Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 01 Nov 2014 13:42

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 ... 79  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 10:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12237
arnab wrote:
brihaspati wrote:

As for US turning against its past allies: There exists only two states on the world - all whose claims of nationhood and legitimacy is based on ideology, without any element of geography and continuity of culture and ethnicity. One is the Vatican and the other is Pakistan. With Pakistan - it is also about being anti-India. None of the states that USA once allied with and then turned against [well onlee against individuals who became dispensable - and not the state or the deeper plants] had this unique distinction of pure-religion based identity. These are the most appropriate vehicles for imperialist dreams. There will be no change. Until the very last moment when our men finally move in and take control of the foothills towards AFG - USA will back up whatever remains of the tattered Pakjabi regime.


Well this confuses correlation with causation and cherry picks a 'vehicle of imperialism' very specifically ("..nationhood and legitimacy is based on ideology, without any element of geography and continuity of culture and ethnicity"). One can argue that a greater vehicle of imperialism was the creation of israel as well as support for KSA.


Well this too was expected. Somehow "Israel" has to be dragged into any discussion on "imperialist" dreams. Good cover to mix in KSA though. Much appreciated. Correlation confused with causation! Since no correlation was being claimed and no causation either - I guess confusion should first be cleared in when you can use those two terms. Perhaps clear up the usage first before applying the next time around? Factors that make something amenable for a particular use - is neither "correlation" nor "causation".

But the issue was really about the characteristics of "nations" which were allies in the past and which USA suddenly abandons and turns against. So your examples are bad ones actually - neither KSA nor Israel has been abandoned. What was common in those nations that did suffer this sudden US nakhra? Is there anything that distinguishes Pak from these others?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 10:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08
Posts: 1136
brihaspati wrote:

But the issue was really about the characteristics of "nations" which were allies in the past and which USA suddenly abandons and turns against. What was common in those nations? Is there anything that distinguishes Pak from these others?


Nope - the only thing that distinguishes them is that the rulers became completely and overtly anti US. I mean Vatican !! for use as an imperialstic vehicle by the WASPs :)

The only way you could exclude 'israel and KSA' is by bringing up that convulated reasoning about "a nation state formed without a continuous ethnicity and culture" being a great imperial control tool. See here is the thing - if you want to advance an argument that muslims / islamists are the problem and not the US (they only do what all imperialists do), then you have to travel down the convulated road which says: 'it will be the easiest to defeat the pak army' -obviously since you won't be doing the fighting :)

But the facts are this - a standing army can become 'irregular' (remember iraq) but not vice versa. Now the US has been complicit in arming and maintaining this jihadi standing army. You may have your own reasons for the need to overtly show your loyalty to the US administration - but that shouldn't change the facts on the ground.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 10:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23269
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
brihaspati wrote:
I was utterly serious with the second part of my question - what you mean by "defeat"? Or what constitutes "defeat" for you?

As you did accuse me of being stuck in analyzing-islamism groove [not in exact words, but I am summarizing it], I think you too have got stuck with analyzing-TSPA groove. My overt answer would not be pleasant for you. I would have said - the weakest of all the "militants" would be TSPA itself. Scoring a war win would be easiest against the TSPA, but "defeating" the irregulars - the "other" militants would be way more difficult within the parameters of current official protocols of war as limited by the Geneva convention.

There could be psychological advantages in building up or acknowledging the image of the TSPA as invincible. But what lies beyond this in my mind is for my mind onlee for the present. You, of all persons, should have known that personal digs at me are totally fruitless. :D

A lot depends on what you consider to be "defeat".



Briahspati the personal dig business about me is totally useless. But clearly my views on this thread are pissing a lot of people off. This is not about digs and traps, both topics that you bring up in posts addressed to me but about differences of opinion. If you are one groove and I am in another groove, we are on different grooves. Your opinion is not going to have much effect on mine and vice versa. Please leave out this pleasant unpleasant for me business. I am too old an hand on such matters to be affected by anything that anyone might say about me. None of these things, "traps" "digs" and things that will not be "pleasant for me" are germane to the issue so please leave them out.

