through Lasbela Canal for agricultural use in Hub Sub - Division. Off and on, the Chief Ministers of Sindh had to rush to Quetta seeking additional share of water from Hub Dam only to prevent possible water riots in Karachi.

According to the Water Apportionment Accords among the Provinces during the first Government of Mian Nawaz Sharif, Balochistan was allotted additional share of water from floods. The Government of Balochistan could not utilize the additional water available merely because of no infrastructure to take the provincial quota from the Indus River system. To this date, other provinces are using Balochistan’s share.

However, the Government under General Pervez Musharraf approved a mega project to build the Kacchi Canal. It will be 500 kilometers long - 300 kilometers in Punjab and 200 kilometers in Balochistan. It will be constructed at a cost of Rs 32.5 billion. Earlier, WAPDA estimated its cost at around 54 billion. But the realignment of the Canal with the Taunsa Barrage in Dera Ghazi Kahn reduced its cost to 32.5 billion. It is the first serious attempt to utilize the share of water for irrigating more 713,000 acres of land in Sibi - Kachhi Plains. It will be part of the Indus River system. Two canals – Kirthar Canal and Pat Feeder - are already linked with the Indus River system at Sukkur and Kashmore. Both the Canals are irrigating around one million acres of land in Naseerabad and Kacchi.

The second important project in the water sector is the Mirani Dam that is being built at Mirani, 30 miles west of Turbat City. It is the point of confluence of Kech River and Nihing River. The dam will cost Rs 5.86 billion. It will irrigate more than 32,200 acres of land besides recharging hundreds of major Karez and wells in upstream. It is a multi-purpose dam also generating electricity. Mirani Dam will be the first water storage facility in Mekran, also covering the future needs of the Gawadar Deep-Water Port. Balochistan has 3.87 Million Acre Feet (MAF) of perennial waters resources of which 3.049 MAF are bring utilized leaving an insignificant amount of water for future use. The Water Apportionment Accords among the Provinces allocated 2.5 MAF Flood water to Balochistan and that is not being utilized since the Award was announced in 1991.

However Balochistan has vast potential for using surface water (flood run off) that is around 10 MAF. Only 3Maf are being used sparing more than 7 MAF of floodwater. In this sector, the Government should do more by building a chain of small and medium size dams irrigating 40 percent of cultivable wasteland. The Government should undertake flood conservation and recharge schemes in all the 13 major river basins of the Province. The Hingole River basin has the greatest potential for exploitation of water resources. Porali Dasht, Rakhshan, Gaj, Zhob, Nari and Mula Rivers follow it. The residents of Pasni coastal town faced acute shortage of water for the past half a century or more. Once a small dam was built on Shadi Kuar (River), its shortage dam is filled with more than 40,000 acre-feet of water in the first rains in its catchment. Same was the case with the Akra Kaur Dam and Saiji Dam near Gawadar. Both the townships are self-sufficient in drinking water facility. Earlier, the local people were consuming brackish water.

It is not out of context that Balochistan is out of the monsoon region. It is not a part of the Indus River system. When there was drought in the Indus region, there were floods and heavy rains in Balochistan. If the water resources, mainly the flood run off, are developed and properly stored, then Balochistan will supplement the national economy in a big way by minimizing the impact of drought in Sindh and Punjab. The same is true otherwise.

Lastly, Balochistan will have to tap its underground water resources in Chagai, Kharan and other backward regions where the Provincial Government did not make significant investment. According to one study, Chagai has enough subsoil water to irrigate more than a million acre of land for ingle crop. The windmill technology can be used in augmenting water resources in Chagai and Kharan, mainly in the Hamun-I- Mashkhel and Nokkundi region. The subsoil water found in Tal Ap ensured the viability of Saindak Copper and Gold Project in Chagai. The experts believed that Tal Ap water reservoir could meet the water needs of Saindak Project for the next two hundred years without a recharge.
Since India controls (or can potentially control) Pakistan's water resources, we have the ability to say, that the terms of the Indus Water Treaty would only be stuck to, if Pakistan is willing to join Baluchistan to the Indus Basin through man-made canals or so! Certainly India would have to build some infrastructure to harness water resources in Baluchistan better.

