Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 26 Nov 2014 20:38

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3191 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 80  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 17:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
This thread should be used to discuss the various options India has, or should have to deal with Pakistan and Pakistan-sponsored Terrorism. Inevitably India's constraints and other relevant considerations would also be discussed here.

I would request the Moderators to shift all those posts they deem appropriate, for example, from TSP Thread, into this thread.

Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 17:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
-- moved --


Last edited by RajeshA on 25 Jun 2010 22:28, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 18:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12244
The trick is to engineer a "proper" referendum after occupation that accedes to Indian sovereignty. Land once grabbed cannot be given over, even in compensation, because the whole thing will come back with a vengeance. Many international forces will help - look at what is happening with Gaza and WB. You cannot allow rival claims of sovereignty if you want to clamp down on the sources of generation of Jihadi terror - you need full rashtryia control.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 18:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
brihaspati garu,

There is always the possibility to do an alternate referendum. Instead of doing a plebiscite in a Kashmir, politicized by Pakistani agents, one can do an alternate plebiscite on a piece of land conquered from Pakistan.

It is possible to do some investments in the conquered area. Throw out hardliners first to Pakistan, cordon off the area from Pakistani agents in Kashmir and rest of India, Infuse the area with developmental activity - build roads, schools, hospitals, create some jobs for the mango abduls stuck on this side; buy off the influential personalities and then hold a plebiscite there.

If it goes in our favor, then India wins a big victory over the Pakistanis and in fact challenge their very existence as a nation. If India loses, well it was to be expected - no big deal.

I know that you speak of something a bit more broader scoped than this, but this could be a good test run.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 20:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31
Posts: 1847
If we could talk with Zardari, and he spoke with real authority, we could convince him to give us the whole of Pakistan and keep only 10% for himself. In that case I would be FOR talks. Talks Khappey!

The concern in Pakistan is well known. Musharraf and Kasuri had come close to some kind of Kashmir agreement with MMS in 2005-07 (of course nobody knows what the parameters really were because all discussion was conducted behind closed doors.) Now Kiyani and Qureishi have ditched that agreement and are not only distancing themselves from it, but from talks as well.

There are three broad categories of possibilities for why:

1) MMS had convinced Musharraf and Kasuri that J&K is an integral part of India and Pakistan cannot do anything about it... and Musharraf had almost agreed to return POK and NA to India.

2) MMS had offered Musharraf a permanent LOC=IB (more or less) and Musharraf had almost accepted.

3) MMS had offered Musharraf more than LOC=IB... "joint management", "irrelevant borders", "demilitarization (from the Indian side)" etc. and Musharraf had almost accepted.

I will leave it to BRF-ites to decide which of the three offers they think MMS is most likely to have made :mrgreen: However, that isn't relevant.

What is relevant is that Kiyani and co. are reneging on the 2005-07 talks. This could, again, be for one of two reasons:

1) Kiyani and co. think that MMS is weak and that if they demand more he will give more than what he offered to Musharraf.

2) Kiyani and co. have no interest in ending the climate of military hostility, low intensity-conflict and the industry of jihadi terrorism against India, period... they would not want to end this no matter if MMS offered to give them J&K on a platter, because it is just too important to their own survival and their own strategic vision to carry on the low-intensity conflict and sustain the jihad industry indefinitely. They do not want to solve Kashmir on ANY terms because it will deprive them of the root-cause needed to justify continued support to the jihad industry. Sustaining the jihad industry is their ultimate objective and they don't want to lose the Kashmir excuse that convinces many in the West to accept it.

Personally I think it is the second reason, but it is only a gut feeling at this point. Any thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 20:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 4869
Yes, to divert attention from failures of domestic policy, India is very useful to rally the electorate. J&K is one issue, now river water is a second.

Remember the fundamental instability - in a democratic Pakistan if X comes up with a "roti, kapda aur makaan" program, then Y will outbid them with a "roti, kapda, makaan, aur jihad" program; and without a fundamental change in mindset of mango abdul, Y will generally have a message advantage. (Y may have disadvantages, e.g., having a reputation of being very corrupt, but that is a different issue.)

Most democracies are stabilized by the fact that at some point, extremism loses more votes than it wins, and so politicians are constantly steered to the center. The claim is that in Pakistan the equilibrium point is heavily weighted towards the extremist end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 20:57 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55
Posts: 6168
Rudradev-ji

It is the former. The Paki army-types have never ever taken a holistic view of their capability (the SDREs are to blame for this as well). I am going to somewhat repeat the post I made some dins back - but still: Every once in a while, they find some capability, alliance or leverage and delude themselves into thinking that they have military superiority. In '48 it was the Yahoos (of which IA made mincemeat), in '65 it was the '62 clash with China, the short Sir Creek skirmish, in '71 it was shiny US toys, the 80's and 90's terrorism due to A'stan Soviet jihad, in Kargil it was Nukes which would prevent escalation ityadi. Every one of these clashes was started with the Pakis being 400% convinced that they will make short work of the SDREs. It is the same case now, they feel that they have the upper hand and force a favorable solution.

Now they feel that they are at a cusp of major victory in A'stan (refer to the NYTimes report), with Haqqani's faction in a power-sharing deal and a civilian face for the administration (Kind of like the Lebanon-Hezbollah model). This in their opinion gives them flexibility to launch attacks on India while keeping the taps of aid open from western countries to guarantee access to CAR, keep the yahoos away from the west and become a geostrategically important country. So they feel that it is not in their interests to cut a deal now -- why ask for LOC==IB if they can dismantle whole of India? In any case, the recent escalation in the military budget & rumors floating about might indicate that they are raising a whole new strike corps or atleast an armored division. So essentially they are still India-centric rather than being security-centric (these two are different things. The latter guarantees relative peace to pursue development).

So in a sense Kayani & co want to pursue this strategy not for their own survival or to carry the low-intensity conflict & sustain Jihad indefinitely, it is because they sense a huge victory very soon. In fact, doing the opposite -- cutting a deal with India and profiting from it, is a better survival strategy. So it cannot be survival.

Now, it is left to be seen if the grand visions of strategy pan out, especially if it sits on handouts from the lid of western impotence, covering collecting anger.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 21:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Posts: 4077
Location: Hayden's Ferry
Good post Anujan-ji. 8)
UK plans to invest £665m in Pakistan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 21:10 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55
Posts: 6168
To elaborate on my earlier post.

The fundamental flaw of the SDRE approach to Pakis is that we have never sought to deter them. (Well except in '71 of course and I am not referring to the new clear detergent). We do just about enough (and some would argue a shoddy job at that) to make sure that we dont lose anything to the Pakis. Dawood Ibrahim was never pursued with full force after the Mumbai blasts, Kargil was fought on our side of the border while "respecting the sanctity of LOC", Mumbai was avenged through dossiers. Now I am not going to go into reasons why we did this. But this kind of "no punishment for trying to indulge in arson, we will just escort you out of the door" -- means that everytime Pakis find a new leverage, new backers, new idea or new weapons, they try to commit arson all over again.

Someone mentioned "Nash equilibrium" here. (I dont remember if it was in the Indo-Pak context, if not, please bear with me). Though applying a purely mathematical context to international relations has its pitfall, let me put it in perspective. It is reasonable to assume that when a Nash equilibrium is achieved, parties sign off on an agreement. But what is frequently missed is that Nash equilibrium is achieved only if any party making a move suffers a loss. In essence, trying to get more will lead you to lose more. India-Pak is not in any kind of Nash equilibrium, because whenever they try to get more, they dont lose anything -- all we have demonstrated is that their past attempts of trying to get more have not succeeded *and* (this is critical) they have more o less retained what they had. This only encourages to them to make future attempts at trying to get more. This is not an equilibrium, it is just meta stability and future attempts at getting more is guaranteed!

Kayani's gambit should be seen from this angle. If their past attempt at trying to get more was rewarded by a drubbing, followed by an offer of settlement, they would have taken it. It has been rewarded by court conviction of some inbred retard Paki, whitewashing official involvement, and statements about "Strong and stable Pakistan....." followed by SDREs covering in their dhotis about Pakis striking a deal with the taliban. Now any smart person (there is no doubt Kayani is one) now has no price to pay for trying again. He will try again, especially with US money, the nukes, leverage in A'stan, Army free from Mango Paki's wrath over water electricity etc. In short, they are in a MUCH better position than they were in 1999(post Kargil)-2001(post 9/11)-2006(Mush's problems) timeframe.

He will try again especially if he feels his hand is strong. He wont try if we bare our fangs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 21:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Feb 2006 07:11
Posts: 226
Location: Bharat
Till today India has been true to the spirit of IWT, instead of land can we meddle with IWT?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 21:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Jun 2010 01:07
Posts: 224
pgbhat wrote:


Why do Paki lie so much ? :x

Here is a news from neutral source.

UK to increase aid for Pakistan to 665 million pounds: Hague

http://www.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?N ... Language=3

There is a difference between aid and invest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 21:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31
Posts: 1847
Anujan-ji, on the whole you are probably right. However...