While I make no specific argument about your views on islamism, I do believe that you are not adequately informed about the history of the US and Pakistan army. The alacrity with which you proceeded to provide me with "proof" of involvement of many nations in addition to the USA suggests to me that you were using Google/internet search on the spot to pick up information and post as "proof" against my arguments. That is what added to my impression that you are under informed about the military side of things and were scrambling to inform yourself urgently, picking up the slightest hints that went against my view as proof. But I believe you are fundamentally underinformed, or you would not have to search the internet for such information at this late stage.

I deliberately left the "defeat' answer aside and will answer it now. India can inflict military defeat every single one of the entities I have named. But the pain that those entities can inflict on India as a whole are not comparable. The Pakistan army stands way ahead in their ability to inflict pain on us.

The last time I posted well known information on here I was accused of posting well known information, so please pardon me if you know this well. But the Pakistan army, having tangled with India at great cost to itself and at considerable cost to india reverted to "covert, deniable" warfare using proxies with the assurance that if India attacked Pakistan directly, the Pakistan army would be able to inflict considerable pain on India, even if they lost. I hope you are familiar with specific papers written by Pakistan army generals expressing their doctrines. if not i will point you to them. The Pakistan army found a 'space" between conventional war and no war where they could provoke and bleed India by terrorist groups whom they supported.

Through the 1980s those terrorist groups had the overt support of both the USA and Pakistan because those terrorist groups were useful to the USA against the Soviets. In the 1990s - the terrorist were used mainly against india in Kashmir. The USA, while not aiding Pakistan was not concerned but the general thrust of US opinion was that the Kashmir issue is one of local freedom fighters and had nothing to do with Afghanistan.

The connection of Afghanistan terror with anti India terror that the US has accepted belatedly is again out of US self interest than out of any sympathy for India. The self interest of the US demands that the US continue to arm and fund the Pakistani army even while it "urges" them to fight islamist groups. The USA is on a losing wicket here. II am not concerned about any damage being done to the Afghan cause or to the US itself. I am solely concerned with the damage that will be done to India by re arming and re energizing the most slimy and deceitful Islamist group in Pakistan, the army.

I would support any form of deceit, lies and spin to create disharmony between the USA and the Pakistan army. The judgement that such disharmony already exists cuts no ice with me. If it exists it needs to be made worse, to the extent that arming and funding the Pakistan army must stop. You may not like my method, but you have already said that. As far as I am concerned I see no information that will make me budge on the issue of undesirability and harm to India by the supply of modern arms and financial aid to the Pakistan army by the USA.

You may think it is fine and you will not be the first to tell me that that arms and financial aid is not important. But I don't think so. The US must stop that arms supply, or be kicked out from its position as imperial troublemaker in Pakistan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 14:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
India doesn't really need to do anything to promote Islam vs White Christianity tussle in Pakistan.


Rajesh. The US, for example, did not need to do anything to promote Hindu India versus Muslim Pakistan tussle.

But it chose to take a side in national self interest without formally breaking relations with India. The US chose to arm and fund Pakistan.

I am choosing to take the side of my Pakistani brothers against the White Christist Imperialists without demanding a break in ties with the latter. In India's case we would not have to arm and fund anyone. But we can offer them support and assure them that we eternally have their bests interests at heart. Don't we? I know very few people who actually demand that Pakistan should be punished or broken up. The guilty must always be punished. But otherwise we are a peaceful nation.

shiv saar,

I don't object to the use of any propaganda which helps, regardless of whether it is based on lies or some skewed truth.

I just wanted to bring your attention to the following dynamic.

Let's say there are two constituencies of relevance here: The Establishment (Army, GoP) and the Pakistani People. Any propaganda against 'White Christianists' that one uses to broaden the gulf between Pakistan and USA/UK would only broaden the gulf between the people and USA.

The Pakistani Establishment themselves do this, for the simply reason that it increases their own worth as interlocutors for the USA, it allows the Establishment to get a better price for a lesser service! As long as USA feels that they need Pakistan, they will deal with the Pakistani Establishment. At the moment, USA feels they need Pakistan for a smooth withdrawal from Afghanistan. Of course some Americans will stay behind. But until the withdrawal, USA thinks they need Pakistan to make their withdrawal easier without the loss of too much face!

