Continuing from
"Iran News & Discussions" Thread
Carl wrote:RajeshA ji,
It looks like the Arabs and the US are definitely more likely to actively support trouble in West Baluchestan (Iranian-occupied) than East Baluchestan. Even in Baluchi demonstrations in the US when Ahmadinejad visited, some of them were discouraged from carrying anti-Pakistani placards along with anti-Iran ones. If they want funding, then they should focus on Iran, is the message.
Yes the iron is hot, and it should be hit.
Arabs and US are definitely interested, and India need not even be spearheading this. There is a lot of diplomatic shenanigans that we can do to show that we are involuntary participants, to keep Iranians in good humor as long as possible.
Here is a scenario. Lets say that there is a coalition - Israel, USA, Britain, France, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey willing to invade Iran, the coalition of the willing, all willing to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not fall into the hands of "terrorist Shi'a regime of Iran"!
I'm including Turkey here, because Turkey too does not really have a direct land route to the Turkic Central Asian Republics as Georgia and Armenia spoil the contiguity, and Turkey could possibly want to play a bigger role there.
After the invasion and liberation comes the challenge of holding the territory, and Iran is not going to be in a mood to let Baluchestan and Sistan go. If possible they will retake the territory, whenever the foreign forces retreat.
Which country however can really stay in and hold Western Baluchestan over the long term. The Gulf cannot do it. They don't have the men. USA can do it, but would become the target of the Baloch Jihadis sooner or later and would look like an occupying power. Turkey have their own history with Kurds, another occupied minority having some ethnic connection to the Baloch, and thus may not be appreciated.
India and India alone is the power that Baloch would agree to. Why?
Because only India can promise the Baloch in West Baluchestan, that the struggle would continue to liberate East Baluchistan as well, to throw the Pakis out. No other country has the credibility to make such a promise to the Baluch. No other country enjoys Pakistan's unreserved enmity and has the wherewithal to undertake such a liberation.
Also India has some history with the region as well, with Hindu Kings having ruled over the region. We are not new to the region. And just across the border, East Baluchistan was part of India anyway.
So because we have been there, we need not be considered an occupying power. In fact we should make the promise of liberating East Baluchestan contingent on whether West Baluchestan accepts to accede to India signing an Instrument of Accession.
Carl wrote:OTOH, the Baluchi intelligentsia (which seems wholly based on E. Baluchestan) prefers that Paki-held Baluchis gain freedom first and lead the whole movement in general, rather than the W. Baluchis, for whom they seem to have disdain
Actually East Baluchi intelligentsia would have a huge stake in India being able to settle down in West Baluchestan, because their freedom depends on it, whether West Baluchestan accedes to India or not. If they do, then their liberation is certain. If the West Baluchis don't, then they may remain independent for some time and again fall under Iranian control, and Indians would be back in India, not having lost much.
So for that reason, we can be sure that we can bring in many East Baluchis to help us manage in West Baluchistan. The East Baluchistan organizations would be willing to support Indian Army in whichever way possible. The East Baluchis would have a real stake, regardless of Wahhabization of West Baluchestan. If we move in quickly and start providing relief to West Baluchis, they too can be won over to the idea of India.
The small size of the population over a large mineral-rich area, albeit desert, does allow India some leeway to keep the local population in good humor and one can open new channels of revenue to help with employment.
The East Baluchis who have a much stronger attachment to India would be a big help in West Baluchestan, especially until we are able to cultivate the sympathy and support of the locals.
Carl wrote:So far, internal lack of unity has been the bane of the Baluchi freedom struggle. This East-West difference could add to that. It would be interesting to see how the powers that are funding it will get everyone on the same page.
The East-West difference is an issue when the situation is static, with hardly any movement. When the situation becomes fluid, people start thinking again. If the game plan becomes clearer to the East Baluchis, they would cooperate.
Carl wrote:Moreover, in a case as transparent as this, an Iran-Pak-China axis is a possibility. Pak-China can easily bear down on India to deter us from participating actively. The chances of active Indian participation seem higher if TSP itself was the chief target of the first round of Baluchi liberation (East). But if W. Baluchestan is going to be the chief focus, and the co-operation of a section within Pakistan is also required, then its conceivable that - even if the break-away happens - Indian participation could be kept down.
I don't think India needs to be in the vanguard of the liberation. Americans are quite good at that. Other countries can come in after a month of the invasion. We enter the scene around 1 years after the invasion. The soldiers USA wanted India to make available for Iraq may become available for West Baluchestan instead. India can enter the scene at her leisure when everything has been secured. But we would need to lit the fires beforehand and give some assurance to the Americans that we will share the burden of consolidation.
As I mentioned, Pakistan, Iran and China want to seal the region and not let anybody else in. Russia is there but as a energy producer is cut off from the energy market in India.
W. Baluchis usually tend to be involved in drug-running or other schemes to make money, rather than a well-thought out ideology, or else they tend to focus more on Sunni Islamism and in demanding more rights from Tehran. Moreover, the E. Baluchi intelligentsia in TSP prefers to keep the ideology of Baluchi nationalism relatively non-sectarian and "secular" (relatively speaking). Since the 1800's, a lot of Baluchis became "Zikris" (a Mahdi-ist movement), plus there exist some Baluchi Shi'a. But Baluch movements focused on Iranian Baluchestan tend to be Wahhabi funded and indoctrinated. As it is, the Zikris are merging back into the regular Hanafi Sunni fold, so this added Wahhabi extremism and its macabre tactics with groups like Jondullah is even more unwelcome according to these Baluchi thinkers.
Well this can all be used as firewood to keep Iranian security forces warm and active and in any scenario would be burnt up in the initial stages of any liberation - ahh, the lure of the 72s, including 2 from this Dunya.
We can do social engineering later on, possibly with the help of East Baluchis.
Baluchistan can become another Gujarat on steroids, being on the mouth of Persian Gulf, Gateway to Central Asia, pumped up with mineral wealth, and ideologically moderate!