Anujan wrote:
So in a sense Kayani & co want to pursue this strategy not for their own survival or to carry the low-intensity conflict & sustain Jihad indefinitely, it is because they sense a huge victory very soon. In fact, doing the opposite -- cutting a deal with India and profiting from it, is a better survival strategy. So it cannot be survival.



I should have been more clear what I meant by "survival". The thing is, it would probably be no underestimation to say that there are about 2-3 million jihadis under arms in Af-Pak all told. These are a potential danger to the faction of TSPA represented by Kiyani.

Kiyani et al may very well expect a great victory in regaining control over Afghanistan via these proxies when the US goes away soon. But what next? It is almost inevitable that these 2-3 million (or a vast majority thereof) will turn against the less-pure leadership of TSPA in Islamabad in one way or another. To what extent can the Haqqani types be trusted, after all? At some point after gaining a real power stake in Kabul, is there any guarantee they won't carry on the fight for Pashtunistan? Certainly many of the Taliban rank and file in Afghanistan have no love for the less-pure TSPA's double games... and they are more likely to retaliate with direct action against the TSPA leadership than the Americans. In fact that is already happening.

So in sum, if Kiyani agrees to *any* kind of J&K settlement, he is losing the one safety valve that will ultimately turn the reclamation of strategic depth in Afghanistan into a disaster for the TSPA. That's why he wants the anti-India jihad (for which Kashmir is the most compelling emotive rallying point) to carry on in perpetuity. It is the TSPA's one leash on the huge mass of jihadis, that could prevent them from turning against less-pure TSPA leaders (and, Kiyani hopes, going after the West.)

Being charitable to MMS for once, I think it is just possible that MMS (by repeatedly making SeS/Thimpu style offers) is trying to show that TSPA actually has no interest in resolving Kashmir through dialogue no matter how generous the terms offered by India (talks unlinked to terrorism, etc.) He is calling the TSPA's bluff that Kashmir is the root cause of terrorism against India... because the root cause of terrorism against India is now tied to the TSPA's need to control the jihadi monster they have created, no matter what India may offer on Kashmir.

I do agree with you, however, about the need to bare fangs. The above calculus by TSPA applies only as long as there is no cost to the TSPA in pursuing the safety valve of Kashmir. It is not enough to merely demonstrate that the TSPA has no interest in solving Kashmir by making repeated offers and concessions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
For the sake of discussion, a simplification of the whole issue of Pakistani terrorism in India:

TSPA & Co. conduct and support terrorism in India to increase their H&D.

If India yelps, India helps. If India growls, then it is not even a bark. If India prepares, India invites all the sundry to come visit Kashmir. If India attacks, nukes go online.

So if somebody can think of a way, that any terrorist activity in India causes TSPA & Co. to lose H&D without the risk of a nuclear exchange, then one would have found a solution to this knotted problem.

Hint: Spoiling Pakistan's image in the West as a country of terrorists, has no correlation with Pakistan's H&D.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
Kanson wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
So if somebody can think of a way, that any terrorist activity in India causes TSPA & Co. to lose H&D without the risk of a nuclear exchange, then one would have found a solution to this knotted problem.

Hint: Spoiling Pakistan's image in the West as a country of terrorists, has no correlation with Pakistan's H&D.

Correct. But it kind of helps in making Pak losse there H&D, if that happens. Only way to make Paki loose their H&D eternally is to nullify the term called Pak. As long as there exists Pak, there is some kind of H&D still sticking that says we are yet to be defeated. How to make that happen?


If the whole international community calls Pakistani Army a terrorist, it does not help, because it is a badge of honor for the perpetrators, a recognition of their success in asymmetric warfare.

TSPA's H&D can be lost only if it is lost in the eyes of the RAPE, the Ghazwa-e-Hind crowd, etc. 1971 was a loss of H&D, especially because it was at the hands of India. An Army like that of Pakistan loses H&D only if they lose at the hands of the Kafir. Everything else doesn't count.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
shiv wrote:
Quote:
It is important for the Pakistani to see unhappiness among Indian Muslims. It is important for the Pakistani narrative to hold up as poster boys, unhappy and disssarisfied, and preferably murdered or raped Indian Muslims.

The Indian government recognised this long ago and indulged in a series of moves that are nowadays called as “Muslim appeasement in India” to make sure that Muslims got as much Islam in India as they desired. But this actually kept them away from modernization and education. Luckily for India even Pakistan did not bother about modernization and education of Pakistanis so they eventually had nothing to show off about.


shiv ji,

"Muslim appeasement in India" does dent Pakistan's contention, that it has to fight for the rights of Muslims on the subcontinent. The rights of Muslims on the subcontinent are however somewhat 'stretchable'.

- It is the right of the Muslims to have a Muslim as the leader/king/emperor/calipha of India.
- It is the right of the Muslims to have the Muslims as ruling class in India.
- It is the right of the Muslims to live under Sharia.
- It is the right of the Muslims to convert all Kufr to Islam unhindered.

What else is 'Lal Kile pe Pakistan ka jhanda pheraange!' slogan?

So for TSPA to keep the Pakistani qaum all pumped up against India is not a very difficult task, especially as there are always cases of Babri Masjid, Godhra, Kashmir incidents, etc. to keep the pot boiling for the next 20 years. So propaganda material is not really a problem for TSPA.

The above, I would catalog under "Loss of a true motive". There is still no "Loss of made-up motive". In Islam, there is no dearth of motives for jihad. Moreover there is still no "Loss of H&D", which a Muslim Army only suffers when the Army loses to the Kafirs (People without a book :roll: ). Even that sometimes does not cause irreparable damage to the H&D, as the ghazwa can be continued in further battles and wars, either by the same Momeen or his descendants. It has to be a tangible loss.
  • Loss of lives is not tangible, as Islam can produce a thousand new mujahids, especially with the high birth rate.
  • Destruction of property is also not tangible, as property can be rebuilt, but more importantly there is hardly much property there worth its name.
  • Destruction of places of worship is also not that tangible because some Salafist streams of Islam consider even historical mosques and mausoleums as idol-worship. Besides destruction of such places raises only more ire against the destroyer.

The only things that comes to my mind, is
  • Loss of Land
  • Loss of Followers to another religion

because both losses is a retreat of Islam and any Muslim ruler who allows that, incurs losses to his H&D.

Being a secular country and an appeaser on top of that, India cannot really pursue the second option. Loss of Land is for me the only appropriate strategy. That is why I am of the opinion that, in order to stop terrorism in India, India should 'confiscate' a commensurate amount of Land from Pakistan, regardless of price.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
surinder wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
If the whole international community calls Pakistani Army a terrorist, it does not help, because it is a badge of honor for the perpetrators, a recognition of their success in asymmetric warfare.


I disaggree. For all their bravado, TSPians are remarkably keen to be seen in positive light by the world, especially by West, and also by Indians. (This desire for likeability is something that is probably a vestige of Hindu trait in them, but that is besides the point.) Nevertheless, it does hold them, to a certain extent at least. TSP has not enjoyed the international disdain by caused by Shehzaaadi or the London tube boombers. India has exploited this trait quite well also, witholding recognition by threatening to break of diplomatic relations and cutting of rail and bus links at certain times (ABV also cut off over flights). Also note, their desire for "dialogue", even when even they know it is not going to give them Kashmir, is rooted in their desire to be treated as a "normal" "respectable" nation who can sit at a negotiationg table.

I do admit that this tendency alone cannot be sufficient in bringing them back from the ditch of atankvaad.


surinder ji,
You are right. I would like to say however, that particular strain is more pronounced in RAPE, but less so in Islamized Pakjabis and some Pushtun who look upon disdain at the West, and have a particular disdain for Kufr Hindus. They don't care about visas to Western countries. This is a constituency which has been nurtured by TSPA and the madrassas. This is the constituency from which all the Tanzeems get their cadres but it is also a constituency which needs to be constantly fed with stories of Muslim bravery, and how 1 Pakistani is equal to 10 Hindus. It is in this constituency, that TSPA cannot afford to lose face.
This constituency would not accept the alliance with USA either, were it not for the argument that they need the weapons to make Kufr India bleed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
Rudradev wrote:
surinder wrote:
Well said. In fact, it was the loss of Land in 1971 that has meant that TSP has not waged a full-fledged open war on India. They went for from an overt war to a covert one. Now further loss of Land should be threat that India should use. It is not cheap for India, but I don't see any alternative.


It is a 400% empty threat as long as Pakistan is illegally sitting on nearly 100,000 square kilometers of our land, and we aren't able to do a goddamn thing about that. What "land" of theirs are we going to confiscate, when for 63 years we have not been able to take back even the land that is our own?


Rudradev ji,

You are comparing apples to oranges in this case, or let's say apples to apple-orange-hybrids.

  • Apples: Compensation for damages, due to Pakistan's current state policy of terrorism
  • Oranges: Historical issue in cryostasis


The political class, and I guess, the majority of the people, in India has already come to terms with living in State with a birth defect (PoK), for a number of reasons. The people are however not happy with the ongoing terrorism campaign coming from next door.

Land grab in Pakistan for every terror attack in India is to serve as a form of compensation/retribution/justice. It is supposed to hurt the terror perpetrators, where it hurts them the most, in the loss of H&D. It is not primarily for the sake of land itself.