So until the withdrawal, a more stringent Anti-Americanism in Pakistan simply helps the Establishment to get a better price for lesser service, as well as to plead inability to cooperate.

After the withdrawal, Americans may decide to keep a few bases in the North of Afghanistan supplied from the Northern Distribution Network through Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan till Afghanistan. The Americans may decide to retain their Drone Program. The Americans may still need some Pakistani support but not that much. This however is still speculative because we still don't know how Afghanistan would look like say in 5 years. But one can speculate that even then USA may continue their drone program and the Pakis would remain quite pissed at USA.

Then USA's need for Pakistan would be less, and the Anti-Americanism in Pakistan would not really allow the Paki Establishment to extract too many goodies from USA.

So one can think of your suggestion of encouraging Anti-Americanism in Pakistan then - after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Right now the suggestion, I believe, is counterproductive as it increases the bargaining power of the Paki Establishment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 14:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
Fueling American Anger

I think a far more important question is whether India should partake in throwing ignominy on the face of America after it withdraws from Afghanistan!

There will be an upsurge in the mood of the Taliban (and the ISI) that they have been able to dislodge and defeat yet another superpower from Afghanistan! Should we partake in the celebrations of American defeat or should we not?

What we want is American anger at Pakistan to be especially high in the aftermath of American retreat from Afghanistan! We WANT that American smooth retreat from Afghanistan does not work out! We WANT that even as Americans are retreating, the Taliban should continue to take pot-shots at them!

More than that we want that the retreat from Afghanistan comes down like an Avalanche on the heads of the American politicians. There should be just as much bitterness among the Americans as there was after Vietnam. But after Vietnam, the anger was more directed inwards. This time we want the anger not just to be directed towards all those American generals and Administration officials who cooperated with Pakistanis, but at Pakistanis themselves.

This needs to blow up in the face of Americans big-time! And I want Indians to be doing both - rubbing salt in the wounds and also applying balsam of soothing words!

Indian-origin journalists in USA/West, as well as any other media people we can influence, should be scathing in their attacks on all Pro-Pakistani American politicians, and their hides should be torn from their bodies in public limelight. We should be giving prominent exposure to all American soldiers who write critically on what went wrong in Afghanistan.

I think Indians should get on the Internet in the wake of American retreat and on every article on the subject, try to mock the Americans for their "faith" in the Pakistanis and the resulting death of so many American soldiers.

Indian-Americans should in fact lobby their Congressmen in USA to initiate inquiries into what went wrong, and to influence the reports so that they speak out the truth - they have to be damning towards the Pakistanis. India-Americans should also support the political careers of any American soldiers who come out publicly in attacking Pakistani role in American defeat and loss of treasure and blood in Afghanistan. Congressmen who are close to Indian-Americans should also embrace such American veterans and give them a bigger platform.

Every politician or general having any contact with the Pakis should get so tainted, that they are totally sidelined and demoralized. America should burn in anger! That is the task we need to achieve. That is where Indians should invest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 16:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 10016
Location: Kali blessing station No 5, Mleccha Defence Tower No 34, Harshavardhan Line - Western Sector
rajesh - americans tend to think of afghanistan as a "just war" whereas vietnam was largely felt to be "unjust" - in the sense of - apart from stopping communism, there was no real panga. in the case of afghanistan, there is the very real (manufactured) panga of the twin towers crashing down
ergo, there will be no soul searching, there will be no regrets. the pakistan angle is very strange - it would appear that only the largesse of the US establishment towards the paquis and their continual belief in their utility prevents the joe sixpack's wrath from erupting
washington has mind control sussed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 17:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
Lalmohan ji,

I think, the anger at losing a "Just War" can be even greater than losing an "Unjust War", and the need to find culprits for the defeat can be even greater!

That is why, it is important to start banging the drums, that America has been defeated in Afghanistan, and to start pointing fingers at some people! The more fingers one points, the more fingers the others too would point! Finger-Pointing and Blame Game should become the order of the day!