Let's not forget that the Arabs of the Gulf are living a lifestyle of luxury and plenty of water right in the desert! So surely something can be done in Baluchistan as well.

GOALS
India's goal at the moment or in the near future is hardly to set up cities for millions to live in the interior of Baluchistan. It is simply to secure the place for
  1. so that Pakjabis, Pushtuns and Iranians do not exert their control over the area
  2. so that we (including Baluchis) can exploit the mineral wealth of the province
  3. so that we (including Baluchis) can establish strategic bases (naval and commercial) on the coast line of Baluchistan.
  4. so that we (including Baluchis) can ensure transport of goods to and from Central Asia and Indian Ocean.
  5. so that we (including Baluchis) can ensure the safety of Gas and Oil pipelines from Iran and Central Asia to the Indian Ocean, and later on through Sindh all the way to India.
  6. so that Indians can provide Baluchis with basic services of health, education, clean drinking water, electricity, communications access and connectivity, as well as better trade options.
The North-South corridor along the Indus is actually quite dead for the Indians for over 64 years and where it is not dead, it is jealously guarded by the Pakis. We need an alternate North-South corridor, as well as an West-East corridor for Mideast Gas.
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4826
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by KLNMurthy »

shiv wrote:
brihaspati wrote: Since this opinion wants Pak to be preserved, in turn this implies that this Indian opinion is therefore supporting Paki projection of India being the existential threat, and in turn this Indian opinion is virtually supporting the US "white Christian" intention to continue to arm the Pakis against India. Back to square one.
No. It is saying exactly the opposite, but is lying. India is a threat but the loudmouthed opinions are trying to reassure Pakistan that it is not. Reassurances are of no use until India breaks up. Pakistanis know that regimes can change and will hardly be fooled by the "current dispensation". India will remain a threat to Pakis , but for me that does not mean that I will not do whatever I can to stop the US supply of arms. Even if it means reminding Pakis of how the US has used them.
Even if not a single Indian harbors a desire to eliminate Pakistan, India, purely by virtue of surviving and even modestly prospering, is inherently an existential threat to Pakistan. The reason is this: when you build a supremacist purer-than-thou nation, the existence of a normal nation consisting of people of the same stock and including a huge number of followers of the pure and supreme religion, is a glaring illustration that your entire social edifice is built on a lie. No amount of WKKism, piskology or chankianism on the Indians' part will alter the fact of this threat one iota. Pakis understand this. Indians, mostly are unable to see this.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Email Question wrote:RajeshA ji,

Did you give up on PoK in your strategies? Of all the places, this is the one place India has a legal claim.

If PoK is nuclear flash point between indies and pakis then how Baluchistan is not?

IMO, CAR would be a more reliable energy supplier than Iran ever could be, why?
1. It is our Uttara Kuru
2. It is between India and Russial - so protected from 2/4sides
3. It doesn't have empireal goals like Iran.
thanks for bringing this up!

We once discussed the issue of retrieving PoK militarily from Pakistan, and rohitvats explained about the requirements of getting PoK back. So I am trying to look at alternate strategies.

That doesn't mean I don't think there are strategies of expanding our grasp over PoK in the meantime. I did talk about some plans of how we should be integrating the PoK population into our political system, like by letting PoK inhabitants elect their representatives to the 24 Seats allocated for them for J&K Legislative Assembly, etc.

But the issue is that now China is entering PoK, and any fight with China would mean something on a much bigger scale.

1) I am totally in favor of exposing Chinese takeover of Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan's abdication of its control over the region.

2) I am totally in favor of publicizing alleged Chinese atrocities with the locals. If these are not taking place, we need to get a local insurgency started against the Chinese, and then publicize Chinese "atrocities"!