TSPA needs to lose their aura of can-do, they have nurtured in Pakistan and the West. The loss of face and defeat of 1971 has paled. The Pakistanis think they got rid of Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They would soon be celebrating, that they got rid of America in Afghanistan after milking them of a few billions, using smoke and mirrors. They are hitting India as and when they will, and getting no retribution. The country of Pakistan belongs to them. They get 30% of the Budget. TSPA has every reason to feel good and invincible. TSPA needs a reminder.

Every new day, India holds on to this piece of land in Pakistan, be it even a couple of hundred square kilometers, conquered in response to a terror act in India, would be a day, when the Pakistani Army would be hauled over the coals. By the right-wing for losing a fight to the kafirs, and by the people and media for precipitating a clash leading to a loss of land.

For all in India who think, there is a peace constituency in Pakistan and it needs to be strengthened, this is the way to go about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:22 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55
Posts: 6168
Rudradev-ji

On the whole I agree with you. However, if you think about it, Kayani has 2 choices. Either (1) Cut a deal with India & rein in the Yahoos or (2) cut a deal with the yahoos and use them to bash up India.

If you generalize the "lose a lot if you try again" argument, we have not -- in any shape or form -- demonstrated that we are more dangerous than the telibunnies. I 400% believe that we are! For all the lyrical ballads about the accuracy of tellibunny's shot and his commitment to Jihad, we have a million men backed by a stronger economy, an army of diplomats, a bunch of spooks and a bunch of nukes. What we have *not* done though, is to convey that if they think 2 million telibbunies are a problem, we are a bigger problem. (On the other hand, Pakis are doing a good job at "If you think we are a problem, the tellibunnies are a bigger problem" -- the earliest argument along this line that I remember of was by Jihadi Sethi in TFT. But I digress..) If we had done that, then there would be an "equilibrium". Kayani settles issues with India, takes India's help in bolstering Paki economy with even a joint effort at modernizing A'stan to cut the support from under the tellibunnies.

But we have not!! On the other hand, there are no concrete price to pay, if as you had pointed out, Kayani uses cashmere as a safety valve and sends the yahoos over to this side of the border. We will have a few citizens killed and then follow 1 year judicial prosecution of some inbred low-level footsoldier-jihadi, feed him biriyani every day. Then he will get convicted, reappeal and families will give interviews of having "forgiven him", and mango paki will listen to talk shows in Pakistan insinuating that his name is Amar Singh Chennappa Ganguly who belonged to "Har Har Mahadev - Akhand Bharat" terrorist group.

Every country, in ever major decision chooses the lesser of the two evils. The tellibunnies are the lesser of the two evils in Paki perspective because (a) Every Paki is a Jihadi, and his perception of India is filled with hate and his perception of yahoos is filled with love, so they actually bias the *actual* problem (b) Equally important: Irrespective of bias, the *actual* problem we have created is zero.


Last edited by Anujan on 25 Jun 2010 22:24, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
Pranav wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
Land grab in Pakistan for every terror attack in India is to serve as a form of compensation/retribution/justice. It is supposed to hurt the terror perpetrators, where it hurts them the most, in the loss of H&D. It is not primarily for the sake of land itself.


Basic principle: Either you totally destroy an enemy, or you leave him alone.


Pranav ji,

That is a good sound bite. Nothing more.

Basic principle is to control the environment to allow own nation and civilization a clear path to forge ahead in terms of all attributes of national power.

Pakistan is part of that environment over which we have little control. What we need to do is regain control over this variable. It need not be full control, but sufficient control so as to not become quicksand for us.

The biggest obstacle is the Pakistani Army. That needs to be weakened. There are several suggestions cursing around:

  • Lull the enemy into sleep. Allow the civilians to exert more control. Do more Pappi-Jhappi. Do more chai-biskuit. MMS is hard at it.
  • Increase the destructive entropy in Pakistan. The more lashkars sprout up in Pakistan and turn against TSPA the better. The more pious are already taking care of that to some extent.
  • Weaken the platform which sustains TSPA, i.e. the Pakistani economy. Again this is happening by itself. USA would sooner or later again let Pakistan to go into a spiral.
  • Wean away Pakistan's benefactors. There are limitations of Indian capacity to do that.
  • Destroy TSPA's sheen. My suggestion was, that this is best possible, by grabbing chunks of land from Pakistan as compensation for their terrorism in India.

Getting ourselves nuked does not really belong in the category, "controlling the environment".

"Either you totally destroy an enemy, or you leave him alone." - is another way of saying "Either you get nuked, or you get terrorized."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
Pranav wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
"Either you totally destroy an enemy, or you leave him alone." - is another way of saying "Either you get nuked, or you get terrorized."


I had reworded that - If you think you are not strong enough to totally destroy an enemy, at acceptable cost, then don't go and poke him in the eye.


Enmity is not something static in the context of India and Pakistan. Enmity here is very dynamic.
  • They are recruiting Indians, brainwashing them and turning them into Islamic zealots and extremists. Destroying the fabric of our communal harmony and peace.
  • They are sending own terrorists to conduct terrorist acts within India.
  • They are contributing all they can to the boil in Kashmir.
  • Not to speak of Khalistan, and all the arms smuggling to various groups fighting India.
.

So enmity is very dynamic here. Who is poking whom in the eye? Why don't the Pakistanis think "Either you totally destroy an enemy, or you leave him alone.". They are not destroying us completely, but they are still poking in our eyes. I wonder why is this 'wisdom' not accessible to the Pakistanis.

Pranav wrote:
Quote:
[*]Destroy TSPA's sheen. My suggestion was, that this is best possible, by grabbing chunks of land from Pakistan as compensation for their terrorism in India.


No... that would be a poor choice. There are plenty of other options, however.


Please, care to elaborate what other options are there to take away the sheen off TSPA? I am very open for education on this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
shiv wrote:
Rajesh - there is one problem with what you suggest. It assumes that Pakistanis are all united in loving their land and will uniformly feel pain when part of that land is taken. What follows from this idea is that if any Pakistani is a terrorist, he and his supporters can be made to feel pain by taking a random piece of land from the whole "Pakistan". This would be fine if all Pakistanis were equal in their love for Pakistani land.

In fact loss of East Pakistan and of FATA, and the gifting away of parts of PoK did not cause pain to the main culprits who were supposed to ensure that all the Paki land was to remain intact - i.e the Pawki army.


shiv ji,

I believe there is a difference between loss of East Pakistan, FATA or parts of PoK to China, and a land grab from India.

  • Pakistan lost East Pakistan, but who won it? Again it was Bangladeshi Muslims. So the land eventually remained part of the Ummah. Maybe the Bangladeshis were not all that TFTA like the Pakjabis and the Pushtuns but they could be considered Muslims, and all was well. It was not Palestine or Cordoba or Andalucia.
  • FATA is actually a loss to the more pious strain. That is hardly a loss.
  • Parts of PoK acceded to China probably hardly had anybody living there, or hardly any Muslims. It would not even register in the Ummah Land Holdings.

TSPA considers itself as the neo-Mughal Army, the holders of the Flag of Islam on the Indian Subcontinent. Loss of 'Muslim' Land to Kufr would not go down well with the pious, nor the most pious for that reason alone. Pakistani nationalists who hate India, regardless of own piety, too would consider it an ignominious defeat. Every single TSPA soldier will get disdain in their village, disdain reserved for losers.

The 'irregular' terrorists would not feel the pain, as they would have done their job well in India. Their masters, the TSPA generals, however would have a serious loss of face if they suffer a defeat at the hands of the Kufr.

All Pakistanis are not necessarily in love with all Pakistani land, but most are still in awe of the Pakistani Fauj. Up till now, the TSPA could always sell every defeat at the hands of India as some sort of victory, or at least a draw, with a few complaints of back-stabbing by Americans, etc. thrown in to justify the lack of a complete victory. India holding on to some piece of Pakistani land would be a reminder to the Pakistanis that their Army lost and lost without a doubt.

It is in defeat, that all the knives come out.

Any frontal attack on some Pakistani general may or may not put fear in his heart and in the hearts of his colleagues. Let's not forget they too have many resources and agents in India. Assassinations and counter-assassinations can go out of hand. Pakistani propaganda can deal with such an attack far more easily. The general would be considered a martyr. Another general would take over and the story would continue. There will be pressure on the general to hit at India in any way possible, and if he does not show the guts to do something about it, the Army and its Islamic benefactors would find some other general, who is willing to hit out. May be their attacks would become more covert or deniable for the rest of the world, but attacks for which the general would be able to collect the laurels from his peers.

The attack on the general would work, only if there was a small coterie on top making all the decisions, and they would get scared from such a counter-attack. In the meantime, there is a whole network of stake-holders in this enmity and posture, and they would not allow any general to go easy on India.

Grabbing a piece of Pakistani Land puts this whole anti-India Islamic TSPA milieu on notice, because if their stupid posture towards India causes further defeats at the hands of Kufr India, then they have to answer to the Ummah, why the self-styled neo-Mughals are spreading this stench of defeat to the Muslims of the Ummah and how could they have allowed such a decrease in the Ummah Land Holdings.

This may force the entrenched Pakistani Establishment to reconsider their policy of terrorism towards India.