In the end, every 2-bit politician would be forced to point his finger at Pakistan, to save his sorry skin!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 22:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12237
shiv ji,
I greatly respect and admire your cumulative work over the years to explore the details of TSPA and its relationships with USA. I do not underestimate your grasp over military affairs. But you should perhaps keep in mind, that I had insisted on the eventual "defeat" and withdrawal of US+NATO from AFG - at a time when eminent military experts on the forum had mocked me about it. I also gave specific reasons - tactical and strategic - from the military aspects, as to why the US and NATO would fail. I had also estimated the basics of withdrawal to be started from the end of 2010-early 2011 and gain speed by 2012. All these were laughed about by military "expertise". I simply waited for events to take their course.

I had predicted the eventual empowerment again of the Taliban in the larger portion of AFG, and that USA itself will be forced to negotiate with them for reinstatement. This was based on a military undertsanding of the situation and not merely social or political. So I hope you would not underestimate my view of the "military" side of things.

I am well aware of the capabilities of the TSPA on paper and in reality, but not everything that I am aware of needs be shouted from treetop - does it? My reference to web-based pieces was out of two reasons - I do not have to compromise sources of information I may have beyond the web [ in fact it is the other sources which helps me decide what to look for on the web], and I do not have to reveal any exposure to military affairs that I may already have had. The objective of pointing out the participation of other nations in keeping TSPA or terrorists supplied - was to complicate the simple black and white picture you were painting, and showing that mere differences or tiffs with the USA will not stop the supplies. There is a wide network that will keep the supplies alive.

It is much safer for me to write about the piskology of islamism because that creates a certain image as to what my interests or expertise are about. In fact for certain areas - the more you underestimate my exposure the better for me. :P

When I am saying that TSPA is the weakest "militant" unit out of all the others in Pak - I mean it in a sense that is perhaps not that difficult for you to understand - given your military expertise. It is primarily a conventional force- and has desperately tried to be so. I initiated a discussion on the relations/origins of irregulars within/alongside the regular on another military expert's prompting but stopped elaborating on it once I realized that the prompting was not really aimed at discussion. TSPA can be tackled through a combination of deception, and actions with a specific target of liquidation rather than neutralization. It needs a clear cut political will and decision as to military objectives and the post war plans for the region.

Much harder will be to stamp out the other apparently "weaker" militants.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 02:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4757
Location: Dehradun
PA is the weakest Ideological Jihadi and the strongest at the same time. PA wants things to happen at their pace and timings. Goals are the same. The PA Jihadi motto and the Al Qaeda one are the same. Differences are in the pace and volatility of approach. The doctrinal reality that faces the Kafir is the same. One believes in the Chinese torture Lingchi/ or Lyngchi..death by a thousand cuts..the other in a quick beheading with a blunt knife for pleasure. Take your pic of what you prefer. None is good for the Kafir. We have no sides in this to choose. But absolute elimination of the thought processes which guide that sickness. Elimination to the level that our leadership must be equipped with faculties and a mental make up to commit genocide if need be. Complete ideological genocide.

All nations with Nuclear weapons have the ability and mental make up to commit genocide. The Americans have done it, the Brits have done it, the White Christians have done it, the Commies have done it, the Paki's have done it, Islam has done it. All except one..Dharmic nation so far with Nuclear weapons.

The BIG psychological change i have been recommending without much success is Dharma, and that means humility, absence of pride (No i am not proud to be an Indian, i am humbled to be one...there is a BIG difference..try and understand that Jingo's) etc. These qualities gain humans into their fold much in inverse of a tsunami gathering Debris. But in the absence of people assimilating into Dharma...the result can be havoc. Krishna proved it in the BG. Fascist Adharma was vanquished in the Wars, and it will happen too in the future for people advocating and sitting on the fence wrt to Adharma. There is no way out of it.

To give Racist White Xtiandom the honor of domination is ideologically a stupid premise. Racist White Xtiandom is bound to fail, like Racist Islam or Imperial Han..they don't have the ideological strength to resist Dharma. A united Dharmic front with all the battle strength will never hesitate to ravage Adharma in a way they will feel sorry. It does not happen consistently is human weakness resulting from it's distance to Dharma. When it happens once a while..the Adharmic can forget what mercy means.