-----------------

However I think, we would be better off following a Baluchistan First Strategy. If Baluchistan goes, Pakjab's access to the Indian Ocean becomes even more tenuous. Of course, Pakjab is still basically using only Karachi as its main port of access to the Indian Ocean, and even if Baluchistan goes, that doesn't change. But if India controls Baluchistan, including the Las Bela strip of Baluchistan, just West of Karachi, India sits on two sides of Southern Sindh, looming like a huge jaw with Karachi within its teeth!

The military strategy that we had of being able to cut off Pakistan in half becomes even more threatening to Pakistan, as then we can cut off Pakistan in two halves from BOTH sides.

On top of that comes, India's future investment in Las Bela in Baluchistan just West of Karachi, as well as development of Gwadar! This produces an economic magnet for Sindh in the West. Then there is the Indian State of Gujarat with a runaway GDP growth rate with over 15%. One gets both Muhajir Separatism as well as Sindhi Nationalism trying to put some distance between their province and Pakjab.

So with time even Sindh could break off, cutting off Pakjab from the Arabian Sea permanently.

------------------

What does it mean for PoK?

It means that if China wanted to use Gilgit-Baltistan to reach the Indian Ocean or Iran, that Dream gets shattered. So for the Chinese, it again becomes a question of whether Gilgit-Baltistan is really worth that trouble!

Let's say the Chinese start facing a full-blown TTP and Gilgit-Baltistani insurgency. It would pull them in but then it would also create for them an Afghanistan under Soviets situation. And they will be fighting on territory which is legally Indian.

So if Chinese can neither gain some vital corridor to Indian Ocean or West Asia through Gilgit-Baltistan and staying there causes erosion of their fighting morale and strength, then the Chinese would start reconsidering whether they can really afford to stay there.

Now the Pakistanis may have already withdrawn many of their assets in Gilgit-Baltistan, and China too retreats from there considering it not worth the trouble, it would create a vacuum allowing India to move in without too much war.

----------------------

Through Baluchistan, India would have the free-hand to buy up as much Pushtun "loyalty" and services as we want, including that of current Taliban commanders. Let's consider it "Joint Management of Taliban" by India and Pakistan. We pay the Taliban to go and attack Pakistani Army keeping them busy and demoralized, even as we say that Taliban is a Pakjabi creation.

For the next 2 decades we can keep the Pakistani Army as well as the PLA under siege using severe attacks by Pushtun, Gilgitians, Baltistanis, and Uyghurs.

This way we move the fighting Eastwards into Pakistan's FATA area, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Southeastern Afghanistan, and Gilgit-Baltistan, with PA, PLA and various rebel groups involved. This shift of fighting Eastwards, allows us to stabilize Western Afghanistan, through which we can do our trade with Central Asia going through Baluchistan.

It is a question of who retains the upper hand - the Pakjabis or the Pushtun! If the Pushtun become empowered (through India), then the Pakjabis come to be on the receiving end, and PA cannot protect Chinese investments in Pakistan, nor can PA give sufficient support to PLA in Gilgit-Baltistan. Just like it is happening against USA, Pakistani Army can become a target of attacks if it helps Chinese troops.

In fact, if China enters Gilgit-Baltistan formally with troops it would be a Great thing for India, because we can make it the graveyard of China, and extend the revolt to Xinjiang.

What India would have to do is to come to an Agreement with the Pushtun regarding division of Baluchistan Province. The Northeastern part of Baluchistan would have to be given to Pushtuns. We can even make some Agreement with Afghanistan, where we turn over Northeastern Baluchistan to them in return for some land in Southwestern Afghanistan where Baloch live over to India, so that the Baloch nation becomes united. Secondly we would have to allow the Pushtun to traverse Baluchistan to reach Karachi, where many Pushtun live. We could in fact even build a highway through Eastern Baluchistan through which the Pushtun can travel say between Northeastern Baluchistan (present) and Karachi, without needing to go too far inland into Baluchistan.