An Analogy:

A father raises his son to be a tough bully. Everyday the son comes home, with a new shirt and tells his father how he beat up a boy and took his shirt. The father says 'Mugambo khush hua'!

One day, the son comes home with a nose bleed and no shirt. Upon inquiry he tells his father, the other guy beat him up and the other guy is now wearing his shirt. Hearing this, the father admonishes him and gives him a slap on the wrist.

So what does the son do now? Will he go and fight the other guy again? If he gets beaten up again, he will lose another shirt and get more admonished.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
Any frontal attack on some Pakistani general may or may not put fear in his heart and in the hearts of his colleagues. Let's not forget they too have many resources and agents in India. Assassinations and counter-assassinations can go out of hand.

Disagree. The reason why terrorists have moved down the line from hard targets to soft targets is because the top targets are hard.

If we can "arrange" to get top targets in Pakistan and still keep our top targets safe we are winning.


With PGMs, there is some difficulty in credible deniability. Hence my doubts about a "frontal attack".

I will be the last Indian, to criticize "arranging" a meeting between a Pakistani General and his well-earned 72 raisins. That may serve as just punishment, but could just as well motivate the next general to do more for his right-flank by attacking India even more. I am just not convinced, that it would lead to less terrorism in India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
Rudradev ji,

let me first take the opportunity to commend you on a terrific post, very well argued indeed.

To be honest, there is little fault that I can find anywhere, and I agree with you generally.

My contention was a fundamental change in our world-view.

Some aspects of our world-view would be, e.g.
  • We have to act honorably, magnanimously, forgivingly with our neighbors. Dharma
  • We allow others to sit in judgment over us, especially our enemies. We are an open book!
  • We look at problems legalistically. Truth prevails!
  • We are overly apologetic. Equality & Justice
  • Indian lives are cheap. Fatalism; Atma is Amar
  • We take the abuse. Misjudgments & Communication Problems
  • Gandhi ji & Non-Violence. No retribution, No retaliation

We act that way, but the foreign propaganda (read Pakistani, Anglo-American, etc.) is always able to manipulate our actions differently - exaggerate our problems, find alternate theories behind our motivation, focus on the anxiety of our neighbors, etc.

We sigh and say, "People just don't understand us"!

This is a world-view which has paralyzed us in our dealings with Pakistan! IMHO, we need new pillars for our world-view. Something on the lines of:

  • We are always right, always!
  • Every single Indian life is precious, as precious as the whole nation
  • We always take our pound of flesh.
  • We are not afraid of monsters. We are the biggest monster!

Now to your post Rudradev ji, for which I have to return to the currently existing world-view.

Rudradev wrote:
Rajesh A-ji,

Not at all. You are recommending the punitive seizure of Pakistani land, to which Pakistan has legal rights under international law. I am pointing out that we are not even capable of reclaiming Indian land currently under the illegal occupation of Pakistan, to which India has legal rights under international law.


Punitive seizure of Pakistani land can only take place on Pakistani land. If it is our land we seize, it would hardly be punitive.

Why punitive? Because Pakistan has been uncooperative in handing over the culprits of 26/11 and other terror attacks in India. Even if one doubts whether the Pakistani Establishment itself sanctioned the terrorist activities, it cannot be denied that they are guilty of protecting the culprits, protecting the terrorists. Wasn't there something about, those providing safe havens to terrorists, would themselves be considered terrorists. So by international law, Pakistan should be punished for providing sanctuary to terrorists.

Have the United Nations acted upon this matter? If not, shouldn't India act upon it.

If Pakistan is guilty of terrorism, or providing sanctuary to terrorists, then it is Pakistan who has declared war on India. Under the UN Charter, every country has the right to self-defense. India is only responding to a war declared by Pakistan.

Rudradev wrote:
Very much the same fruit, albeit on different trees.

However, you propose confiscating the high-hanging fruit from the tree in our neighbour's yard... when we cannot even enforce our claim to the lower-hanging fruit from the tree in our own yard, to which the neighbour has been helping himself with impunity all these years. This is simply not practicable.


I would hardly argue, that we should not kick the neighbor out of our yard, but taking his fruit would hurt him more. If picking his high-hanging fruit is what is needed to get the neighbor to rethink squashing the flowers in our garden, then it is the high-hanging fruit we should go for.

Rudradev wrote:
If we are to seize any land from Pakistan it must first be our own land that they illegally occupy... then at the very least, we will have a case under international law to back up our intent to possess that land in perpetuity.


Our case under international law, should be plain and simple. Stop Terrorism. Either UN can impose its will and make Pakistan stop, or we take the initiative.

In fact we can demand from UN to set up a UN Commission in Pakistan with full authority to investigate all acts and all actors who indulge in anti-Indian activities. Would the UN put up such a commission right now? No. Why not? Because terrorism against India is not a burning issue. It has to be brought to the table in the UN, but not in conjunction with Kashmir, but rather with Pakistani Land, that India would have appropriated 'illegally'.

International Law is a piece of paper, when nobody is doing anything to push it, to find justice. As long as we don't push the issue with Pak-sponsored terrorism, no international law is going to stop Pakistan from going about it.

Till now, India is apprehensive about pushing this thing too far, anxious that it would get mixed up with Kashmir to the detriment of India, knowing that there are so many anti-India parties on the UNSC. That is why India needs to change the game. Instead of putting our jewels as a wager (our rights to J&K), let's put Pakistani jewels as a wager.

But our core problem is our nature. We have come to terms with losing lives at the hands of Pakistanis. If we don't work ourselves into madness, the international community nor international law would take it as a crime. It is we who have to tell the international community that they have failed us, and not that we have failed the international law.

We would in fact be glad if the international law takes its course - that Pakistan is brought to book, that we don't need to sit on 'Pakistani Land'. We have to define what the problem is, and not allow others to define it for us. But if we take everything is maya, and the loss of our citizen's lives are not fighting for, then we allow others to define the problem - bring in Kashmir all the time.

At the moment, India cannot give Pakistan anything, which would make them rethink their strategy of a thousand cuts. The number of Pakistan-sponsored terrorist violence in India has probably reached far higher than that figure. If we occupy their land, at least we will have something to give them for handing us the terrorists hiding in Pakistan, the ones on the paper lists we so love to push under their faces and which they throw back at us, after blowing their nose into it.

We are stuck in the wrong status quo - the Kashmir-Terrorism Status Quo. The initiative lies with them. They tell us, "Give us Kashmir, we will reduce terrorism". The initiative should lie with us. We should tell them, "Give us the terrorists, we will return your land." The pressure would be ours to control.

Rudradev wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
  • Apples: Compensation for damages, due to Pakistan's current state policy of terrorism
  • Oranges: Historical issue in cryostasis


The political class, and I guess, the majority of the people, in India has already come to terms with living in State with a birth defect (PoK), for a number of reasons. The people are however not happy with the ongoing terrorism campaign coming from next door.


I would say this is inaccurate. If the political class and the people of India were content with the idea of POK and NA belonging to Pakistan, we wouldn't have parliamentary resolutions affirming that these are parts of India. We wouldn't maintain an expensive and difficult troop deployment in Siachen which is nowhere near the LOC. The establishment in New Delhi very well recognizes the strategic value of the parts of J&K under illegal Pakistani occupation.

No GOI has publicly offered Pakistan a permanent settlement based on LOC=IB, and with good reason... it's against the law, against the Indian Constitution, and if any government openly took the position that they were willing to cede 97,000 sq. km. of Indian land to Pakistan in perpetuity, they would not last very long. It also flouts the Instrument of Accession, on which basis the WHOLE of J&K (as it was before October 1947) acceded to India. If we are now going to say "ok ok, you Pakis can keep 1/3 of the state" does it not undermine the legal basis for our claim on any part of the state?

Only IG in the immediate aftermath of Bangladesh liberation had amassed enough political capital to survive offering a permanent LOC=IB solution to Pakistan; and that one chance was blown by the Pakistanis themselves.

The prevailing situation is that Indian political classes have determined that reclaiming POK and NA is too potentially expensive an option to actively pursue at the moment, that our resources are best spent elsewhere at this time; and the people of India largely agree with this.

This is a far cry from either the political classes or the Indian people coming to terms with the permanent Pakistani occupation of one-third of J&K.

J&K is anything but unrelated to the current policy of Pakistani stat terrorism in India. It is anything but a historical issue in cryostasis; it is the single most effective rallying cry for ALL Pakistani jihadi groups engaging in terrorism against India. The people and political class of India know this as well as anybody.


So at the moment, the fruit on the low-hanging tree may be low-hanging but the tree is considered too far away. But terrorist attacks in India are thorns piercing our society and are very close to us. So what tree are we going to bark at for that?

Rudradev ji,
you have only elaborated on the shape and size and other specifications of the cryostasis chamber. Of course, for Pakistan Kashmir is the core issue and not in cryostasis. But for us it has become one. Why? Because we are not actively doing much to change.

What is the use of having something de-jure (which is also controversial in many circles) and not de-facto.? Unless of course, we are just biding our time, when we can make it defacto, at some appropriate time, when we are strong enough. But that too does not seem to be the case, as we have seen, that MMS was striving for a different solution with Musharraf, and even IG might have considered the option of "LoC == IB". So it is not as if we are keeping the J&K meat in deep freeze for later on, when we have the right marinade, the right pan and a stove!