The biggest weakness in the ahead of the curve forum, i find is consistent underestimation of the power of Dharma. To understand that get over the cliches 'India is best East or West'..'I am Proud to be Indian'. Pride is a sentiment that will destroy. Try for a change.."I am humbled to be an Indian". When you internalize that..you may start realizing why Dharma may be the solution that you seek here. This is not debatable. It is about evolution. Dharma is all powerful. It will win.


Last edited by harbans on 29 Feb 2012 02:54, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 02:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4414
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
harbans, behind the GDF burqa, this idea has been taking shape. That the next civilizational iteration for India/World will have to occur in an inclusive spiritual efflorescence.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 03:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4757
Location: Dehradun
Carl Ji i think you amongst the very few persons here, possibly Bji and yes a few others who do understand this and it's import. I'll check the GDF thread sure. But i am getting to understand that many here have become incapable of understanding this, one has to evolve to possibly do so. They are too enamored of the 'Chanakyan' approach. A short term gain, 'short time'..thing. Too enamored of the HK/ ZB approach to real politik. They would rather emulate the follies of those that followed the Adharmic approach for some short term gains. They too must realize a Dharmic India will have no place for them. Maybe one reason for mollycoodling Islamism for the commies and the left is a death wish. For nothing is gained in such an approach but that. Bharat Rakshaks are those that stand firmly for Dharma. If not..they are Adharmics. Dharma will give time for them to change. Else Dharma will subsume their ideologies too in time, they will be ash. This is nature. It is in the BG. Arjun/ Krishna were not Hindu's (Casteists, Polytheists, Idol worshippers, Rat worshippers, Snakeworshippers, Cow pee drinkers etc)..they were Dharmics..and so was Buddha, Mahavir, the Sikh Guru's, Rama..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 09:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23269
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
brihaspati wrote:

When I am saying that TSPA is the weakest "militant" unit out of all the others in Pak - I mean it in a sense that is perhaps not that difficult for you to understand - given your military expertise. It is primarily a conventional force- and has desperately tried to be so. I initiated a discussion on the relations/origins of irregulars within/alongside the regular on another military expert's prompting but stopped elaborating on it once I realized that the prompting was not really aimed at discussion. TSPA can be tackled through a combination of deception, and actions with a specific target of liquidation rather than neutralization. It needs a clear cut political will and decision as to military objectives and the post war plans for the region.

Much harder will be to stamp out the other apparently "weaker" militants.


Brihaspati _ believe we are talking parallel to each other. I have no argument with what you are saying, but I think you have left out one factor that may not change the ultimate outcome, but can cause more pain death and misery to Indians before the ultimate outcome.

In theory, if you have a group of weak monkey Mussalman Jihadi groups squabbling with each other and you are the mighty Sultan the USA who has magic weapons to make someone strong or weak against his opponent in military terms, you can buy off one group and "protect and preserve" him as equal or superior to his other jihadi peers even if he is ideologically weaker. In fact you select him because he is pliable. The others are not pliable because of their ideological conviction/brainwashedness. But you make your selected vassal militarily strong. He may be weak by every other definition.

Now please allow me to digress briefly into the history of warfare. Maybe 1000 years ago cavalry with swords, spears and arrows dominated the military sphere. Everyone who needed a good military got them and they eventually spread across the world. The balance was upset by the "firearm" - the rifle. By the early 20th century - any self respecting army had rifles (and cannons) and dominated everyone else.

Since 1945 a silent revolution has taken place. The surplus arms industries of the WW2 era and the spread of "world trade" has ensured that machine guns ("The Kalsashnikov") and surplus ammunition is available in every corner of the globe. Every fighting force anywhere in the world has them. The British used to punish rebelllious Tribals of the NWFP with their superior, discipline artillery and musketry, but that era is gone. The "NWFP tribals" too have Kalashnikovs and hand held artillery (RPGs). Since a good rifle can last over 100 years, this fact cannot be reversed in the foreseeable future

To defeat these people one theoretically needs an overwhelming force of tanks and aircraft and a US like ability to pound from the air. Ragtag militias like the Taliban and the military wing of the LeT are cheap to maintain but the cost is high in lives. But if you arm these jihadis with tanks and heavy artillery they become much more dangerous and can do a lot more damage. You will require even more heavy firepower to suppress them and you will have to take a lot of casualties while doing that.