All these Agreements would enable us to improve our relationship with the Pushtun. The Dependence of the Pushtun say on us for their presence in Karachi, would help us get even more cooperation from them.

The goal is to turn the Pustun against the Pakjabis and the Chinese! The Taliban has to be turned into the service of Indian strategic interests!

Once both Pakjab and PRC get weakened in the region, India can basically walk in into Gilgit-Baltistan!

-----------------------

So I think the Liberation of PoK is dependent on Liberation of Baluchistan.
Last edited by RajeshA on 05 Mar 2012 21:41, edited 1 time in total.
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Altair »

I had a direct discussion with Prof. Karnad. He said if India starts dismembering other neighboring states it is entirely in the realm that other countries will start to think to dismember India. Redrawing maps/Boundaries in South Asia is a colonial legacy and India should not actively pursue it.
India however is doing everything it can to support Baluchis without crossing the red lines.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

Altair wrote:I had a direct discussion with Prof. Karnad. He said if India starts dismembering other neighboring states it is entirely in the realm that other countries will start to think to dismember India. Redrawing maps/Boundaries in South Asia is a colonial legacy and India should not actively pursue it.
India however is doing everything it can to support Baluchis without crossing the red lines.
I have been coming across a lot of leftist chatter in India about re-partitioning what is left of India to further isolate "Hindutva", etc. So the forces and interests are present and active. I don't know how serious the danger is, though. I think within a decade or so that generation of old leftists will die out. Do they have such a deracinated hardcore new cadre in place?

What support can India give to Baluchis that does not "cross a red line"?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

Actually who decides what is red? Aren't those also relative and constantly in a state of flux? Is it not a constantly negotiated ephemeral border which is all the time being moved around? What is red for you might not be red for me. What was red yesterday may not be red tmrw.

Second, those who secure themselves and stay on top - try to manipulate this entire discoures on red-lines, and not simply react to it. We need to pay attention to how we can move those red lines themselves where we want them to be. This is not only about convincing ourselves - but also others - that those red lines that "we" want should be the desirable redlines by most [because it benefits them] as against the wishes of a "minority" who stand in the way of benefits for "most".

The ultimate is establishing redlines in such a way that even the opponents tacitly accept those redlines as desirable even if they do not like it personally. This is where the overturning of thought for what some people have dubbed the slavish mentality to A-S thought - of Indians - is required. So far we accept the redlines set by others - tacitly as valid redlines - even if we fret and fume against such redlines [we cannot retaliate - because so and so will do and say such and such - world opinion will go against us - all these are the result of others having been able to set the agenda for redlines]. So they are winning and we feel boxed in.

They win because we have accepted their demanded for redlines even in our own minds - so that we feel guilty about even thinking about regaining the initiative in setting the agenda on redlines.

Unfortunately BK -ji does not seem to have realized this.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Altair wrote:I had a direct discussion with Prof. Karnad. He said if India starts dismembering other neighboring states it is entirely in the realm that other countries will start to think to dismember India. Redrawing maps/Boundaries in South Asia is a colonial legacy and India should not actively pursue it.
India however is doing everything it can to support Baluchis without crossing the red lines.
Altair ji,

thanks for the feedback on your discussions.

My view on this:
Redrawing maps/Boundaries in South Asia is a colonial legacy and India should not actively pursue it.
Thinking thus is actually a colonial legacy! It gives the colonial powers of the past undue weight as the only authorities permitted to do this redrawing, and since thinking like the colonial powers is "bad", India should not think thus, we being neither a permitted power nor a "bad" power!

I do hope, that one day, these legacy thinkers would become too old to be responsible for strategic thinking. :evil:
He said if India starts dismembering other neighboring states it is entirely in the realm that other countries will start to think to dismember India.
Well it certainly is not due to the lack of trying that the other countries have not dismembered India. Perhaps he should read "Breaking India" by Rajiv Malhotra, to get a sense of what others have been trying.