The rights to low-hanging fruit from our own tree, is useless when our political class has lost the appetite for that fruit. As for the high-hanging fruit, it may be something in our reach if the spikes of terror acts on us make us jump high enough.

Rudradev wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
Land grab in Pakistan for every terror attack in India is to serve as a form of compensation/retribution/justice. It is supposed to hurt the terror perpetrators, where it hurts them the most, in the loss of H&D. It is not primarily for the sake of land itself.


Honestly, I believe the over-emphasis on H&D is often a case of us BRF-ites getting carried away with our own rhetoric.

Just because the TSPA and RAPE constantly mount soapboxes and claim H&D as a rationale for their demands, does *not* mean that a loss of H&D is actually something that could actually harm them. It isn't. We think, that because they talk about "H&D-Vech&D" all the time, it must be an important determinant of their policies and a force to reckon with in their internal political structure. It isn't.

If it were, the Pakis would never have rolled over for Armitage on 9/12/2001. They would not allow Predators to refuel in Pakistan, take off from Pakistani airbases and bomb Pakistani citizens. They would not have allowed themselves to be a condom for the United States during the Cold War. They would not be the rentier state that they have been throughout their history. No nation which is actually concerned with its Honor and Dignity would have done these things.

H&D isn't a genuine political commodity at all, but a tool for the TSPA to brandish about for a number of other purposes (detailed below.)

Why do I say this? Because loss of H&D has never, ever hurt the leadership of TSPA, or compromised its political power. Tikka Khan lost Bangladesh and went on to become Minister of Defense. Musharraf lost Kargil and went on to become President. No TSPA jernail has ever suffered for the loss of H&D inflicted on Pakistan by India, because the TSPA looks after its own and the RAPE collaborate willingly in this.

No, H&D is nothing more than a pretext, an excuse, a contrived fabrication that the Pakis (mainly TSPA) use for various other purposes. Such as:
1) Begging: Like Bhutto at Simla "please jee, don't force us to make a commitment on Kashmir jee, what about our H&D jee."
2) Making a case to depose inconvenient civilian leaders: like Nawaz Sharif getting blamed for Pakistan's H&D loss in Kargil when in fact it was entirely a TSPA operation.
3) More begging: Like Kiyani and co. to the US today. "See we have spent so much on your war of terror, we are doing so much for you, we have angered our own people. Let us airlift our assets out of Kunduz no. Get the Indians out of Afghanistan no. Give us F-16s no. Make the Indians negotiate on Kashmir no. It will help our H&D."
4) Conjuring up a justification to do something they wanted to do anyway: "What! The Dirty Kaffirs of India have conducted a nuclear test of five bums! Now we will conduct a nuclear test of six bums! For our H&D onlee!" (Also note "We will eat grass but we will build a nuclear bomb." That was also a use of H&D as a political pretext. The TSPA/RAPE themselves would never have to eat grass, and it didn't matter to them if the Mango Abdul had to eat grass, so H&D was used as the pretext for asking the Mango Abdul to eat grass while TSPA/RAPE developed the bums they wanted.)


Rudradev ji,
you amply make your point, that H&D is a political tool that TSPA uses, and it knows how to manipulate it well.

Perhaps I should have used the word 'authority' instead 'H&D'.

At the moment, as I see it, RAPE and Islamists live in an uncomfortable house called Pakistani Army. The reason for the tension is not India, because on that both concur, but rather RAPE's willingness to cooperate with America. It is this cooperation, that keeps Pakistan afloat. I think, the Islamists allow the RAPE to head the TSPA, simply because RAPE claim that they can deliver the goods - money and arms from USA and pressure on India.

If the RAPE generals take a severe hit from India through the loss of land, I believe this understanding between the RAPE and the Islamists would rupture. The RAPE Generals would not be able to deliver on India, and the openly Islamists would push them out. This case could very well be accelerated further, as money from USA dries up, as US starts to leave Afghanistan. I believe this fissure was less pronounced earlier, like in 1971.

Several here on BRF are of the view, that Pakistan should become a problem for the whole world and not just for India.


Rudradev wrote:
Quote:
Every new day, India holds on to this piece of land in Pakistan, be it even a couple of hundred square kilometers, conquered in response to a terror act in India, would be a day, when the Pakistani Army would be hauled over the coals. By the right-wing for losing a fight to the kafirs, and by the people and media for precipitating a clash leading to a loss of land.


I am deeply skeptical about this. If H&D were a genuine political commodity, a factual determinant of anything about Pakistani policy or internal politics... like the Bushido code of Imperial Japan for example... then I might believe it. But it isn't.

Loss of H&D has never, ever been used to harm or erode the power of the Pakistan army (the institution which has been chiefly responsible for all the most major losses of Pakistani "H&D" so far.) The collective resentment that will be caused across all sections of Paki society over a loss of H&D to India, IMHO far exceeds the disruptive effect of other groups within Pakistan blaming the TSPA for that H&D loss. If the SDRE Kaffirs grab land it will be a rallying point, not a source of internal dispute, for Paki society.

If India
a) Somehow manages to confiscate Pakistani land at what Indian leaders consider a reasonable cost and risk to itself... which isn't something I can imagine;
b) Somehow manages to hold this land at reasonable cost to itself;

History shows us that the last people who will be blamed for this in Pakistan are the TSPA. They cannot be judged for H&D loss... they are the judges who condemn and blame other parties for H&D loss, who cite H&D loss as a pretext for blackmailing other countries into giving them what they want. H&D is a tool in the TSPA's hands, and neither the Islamist right-wingers nor the Mango Abdul currently have anywhere near the kind of power required to wrest that tool away and use it against the TSPA itself.

Nobody will haul the TSPA over the coals. The TSPA will be the ones shouting "H&D! H&D!" as a rallying cry that will inspire the right wing Islamists, the Mango Abduls AND the Pakistani media to put aside their differences and unite against the Kaffir Yindoo who aggressively and illegally occupies their land. This will abrogate whatever fissiparous forces are currently destabilizing Pakistan, to a very large extent.

Meanwhile, we would have the whole international community breathing down our necks for illegally occupying Pakistani land in response to non-state aggression. We would give the TSPA a new excuse to seek weaponry, and the 3.5 friends (and others) a renewed excuse to supply weaponry to the TSPA.

We would receive lectures and possibly sanctions, and achieve a whole new level of equal-equal hyphenation from an international perspective ..."India claims Pakistan is in illegal occupation of Kashmir, while Pakistan claims India is in illegal occupation of Kashmir PLUS blah-blah-blah land seized by India, allegedly in response to a terrorist attack by non-state actors."

No great loss really, but on the other hand, not much use at all.


There are some assumptions I have made here, with regard to the international reaction:
  • The world after 9/11 is a different place, where terrorist danger emanating from this region is well-known.
  • There is a precedence in Operation Enduring Freedom
  • There is a new Government in Britain, a Tory Government, not overly dependent on the votes of Pakistanis, et. al
  • The Indian diaspora in the West is far more influential today as in yesteryears.
  • Indian economy is far more robuster today
  • There is a budgetary allocation in the Pakistani Budget for Jamaat-ud-Dawa, an organisation recognized as a terrorist organization by the UN
  • The extent or rather lack of it of Pakistani cooperation to India on 26/11 is also widely known.

The rest is dependent on how Indians show their anger at 26/11 and present their case. Secondly there is a limit to "What if" thinking.

As far as hyphenation is concerned, it is illusory. India today is not the same India in the history books. Is there a hyphenation between USA and Afghanistan, or USA and Iraq? Yes and No. The power difference between India and Pakistan may not be that pronounced, but it is still there. Secondly it would not be a bad idea if the core issue changes between India and Pakistan - instead of Kashmir-Terrorism, it becomes Pakistani Land vs. Terrorism. Kashmir can in fact be pushed to the background because of this.

As far as the reaction in Pakistan is concerned, in my humble opinion, TSPA would only be able to mobilize Pakistani opinion only to a limited extent.
  • The mango abdul will cry foul for two months and then turn his attention back to every day living
  • If Pakistan goes crying to USA, USA too would put forward their list of people they want, so the honeymoon between the TSPA generals and the Islamists would not last that long, so the current dynamics may persist, or be even strengthened.
  • There is no reason to believe, that the Islamists would not think, that Pakistani generals lost to India because they were weak, and should be replaced. In 2010 would the Islamists be willing to fight under the TSPA Generals or would they rather fight under their own flag?
  • There is an Islamic constituency in Pakistan, which is not happy with the Generals. Wouldn't they take this opportunity to weaken the TSPA still further, enough to usurp power from within or without?

Perhaps India should also consider, "So what?"

Rudradev wrote:
Quote:
For all in India who think, there is a peace constituency in Pakistan and it needs to be strengthened, this is the way to go about it.


I humbly disagree. It seems to me that it would be the wrong way to go about it. Time and again, TSPA effectively silences any "peace constituency" in Pakistan by citing Indian aggression. Our occupation of Pakistani land would give TSPA a bonanza of fuel to feed the national paranoia about India and thereby consolidate their own position.

