Bharat Rakshak

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is a no-brainer trade-off. India will ditch Iran if USA delivers on Baluchi Partition from Pakistan!

Is it that simple? After all the sunk costs in Iran. Control of an Afghan-CA corridor without Iranian co-operation is possible?

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.

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.

RajeshA ji/ Carl ji just to contribute to your discussion - latest news:

India ignores US, keeps Iran ties

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Tehran has agreed to provide Islamabad with US$250 million to help build a gas pipeline linking Pakistan to Iran against the wishes of the United States. That is half the amount cash-starved and energy deficient Pakistan was looking for. - Syed Fazl-e-Haider

Altair 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.

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.

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??? ......

• 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.

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.

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.