So what is the meaning, that others "will start to think" of dismembering India?! They are already doing it! It only confirms my view that this angst has paralyzed India disabling her from pursuing any strategic interests! The US needs to just look a bit angrily at India and make some remark about Indian Separatism, and India gets cowed down and starts behaving like a "beeba bachcha"!

These dinosaurs must move on and seriously look at Vanaprastha!

Altair wrote:Today I was in discussion with Prof.Bharat Karnad and Prof. Jeffrey Legro on India-US Strategic relationship.
Here are some minutes.

1. India-Pakistan wars are more like communal riots with tanks and heavy arty. US should look at us in that way.
That is even worse! Since Terrorism is just undeclared war, US should look at Pakistan-sponsored terrorism against India, as some neighbor's quarrel. It is nothing more serious than that!

Aw those bloody neighbors, again having their little brawl! Shut up, would you!!!

Why are Indian thinkers pushing for such thinking among the Americans? Aren't they trying to rehyphenate India-Pakistan all over again?!
Altair wrote:2. Gen.Pasha is actually a moderate when compared to Gen.Hamid Gul types
General Hamid Gul is simply more outspoken. Mumbai 26/11 happened on Pasha's watch. It was probably planned under Kiyani's watch!

Hamid Guls just make America's working with the Pakistanis more difficult. On India it has no effect, whether it is a Hamid Gul or a Shuja Pasha!
Altair wrote:3. US has to put more effort in Tech Transfer if it wants to have an opening in huge defense deals. India is going to get great deals with Russia and France and it is entirely US loss if it does not match.
So much bullshit thinking would not go away with one nice idea!
Altair wrote:4. India will support Iran no matter what primarily because of 3 reasons.
(a) India gets access to CA through Iran, Chabahar port.
(b) India's fuel requirements cannot be replaced by either KSA or any other nation in any combination. It just cannot happen.
(c) India has 2nd largest Shia population after Iran which is a huge political weight in New Delhi.
India simply cannot dump Iran and US has nothing to offer in return either. It just cannot happen.
USA can offer India something - Baluchistan! The loss of Iran could be compensated through Oil & Gas flowing from Central Asia and Russia through the North-South Axis.
Altair wrote:5. India cannot see restructure of Pakistan or Iran because of obvious complications and implications on the entire region including India.
(Baluchistan has no strategic interest for either India or US despite what anybody feels on this forum, including yours truly)
They are either too stupid and they were not being frank!
Altair wrote:6. India will test Fusion bomb. It is not a question of "if" and only a question of "when".
Nice wording! When is "when"?
ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ManuT »

Actually respected BK did an == where none was required.

Balochistan is a battle for Pakjab to lose.

India has to be concerned at the loss of life and property since SeS  declaration. These concerns need to be expressed as the IPI pipeline project gets delayed by the existing situation in Balochistan. 
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Atri »