Do you really think the "peace constituency" will be able to convince the Mango Abdul (or any other class of Pakistanis) that the loss of land to India was actually TSPA's fault? This is not a society that has ever shown itself to be capable of honest introspection.

Never underestimate the TSPA's capacity for spin, or the gullibility of other classes of Pakis to succumb to that spin. Don't misconstrue the TSPA's degree of control over the media and Paki public opinion.

The magnitude of the TSPA's falsification of history, such as "we won the 1965 war", or "we were never involved in Kargil", is matched only by the willingness of the Paki people to swallow that spin via doublethink. The level of delusion endemic to that society is truly Orwellian in nature.


There is also the view in Pakistan, that the Army Generals are a bunch of munafiqs and gadaars. The drones also do some propaganda.

Of course, the TSPA or their sympathizers do control most of the media in Pakistan, but it is still possible to get India's word across, which should be something as simple as:

  • "Stop invading our space with your terrorists, and we will stop invading your space with our soldiers"
  • Give us the terrorists, and we will give you your land

The point is India does not need to keep the land, if Pakistan is willing to deliver on the terrorists and put a stop to their infrastructure.

Summarizing
a) A Land Grab in Pakistan would be a bargaining chip to force the UN to set up a UN Commission to oversee the closing of anti-India terrorist networks in Pakistan. International Law.
b) A Land Grab in Pakistan would be to force Pakistan to hand over the terrorists who committed terrorist crimes in India and to close down their networks in Pakistan.
c) PR Line: No terrorism => No land grab as compensation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2010 22:31 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55
Posts: 6168
The last feel warm feel fuzzy statement that I wish to make with no logical argument supporting it (lest people here think I am a pessimist), is that we are going to win this.

The reason is because apparent "stalemate" is actually in India's favor and Pakistan's disadvantage. We fought them to a standstill in Cashmere. Yes we lost many men. In return, they lost control of their country with multiple power centers (shiv's statement about monopoly over violence). Even if they get a 400% pliable tellibunny yahoo in Afghanistan and train & send terrorists over, at worst we will fight them to a stalemate -- while their country goes deeper into Pakistan. There are multiple dangers, yahoos again attacking the west, spinning out of control and asking for Pushtunistan, gaining leverage in domestic politics, Indians getting pushed over the edge, Paki economy going down the Pakistan - etc.

It is a suboptimal solution, with the SDREs paying more price than needed with the associated frustrations of not having attained "closure" by handing out appropriate punishment. But nevertheless, it is sustainable for us and simply not sustainable for the Pakis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 06:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23
Posts: 5278
from TSP thread:
RajeshA wrote:
So enmity is very dynamic here. Who is poking whom in the eye? Why don't the Pakistanis think "Either you totally destroy an enemy, or you leave him alone.". They are not destroying us completely, but they are still poking in our eyes. I wonder why is this 'wisdom' not accessible to the Pakistanis.


Yes, they have been poking us in the eye. But that may end up hurting them, if India gets a sufficiently competent and nationalistic leadership.

Quote:
Please, care to elaborate what other options are there to take away the sheen off TSPA? I am very open for education on this.


What is needed is long-term social engineering. One has to be able to steer forces within Pak society. Capability to carry out deniable covert actions is necessary. But it is not necessarily an advantage to get rid of one fanatic only to have him replaced by another fanatic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 07:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4780
Location: Dehradun
Rajesh ji, nice to see you back once again. Good and appropriate topic for the times we are living in.

I think we got to look this in 2 ways..

1W. The 1000 cut thing that 'really' doesn't hurt India ''much'. It's the type of incidents that make up the 93 bombings, Kaluchak, 26-11, Mumbai train bombings, Samjhauta etc.

2W. Terrorist incidents in the future planned or in planning stages like dirty or clean nukes through non state actors and such.

India's response to 1 will always be dull because of 2 reasons:

1R. After a period of time public opinion recedes and GOI can get back doing what it does without much or any punishment to Pakistan

2R. The GOI cannot reasonably risk a nuke war even if it knows say 70% that Paki's are bluffing. GOI will not play poker with nukes.

India's response to 2W is what really matters. Frankly India has not planned for it and it does not intend to put up a paper on that. Indian liberals would never use nukes even in retaliation to getting nuked. NEVER. Not even if 50 million died.

Thereby the analysis of the psyche of the Indian liberal WKK type and many of those walk the corridors of power in the south and north blocks..must be analyzed. We (at BRF) understand too well the Paki psyche..but we don't understand well our liberal WKK psyche. The Chinese and the Paki's and Americans do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 09:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23
Posts: 5278
harbans wrote:
We (at BRF) understand too well the Paki psyche..but we don't understand well our liberal WKK psyche. The Chinese and the Paki's and Americans do.


Main problem is within India. TSP is a symptom of the malaise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 11:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25
Posts: 5929
My solution is simple: Active discouragement of Pakistan's reliance on terror.

How:
1. Squeeze Pakistan economically and politically at every level overtly or covertly.
2. Repay Pakistan with the terrorism card. If you feel that India has no easy solutions wrt Pakistan sponsored terrorism, how does a morally, culturally, economically broke pakistan deal with it hain ji? Terrorism within pakistan will unravel that country either way if they chose to tackle it or not. There are enough terrorists there to manipulate, fund, misguide. Happily, there is no need to establish terror training camps anywhere outside of pakistan - absolute deniability.
3. ALL of Pakistan's 3.5 mentors have extensive business relationships with India, which is growing fast. If India goes to them and says, "You are doing this in pakistan, don't do that or your selection in this tender will suffer, our relations will take a hit". Chances are they'll think it over, and put their eggs in the India basket.
Intel gathering should encompass not only what the pakis are upto, but also in which way the 3.5 are helping pakistan, how a proposed move by 3.5 will potentially undermine India's interests in pakistan.
4. Finally define what is India's vision for Pakistan. Do we want a Pakistan as a neighbour? What are the advantages if Pakistan splits into 4 or more entities, and what are the advantages if it remains a single nations and reforms.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 17:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15319
Location: Chennai
There is great confusion among Indian minds because the Indian decision-makers still labour under false ideas. As far as I can see, there are three divergent views on how to deal with Pakistan: one, react for any Pakistani provocation (dominant since 1947); two, outsource the management of Pakistan to a more powerful country (as we did at least once with the US); and three, limited punitive action (like Cold Start) or more robust punitive action (like in 1971 until India's war objective in the Western Sector was derailed by a mole in the Indira Gandhi cabinet). IMO, none of these, by themselves alone, is satisfactory. Pakistan has surely built up its relationship with its friends such that today none of them wants a nuclear Pakistan to go down. They are willing to condone its actions vis-a-vis India provided it does not go way out-of-control and provided Pakistan can protect the benefactors themselves from being attacked. (And an understanding that if attacked, there must be enough help from Pakistan to capture and punish them, for which Pakistan would be handsomely recompensed). The 3½ friends have never managed (or never been willing) to advise Pakistan make the right choices in its foreign policies.

Though PRC is a big threat to us, no doubt, and yet they do not affect us day-to-day like the Pakistanis. They do not make us spend a disproportionate amount of energy worrying about them as the Pakistanis do. Added to this are the religious implications and the sizable number of divided families which need to travel and maintain contacts. We are constrained by Pakistan in many more ways than by PRC. We must recognize that Pakistan is our biggest threat and impediment to progress. Though PRC exploits Pakistan to cause us pain, Pakistan would have behaved the exact same way with us even without a PRC because the implacable hatred lies very deep and forms the Pakistani bedrock. The realization must come that the pain from Pakistan must be eliminated or made totally insignificant, rather then being endured for another several decades.

The questions that need to be asked therefore are:
  • Are the power centres of Pakistan (current and those who are likely to wield power for the next ten years) willing to be friendly with India ?
  • Are they willing to reverse their policies genuinely even if, as everybody knows, such moves are fraught with grave danger ?
  • Can they demonstrate their revised approach to India's satisfaction ?
  • If the determination is still a 'no', the time is well past for an entirely different approach, rather than dithering about a trivial argument here or there. That approach should be to squeeze Pakistan in every possible way using a slew of measures, even while continuing to talk to them. No half-measures there because no single approach can bear fruit anymore with Pakistan. It will encompass the whole gamut: moral, diplomatic, economic, international relations, energy, terrorism and counter-terrorism, military, water, Islam, taking the support of other countries selectively, dragging Pakistan to a ruinous competition etc. We will respond half-positively to any positive response from Pakistan. Our negative response to a Pakistani negative response will be twice more hard-hitting to them. All the while, we will continue to engage them in frank talk as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 18:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23568
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Pakistan has 40 million school age kids. Only 25 million will enter school and only 12 million will finish. Of those 12 million about half will be taught to hate India. That leaves behind about 28 million who can be used in various ways and will develop opinions by various routes.

It is important that this is prevented.

Pakistan may be a failed state - but in failing it has put the onus of doing something on others and that includes India.