What the US did was to arm an ideologically weak group (Pakistan army) with heavy firepower to face India while both Pakistan and the US used ideologically motivated armies with just Kalashnikovs and RPGs to attack Afghanistan and India. The US was unable to see that the Pakistan army was either only pretending to be pliable. or was pliable only because of ideological weakness. The worry now is that if the jihadis overwhelm the Pakistani army, they will have access to firepower that would make them a formidable military power.

The US is now desperately depending on the last "loyal to USA" dregs of the Pakistan army and arming them with things that will remain useful to islamist armies for many decades. If and when the US cuts and runs all that equipment will fall into the hands of the Islamist armies. If a US defeat is inevitable, the less they leave behind in the subcontinent by way of heavy and dangerous equipment the better it will be for India.

For the US, running from the subcontinent is an option, but not for India. The US has a further option of selling arms to India to counter what they left behind in Pakistan. The US also has the option of taking pain and staying in Pakistan, but for that they have to sink money into the Pakistan army (as they are doing now). The arms that come into Pakistan can all be used against india in any case, whether the US stays or goes, or whether we face the Pakistan army or the jihadis. The US has one final option that few are talking about. That is to ally with a wholly Islamist Pakistan that is taken over by jihadis. An early "honorable exit" by the US after a quick handshake and a sorry could set the stage for such an alliance. It could well be in the interests of both parties, the Islamic/Taliban government of Pakistan and the USA to enter into an alliance. Such an alliance, however unlikely, would be against Indian interests. I do not trust Islamist ideology to be powerful enough to oppose the USA. They will ally with the USA given a chance. The USA too needs them and finds them useful idiots. Such an alliance must be prevented.

In my view there is an unholy nexus between the former European colonial powers (White Christian imperialists represented by the USA/NATO alliance) and the remnants of the former Caliphate where traditional Islamic fissures (shia-sunni, Muslim-Jewish, and now Hindu-Muslim) rivalry are utilised by the inheritors of the former imperial nations to continue military-economic domination. I believe that any move we make to break the domination must involve breaking current alliances, using ideology or deceit or anything. It also involves recognizing that as long as we see the issue as a plain vanilla Hindu Muslim affair we are missing the broader picture of the history of the way Islam has fought with or cooperated with "Christendom" represented by the European nations, now USA+W.Europe. That history is relevant in the India-Pakistan context.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 11:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
harbans wrote:
But i am getting to understand that many here have become incapable of understanding this, one has to evolve to possibly do so. They are too enamored of the 'Chanakyan' approach. A short term gain, 'short time'..thing.

There is nothing to say that "Chanakyan" approach is against Dharma! Instead "Chanakyan" approach can be understood as the sword arm of Dharma.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 12:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 3603
Location: In the soft spots!!!
IOW, you need Lord Krishna to protect Yudhishthira!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 17:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12237
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 20:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3466
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 03:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
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
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 03:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 04:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12237
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 04:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4414
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
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
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 04:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
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..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 05:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1828
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 05:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1828
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 06:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23269
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 07:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12237
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 07:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23269
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 08:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23269
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 09:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Posts: 1899
Location: GHQ
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 14:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 16:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 29 Nov 2011 00:42
Posts: 194
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 22:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 23:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4414
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
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
Quote:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 23:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Posts: 1899
Location: GHQ
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2012 23:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2012 02:04 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 18 Jul 2011 14:57
Posts: 56
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........


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2012 07:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23269
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2012 18:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
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!
Quote:
• 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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Mar 2012 12:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14126
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.
Quote:
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Mar 2012 13:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Posts: 1899
Location: GHQ
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Mar 2012 21:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23269
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 ... 79  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Nandy, DevD, dwaipayandhar, Eric Demopheles, MaharathiArjun, shinee, sreeji and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group