While we ponder upon a "new way" of looking at Pakistan :roll: -



सभाध्यक्ष - पौरसभा मे उपस्थित कुलमुख्यों व तक्षशिला के गणमान्य नागरिकों का मैं हार्दिक स्वागत करता हूँ. तक्षशिला के समक्ष उपस्थित पश्चिमी देशों से निरंतर आ रहे शरणार्थियों की समस्या को लेकर महाराज आम्भिराज के विशेष आग्रह के कारण आजकी इस पौरसभा का अधिवेशन बुलाया गया हैं. जैसा की आपको विदित ही होगा की पश्चिम के और से हजारों की संख्या मे आबाल-वृद्ध, स्त्री-पुरुष, पारस, हरहवती, बाख्त्री आदि देशों से प्रतिदिन पश्चिमी भारत की नगरियों मे शरण लेने के लिए आ रहें हैं. शरणार्थियों का कथन हैं की यहाँ से हजारों योजन दूर, यवन देश का एक महान योद्धा अलक्षेन्द्र, मिस्र, पारस, बाख्त्री, हरहवती, शकस्थान आदि देशों पर विजय प्राप्त करता हुआ पूर्व दिशाकी ओर बढ़ रहा हैं. जो भी उसके सामर्थ्य को चुनौती देता हैं उसे धुल मे मिला दिया जाता हैं. उसी यवन अलक्षेन्द्र ने शरणार्थियों के घरबार उजाड दिए. उसीको अत्याचारों से पीड़ित होकर इन्हें अपनी मातृभूमि का त्याग करने के लिए बाध्य होना पड़ा. अनिश्चित भविष्य से भयभीत, अपनी मातृभूमि का त्याग करने के दुःख से ग्रस्त, भूख और अभाव से ग्रस्त ये शरणार्थी आपके समक्ष दया, कृपा की अपेक्षा से आये हैं. उन्हें शरण देना या न देना आपके मानवीय दृष्टिकोण पर निर्भर करता हैं. इसी सम्बन्ध मे कुलमुख्य अपने अपने विचार सभा मे प्रकट करने के लिए आमंत्रित हैं.

भूरिग्रवा - शरणार्थियों को आश्रय देना हमारी परंपरा रही हैं. और इस परंपरा का निर्वाह करने मे हमारा लाभ भी हैं. शरणार्थियों के पुनर्वसन से एक तो तक्षशिला का श्रमिक बल बढ़ेगा. और दूसरे, वे शरणार्थी ही तक्षशिला के शिल्पियों कलाकारों द्वारा निर्मित वस्तुओं के उपभोक्ता भी होंगे. इस प्रकार तक्षशिला मे व्यापार का विकास ही होगा. इसके अतिरिक्त इससे दो देशों के भावी संबंधों मे विकास भी होगा.

अज्ञात कुल्मुख्य - शरणार्थियों को आश्रय देने का मैं मानवतावादी दृष्टिकोण से समर्थन करता हूँ.

रिपुदमन - बंद करो परंपरा और मानवता की बातें. हम ही मानवता और परंपरा की बातें करतें हैं और हम ही कुचले जातें हैं. दो देशों के संबंधों के विकास की बातें करने वाले कुलमुख्य भुरिग्रवा की बात मान ली जाये तो तक्षशिला के नागरिक यह निश्चित समझें की शीघ्र ही तक्षशिला भी खंड खंड मे बटा जर्जरित दिखाई देगा. जिन विदेशियों को शरण देनेकी बात आप कह रहें हैं कर वे भी तक्षशिला की भूमिपर अपने अधिकारों का दावा करेंगे. जिस मानवतावाद की दुहाई दे आप उन्हें शरण देनेकी योजना बना रहें हैं उन्ही मानवतावादियों की धरती कल धर्म-जाती के संघर्ष से लाल हो उठेगी. और धरती का कोई मानवतावादी उस संघर्ष मे उठी तलवारों को रोकने के लिए नहीं उठेगा. कल यही शरणार्थी आपके साथ पौरसभा मे बैठेंगे और आपके निर्णयों को प्रभावित करेंगे.

भुरिग्रवा - धर्म और जाती के नाम पर परम्पराओं को कलंकित मत करो, रिपुदमन...