I see no alternative to a carrot and stick policy. No matter what the nature of the stick, the carrot offers cannot be removed. But the carrot must be directed at those who can help in the long term. Pakistan is telling the world "We are so fcked up that you have to get us out of this mess". There is no single power center in Pakistan. Even the army is limited in what it can do within Pakistan, for Pakis even though it is respected.

I believe that one error we tend to make on the forum is to assume that Pakistan is a united nation with one voice, Anyone who suggests that this may not be is treated with the very argument I have myself made "Well they are united in hating India". But I think we need to be a little more finely discriminating now and look at sub groups of Pakistanis and what their compulsions are and what their priorities are. For example uneducated and very young children are a sub group. The women of Pakistan are also a sub group.

We have to interfere in Pakistan and we have to interfere using local Paki collaborators. Their are two types of interference. One is destructive interference that we tend to talk about. But it may become necessary for us to stop holding our breath and smell the crap and deal with it "holistically". This is worse that bombing the crap out of Pakistan, but we know damn well that we won;t do that. So are we not going to do anything else either?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 19:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15319
Location: Chennai
shiv wrote:
We have to interfere in Pakistan and we have to interfere using local Paki collaborators. Their are two types of interference. One is destructive interference that we tend to talk about. But it may become necessary for us to stop holding our breath and smell the crap and deal with it "holistically".

Shiv, you are right. That's one thing I missed out in the options listed in my previous post. We must encourage the minuscule minority, however powerless they are, that may seek a better relationship with us. That's what I mean by saying 'all avenues must be pursued that may bring us dividends'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 19:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23
Posts: 5278
SSridhar wrote:
shiv wrote:
We have to interfere in Pakistan and we have to interfere using local Paki collaborators. Their are two types of interference. One is destructive interference that we tend to talk about. But it may become necessary for us to stop holding our breath and smell the crap and deal with it "holistically".

Shiv, you are right. That's one thing I missed out in the options listed in my previous post. We must encourage the minuscule minority, however powerless they are, that may seek a better relationship with us. That's what I mean by saying 'all avenues must be pursued that may bring us dividends'.


There are millions of Paks who are disillusioned with Pakistaniyat. It is not that minuscule. You can consider almost 100% of Balochis, 25% of Sindhis, 25% of Pashtuns, 75% of Gilgit-Baltistanis, 25% of Shia's, 100% of Masihs, and a few educated liberals to be friendly elements. It is important to keep track of them, help them, coordinate their actions. One needs to invest in shaping Pak attitudes and perceptions - TV, media, schools etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 20:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
Pranav wrote:
shiv wrote:
We have to interfere in Pakistan and we have to interfere using local Paki collaborators. Their are two types of interference. One is destructive interference that we tend to talk about. But it may become necessary for us to stop holding our breath and smell the crap and deal with it "holistically".

There are millions of Paks who are disillusioned with Pakistaniyat. It is not that minuscule. You can consider almost 100% of Balochis, 25% of Sindhis, 25% of Pashtuns, 75% of Gilgit-Baltistanis, 25% of Shia's, 100% of Masihs, and a few educated liberals to be friendly elements. It is important to keep track of them, help them, coordinate their actions. One needs to invest in shaping Pak attitudes and perceptions - TV, media, schools etc.


India's should play to her strengths. We really have a big film industry, of which we can be proud of. This is also the Indian medium with an incredible penetration in Pakistan society. Indian films get there where perhaps our tv channels, newspapers may not. {I know, Indian media is controlled by joos, I mean US interests}

Anyway, India can be helping young creative minds in Gilgit-Baltistan, Sindhis, Balochis, Shias make films depicting some of their concerns in the Pakistani society, {of course with some nice music scores and a jig :mrgreen: }. There can be films about mango Abduls and how they are making ends meet in the era of inflation. We can be giving technical help to the Afghanistanis, who can do films of Pushtuns. All in local languages, and maybe Hindi voice-synchronization or subtitles.
Let's show the Pakistanis some Pakistan, with a little Indian message thrown in. Indian Muslim film directors can be collaborating with Pakistani Muslim women showing their plight on the screen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 20:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
harbans wrote:
Rajesh ji, nice to see you back once again.


Thank you harbans ji. I did miss it. :)

harbans wrote:
Thereby the analysis of the psyche of the Indian liberal WKK type and many of those walk the corridors of power in the south and north blocks..must be analyzed. We (at BRF) understand too well the Paki psyche..but we don't understand well our liberal WKK psyche. The Chinese and the Paki's and Americans do.


harbans ji,
Of course, when I think, that much of what we discuss here, depends on the mentality of our power elite, I do feel a bit despondent.

But then I think there are factors, which would bring some moderate enlightenment to them in the years ahead.
  • A new generation of Indians would be taking over the reigns
  • India's economic strength and global position would impart some confidence to all those wimps.
  • Scenes like on 26/11 may trickle through into their conscience.
  • Opening of the media through the Internet, would allow the voice of many, including those on BRF to get through.

I'd rather have the power elite change somewhat to the new mentality of confidence and can-do spirit, then having to understand wimps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010 22:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43
Posts: 6685
My view:

Tactical options are simple -
- intel ops to infiltrate TSP based LeT units/ISI moles.
- then target ISI commanders i.e. kill them in TSP in order to halt operations - send a tough message (but yindu's are too much of wimps to do this as they will fear that their own operatives will be targets - they don't realise that they are already targets and have been targeted (Kabul emb))
- Support the BLA, flood them with arms, money. They have a porous coastline - which are traversed by many Guj based ships/dhows heading past their waters every day! Target should be to liberate Gwadar - hitting 2 mangoes with 1 stone.
- approach parties near the durand line.
- in todays modern warfare, we need to utilise our IT expertise and launch regular cyber attacks.
- joint ops with Khad/ irna and other allies

At the same time launch intel offensive in the valley.

This alone will be costly for TSP.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2010 12:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
Gentlemen, I was instructed by ramana garu, to start a new thread, where India's constraints and options regarding TSP can be discussed, so that posts dealing with India's options against Pakistan can be preserved for posterity and reference, and not go under in the maelstrom, as would be the case in TSP Thread.

For that this new Thread "Pakistan-sponsored Terrorism - India's Options" was created. It is somewhat of a misnomer - It should read "Pakistan and Pakistan-sponsored Terrorism - India's Options". The mods could perhaps change the name.

I would appreciate if you could x-post your posts on the subject, in this Thread as well.

I would think, posts on Cold Start, population explosion next door, water as a pressure point, redrawing Pakistan's maps, breaking TSPA's monopoly on violence, economic strangulation, social re-engineering, etc. could be x-posted here.

Thank you


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2010 12:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Posts: 926
Location: Badami
SSridhar wrote:
shiv wrote:
We have to interfere in Pakistan and we have to interfere using local Paki collaborators. Their are two types of interference. One is destructive interference that we tend to talk about. But it may become necessary for us to stop holding our breath and smell the crap and deal with it "holistically".

Shiv, you are right. That's one thing I missed out in the options listed in my previous post. We must encourage the minuscule minority, however powerless they are, that may seek a better relationship with us. That's what I mean by saying 'all avenues must be pursued that may bring us dividends'.


Recovery and rejuvenation cannot begin until the cancer has been destroyed.

If, as Shiv has argued, the fundamentalist take over of TSP is in the best interest of India, albeit in the short term, then it is imperative on any strategist arguing for such an end goal to recognize that the current approach of the fundamentalist is the military take over of TSP. This is bound to fail for several reasons, not the least of which is the tight control the TSPA has on its creation.

One deadly, but quick result, option in the Indian arsenal ought be to the ability to encourage a political (even democratic) takeover of TSP by the fundamentalist. Such an option if and when it succeeds, immediately makes TSP not just India's headache, but a truly international one.

This strategy is very much akin to 'radicalizing the radicals' to get a situation under control.
However, caveat emptor ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2010 12:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23568
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Cross posting as requested




When you are in school, a person who fails drops out of sight as he joins a junior batch. States that fail do not drop out of sight.

A 'state" is a virtual structure and organization of people who agree to abide by rules they set themselves and agree to impose those rules in an area of land - or that "agreement" is forced by one ruler or an oligarchy.

The state "fails" when different sets of people follow different and conflicting rules and there is no single controlling entity to exert power over everyone. The "failure" of Pakistan has been in its inability to exist as a single coherent state but actually function as multiple overlapping states with more than one power center.

In a sense the US has lost the plot. The Pakistan army used to be the singe power center that had both clout and popularity. Both are now gone. The popularity remains reasonably intact but the clout is gone. Different power centers have now grabbed different parts of land/resources in Pakistan. Each power center has some source of income and human support and the leaders of each power center manage to survive along with their supporters, but it is what happens in the sidelines that leads to additional chaos.

What is happening in the sidelines is a human problem (you can cal it a human tragedy - but they are Pakis). Gradually - over the years there have been 20 million, 30 million, 40 million and now 60 or 70 million people who are affected by lack of development or education. If any of you drives in India - you might find that on a busy day when traffic is heavy a cow or dog may walk across the road that everyone tries to avoid. Similarly a beggar or drunk in rags may do exactly the same thing. Seeing such a guy causes anger - you wonder if he does not have more sense than a dog. The fact is he does not care. You still can't kill him. You slam on your brakes just like you did for the dog.