रिपुदमन - सत्य को स्वीकार करो, भुरिग्रवा. जहाँ तक्षशिला के भविष्य का प्रश्न हैं वहां भावनाओं का कोई स्थान नहीं हैं. हमारा धर्म अलग, हमारी भाषा अलग, हमारा व्यवहार अलग. कल इन्ही भेदों के नामपर भेदभाव होगा और संघर्ष होगा. हम अपनी परम्पराओं को नहीं छोडना चाहते तो क्या वे अपनी परम्पराओं को छोड़ेंगे? कल यही शरणार्थी आपके राज्य का अविभाज्य अंग होंगे और यही आपके सामने बैठकर अपने तथाकथित अधिकारों की मांग करेंगे. तब आपका मानवतावादी ह्रदय उनपर हथियार उठाने मे संकोच महसूस करेगा. क्या पौरसभा मुझे आश्वासन दे सकती हैं की कल शरणार्थियों के कारण गांधार खंडित नहीं होगा? क्या कोई पौर मुझे ये आश्वासन दे सकता हैं की कल यही शरणार्थी अपनीअपनी मातृभूमि लौट जायेंगे? क्या पौरसभा स्वयं आश्वस्त हैं की शरणार्थियों के पुनर्वसन के नाम पर तक्षशिला का शासन नागरिकों पर नविन करों का बोझ नहीं लादेगा? क्या सभाध्यक्ष तक्षशिला के नागरिकों को वचन दे सकते हैं की शासन शरणार्थियों का किसीभी प्रकार से राजनितिक लाभों के लिए उपयोग नहीं करेगा?

अनेक कुलमुख्य - सभाध्यक्ष उत्तर दें....

सभाध्यक्ष - मैं सभा मे उपस्थित नागरिकों से पूछता हूँ - क्या केवल अनिश्चित भविष्य के डर से हम विषपायी शिव की परंपरा छोड़ दें? क्या दधिची और शिबी की स्मृति हमारे मानस से लुप्त हो चुकी हैं? क्या हम अपनीही परम्परों को तोड्नेका आवाहन करें? शरण वही दे सकते हैं जिनमे सामर्थ्य होता हैं. क्या हममे सामर्थ्य नहीं हैं? स्वेच्छा से विष वही पीता हैं जिसमे विष को पचानेका साहस होता हैं. क्या विषपायियों के वंशज नहीं हैं हम? क्या अपनीही अस्थियों को दे कर अपनी परम्पराओं की जीवित रखने का आग्रह खो चुकें हैं हम?

रिपुदमन - अध्यक्ष आप भावुक हो रहें हैं.

सभाध्यक्ष - मैं आप लोगों से पूछता हूँ.

रिपुदमन - यदि इनमे से कोई अलक्षेन्द्र का गुप्तचर निकला तो?

सभाध्यक्ष - भेदी तो घर मे भी हो सकता हैं. यदि तक्षशिला का ही कोई नागरिक ही भेदी हुआ तो? निर्णय संभावनाओं पर नहीं होता.

रिपुदमन - देखूंगा.. अवश्य देखूंगा.. जब कोई अलक्षेन्द्र तुम्हारी परम्पराओं पर आक्रमण करेगा तब कैसे अपनी परम्पराओं की रक्षा करते हो.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker - I welcome the representatives of various clans residing in our nation-state - Taxila. Taxila is facing the issue of countless immigrants pouring into India from north-west. As you are well aware, refugees are pouring into cities of western and north-western India from Persia, Bactria, Harahavati river basin in lakhs. They report of a Greek invader, Alexander, from thousands of miles away, is marching eastwards after having defeated Egypt, Persia, Scythia and Bactria. It is due to Alexander's excesses that these refugees lost their homes and were forced to leave their homelands and come as refugees in India. Afraid of uncertain future, troubled by hunger and danger, they look towards you expecting to receive warmth and compassion. Whether to accord them refuge depends upon your humanitarian outlook. I invite the representatives to come forth and speak up your opinions.

Bhurigrava (one clan head) - It has been our tradition to give refuge to troubled. Following this tradition will not only increase the labor pool in Taxila but also boost the local economy as the immigrants will purchase goods manufactured here by our artisans.
Furthermore, this gracious approach will generate good-will which will in turn help in building the good relations with these nations in future.

Another Representative - I support providing refuge on humanitarian grounds.

Ripudaman - Stop this talk of tradition and humanity. It is only us who behave on humanitarian grounds and in turn it is only us who are crushed. If we agree what Bhurigrava says, then understand that you will be seeing division and downfall of Taxila quite soon. You will find these refugees sitting along with you guys demanding for equal rights. The land of those who talk of limitless compassion will bathe in blood flowing freely out of conflicts resulting from differences based on Jaati and Dharma. No humanist will dare to stop their swords, then. They will sit with you in this assembly influencing your decision.

Bhurigravaa - Do not belittle our traditions by your communal bilge, Ripudaman !!!

Ripudaman - Face the reality, Bhurigrava. In the questions concerning future of Taxila, there is no place for emotions. Our dharma (way of life) is different, our language is different, our customs are different. There shall be discriminations based on these exact differences, tomorrow. We do not wish to let go our traditions, will these refugees let go theirs? These people will sit with you tomorrow, demanding their so called rights. Your compassionate humanitarian hearts will shy away from using force against them. Can assembly assure me that Gandhaar (today's Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa province including Kabul, of Indian subcontinent) won't fracture due to these refugees? Can anyone assure me that these refugees will return to their homelands beyond Oxus after threat of Alexander is thwarted? Is this assembly assured that the government of Taxila won't impose new taxes on the citizens to "take care" of these refugees? Can speaker sir assure this assembly that govt won't try to score political brownie points using these refugees?

Demands for explanation grow in assembly...

Speaker - I ask the representatives sitting in this assembly, have they forgotten the example Shiva wherein he consumed poison for good of universe? have the memories of sage Dadhichi and Shibi faded from our collective memories? Are we calling for breaking our own traditions? Remember, only powerful can give refuge.. Are we not powerful? Are we not the descendants of "poison-digesters" (reference to Shiva)? have lost the power to donate our bones for larger cause (reference to Dadhichi and Vajra)?

Ripudaman - Speaker sir, you are getting sentimental. What if, there are Greek spies among the refugees?

Speaker - traitors can be everywhere. even in home (reference to Vibhishana). Why are you, then, getting so paranoid?

Ripudaman (as he walks out) - I shall see, how you humanists save your traditions from swords of Alexander.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any "new-way", which will result in mass-migrations and population transfer is way towards suicide which dharma and rashtra cannot afford to let happen again and again. RajeshA ji's solution of brides coming in Punjab and haryana from Pakjab is one thing and partially acceptable, only as long as rest of pests stay in pakjab and only bride comes here. I am all in for piskology etc. as long as consensus for indiscriminate population merger isn't being sought for. A person living in Pindi district, Quetta district, Trichur OR Kasargod district, Sylhet district and Rampur OR Moradabad districts, for example, should get an opportunity to earn a decent income while they all stay in their own respective districts. While I cited these 5 districts as example only, I chose these particular 5 names deliberately. When janta is forced to move out en masse to greener pastures, it is recipe for disaster.

The buffering capacity of Dharma only pushes the impending disaster ahead, giving more time to mend ways and achieve dharmik and just all round development everywhere. When Dharma is mixed with Abrahmic operating system OR communist operating system owing to such mass-migrations, the buffering capacity is too low (in comparison) and we should know that the flash-point is fast approaching, as it happened in 1947..
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4826
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by KLNMurthy »

Altair wrote:I had a direct discussion with Prof. Karnad. He said if India starts dismembering other neighboring states it is entirely in the realm that other countries will start to think to dismember India. Redrawing maps/Boundaries in South Asia is a colonial legacy and India should not actively pursue it.
India however is doing everything it can to support Baluchis without crossing the red lines.
Since there exist ongoing efforts to dismember India, and since India has never tried to dismember anyone, I wonder from where Karnad gets his evidence for his view that trying to dismember others is what causes them to try to dismember India. Yes, we can expect that there will be retaliation in kind, but as targets of others' attacks, shouldn't we be retaliating in kind to deter others, exactly as per Karnad's logic?

I think there is some muddled thinking by Karnad. Based on vague belief in katmic retribution without taking the trouble to work out concrete details?
Post Reply