When you have 60-70 million unarmed people, often women and children in a failed state next door and they start walking in their thousands across the border because of strife you cannot shoot them. Well you can, but ask whether India would be right in shooting them. This is where Pakistan is heading. Every one of those Paki faces that you see in the media cosying up with Clinto or something is a person who has no real control over the land. They cannot implement things, collect taxes or control the actions of the people. Not even Kiyani. That is what "failed state" means.





Prem wrote:
If Poakis keep poking indian eyes then we have no chice but to kill all those who try to cross Wagha with the germs of Pakistaniat in their bloodstream . It might sound cruel but how do u take care of contageous disease Doc? Guess ,we let in Women and female children and keep the rest of Abdfools at bay to be fed upon by Talibans. Aint we looking at 400 Millions Poakies by 2040 with no water, food , education and abandoned by the 3.5 " Poikevins" of Poakees who has fathered them .



Premji are you going to pick up an AK 47 and shoot them?

The real problem is you will be asking Indian soldiers - disciplined fighting men indoctrinated to fight an armed enemy. giving his life if necessary to shoot a line of women and children approaching the border. They will do it, for a while, because of discipline. Sooner or later some man will think of his own wife and kids and whether he left them behind in his village 3000 Km away to shoot other women and kids.

So while your theory is good - the practice is not going to be right or easy. Apart from all the claptrap we spout about India and dharma and all that crap.

It is better if 400 milion Poakies get their food and water in their land and the women get an education now so they can get a headache on 15 nights a month when bearded hubby has a hard on. With any luck she will have only 4 kids and not 6 and we get 300 mil and not 400 mil.

Quote:
Menstrual period ->2 weeks->egg released->1 week baby possible->1 more week->Menstrual period


The above is a summary (very approximate) of a typical menstrual cycle. Assume that hubby gets a hard on wants wants to have it off every night. It is in the week immediately after egg release that a woman is most likely to get pregnant.

Women too like to live a life. They do not like walking around pregnant or with kids all the time. They too like sex but even that is spoiled by continuous pregnancies. Male dominated society - such as Pooki Islamic society does not allow women to escape. They have to be ready for sex when the man wants it, but if they are unavailable due to pregnancy or ill health, the man gets other wives (or a whore) to visit. Even Gilani and co have more than one wife, as we all know. What about Abdul? Is he monogamous?

If you educate a girl about her own body she can learn to time her menstrual cycles so that sex can be avoided ("headache") in the crucial week after the egg is released. That way she gets a life and her husband does not have a clue that birth control is happening. It's not 100% effective - but even if it is 60% effective it will have a huge impact

Less than 5% of women are being educated in parts of Pukistan.




Pratyush wrote:
. The solution for me will be to encourage the Talibanisation of that society.



This is exactly what I and some others have said too.

But I think things have actually evolved beyond that.(to my surprise)

What is happening is that as Pakis get Talibanized there appears to be a set of Pakis who are unhappy about this and looking for a way out.

Now there are (I believe) two ways of dealing with this
Option A
1) Ignore the Paquis who are suffering from Talibanization and watch with happiness as they get swallowed up
2) deal with the Taliban when they have won Pakistan

Option B
1) Give support (moral, diplomatic, piskological) support to the anti Taliban people
2) Let the Taliban fight harder within Pakistan for hearts and minds and let the fight continue longer within Pakistan because their opponents in Pakistan have more support. Why help the Taliban get a walkover?
3) If the Taliban win - fine - we have already said that is OK. If the Taliban keep on fighting Pakistan will keep on failing. If the anti-Taliban forces win we will have a bigger constituency under our influence in Pakistan. Currently the anti-Taliban forces are getting support from the US. If we do not support them and they win, only the US wins. If we can influence them, we gain influence.

The only question is what kind of influence can we exert on the anti-Taliban people.

The answer to that question can only come if we can say "Who is anti Taliban?" in Pakistan. In answer to that question there seems to be at least some Pakis who are looking for Indian help. How do we "help" them without screwing ourselves? The only thing I can say is that we try and get a handle on Pakistani education and make changes in the Paki curriculum via the anti-Taliban people who are willing to work with India. The idea is to prevent the Taliban from wining more recruits and to create from scratch a community of Pakis who are not anti-Indian. They can be coerced to cooperate when they are afraid of the Taliban There seem to be several ways in which this might be possible - but we first have to see which Pakis, if any are really interested in joining with such a plan. Nothing definite here - but no harm in trying.

Option A requires only hostility from India
Option B requires "talks"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2010 13:04 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5965
X post from TRIP dhaga.

Shiv ji,

Option A looks good to me. Will require indian to baton down the hatches.

The reason is that the talibanisation of a society will not solve its socio-economic problems. Moreover this inability to solve the problems will lead to further disenchantment in the minds of Mango Abdul. i.e, the results are not in accordance of the suffering endured by the mango Abdul, increasing the number of people seeking an escape from Taliban. Which if continues for about 20 to 30 years may just give us the peace we are seeking.


JMT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2010 15:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14391
shiv wrote:
When you have 60-70 million unarmed people, often women and children in a failed state next door and they start walking in their thousands across the border because of strife you cannot shoot them. Well you can, but ask whether India would be right in shooting them. This is where Pakistan is heading. Every one of those Paki faces that you see in the media cosying up with Clinto or something is a person who has no real control over the land. They cannot implement things, collect taxes or control the actions of the people. Not even Kiyani. That is what "failed state" means.

The real problem is you will be asking Indian soldiers - disciplined fighting men indoctrinated to fight an armed enemy. giving his life if necessary to shoot a line of women and children approaching the border. They will do it, for a while, because of discipline. Sooner or later some man will think of his own wife and kids and whether he left them behind in his village 3000 Km away to shoot other women and kids.

So while your theory is good - the practice is not going to be right or easy. Apart from all the claptrap we spout about India and dharma and all that crap.


We are faced with either
  • a) Anti-Indian Pakjabi establishment with lots of hungry Abduls
  • b) Talibanized society with lots of hungry Abduls
  • c) Fragmented Warlordism with lots of hungry Abduls
  • d) Abduls pounding on India's doors and borders

a) This scenario, more or less reflects current realities in Pakistan, with an increased level of poverty which is simply an extrapolation of current trend. The 3 and half friends still support Pakistan. The TSPA puts all that support in its pocket and the Abduls get nothing. There is still cable TV and print media.

b) This scenario corresponds to a case where the TSPA has been taken over by the Pakjabi Taliban. In this scenario, the 2 and half friends have also taken back their support. May be Saudi Arabia is still supporting the new regime, but hardly enough to make a positive dent in their economy. The Taliban regime becomes a danger to the whole world and not just for Indian. TV, Print, Internet, DVDs are all a thing of the past.

c) This scenario would mean, that even the Taliban could not keep Pakistan together on the basis of their danda, and the ethnic fissures lead to a fragmentation of the country. Warlordism becomes rampant. Some warlords may be conservative. Others would allow 'Aish'!

d) In this scenario, everything comes to a head, and the plight of the mango abduls becomes the responsibility of the whole region.

The Talibani takeover of Pakistan is supported in some quarters (including from my side) simply because it is the easiest way of breaking the hold of TSPA as well as forcing the 3 and half friends to reconsider their support for Pakistan. It is also a means of getting the superpowers involved in denuking Pakistan. This is an important stage, without which this India-hating status quo will not resolve.

It is however not in India's interest, to allow a Pakistani Taliban regime complete sway over the lands currently held by Pakistan for a longer period of time allowing them to consolidate. Otherwise, even this regime would find its own dynamic of countering India. This regime should not continue longer than it needs to break TSP's stranglehold.

Some regions, like Sindh and Baluchistan should broken off into separate political entities and not be allowed to merge with a Talibanized Pushtun, Pakjab, Northern Baluchistan and Northern Areas regions, all possibly Taliban sway. If need be this needs to be ensured through a military intervention by India and may be others. Sindh and Baluchistan can be saved before everything reaches rock-bottom.

In the Talibanized areas, India should promote warlordism, support every warlord against the other, and they try to wean away the warlords with some carrots. That is when the reintegration of Pakistani areas with the rest of the Indian subcontinent begins.

You take over the administration of some warlord ruled area, and try to bring education, jobs, water and may be even dharma to that region.

Instead of letting the situation to deteriorate to such an extent, that people start flocking towards India, India would have to take over one pocket after another and try to reform the people and infrastructure, there and then. The resistance to India's stepping in should be far less, if the warlord has been given some assurances and some enticement to take India's help. He would also not have much of a choice, as India could always threaten him with supporting a rival warlord, in which case, he would have fear to lose everything he had. I am contemplating say some 100-200 warlords in Pakjab itself, everybody trying to protect his turf from the other.

Some of brihaspati ji ideas may find more of fertile ground in such a scenario.

Before it can get better, the scenario in Pakistan would have to get far worse.

Summarizing the point I want to make:
Taliban-ruled Pakistan is also only an intermediate step in the evolution of the region. What follows is warlordism, where each warlord's allegiance and policies, and perhaps even faith, are purchasable commodities.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3191 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 80  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SRoy, Vipin_Upadhyay and 27 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