Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stability

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by surinder »

Rye wrote:Surinder, Just requesting nicely that you stop posts on Islam and Pakistan on this thread
I appreciate your niceness. But it would make far more sense to directed to those who are bigger "trashers" of this thread.

This exchange itself is a distractor, so I wish to carry it no further.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by Johann »

Rye, Brihaspati

+ Brihaspati is right about one of the 'great games' going on.

The PRC has since the 1990s concentrated on eliminating its dependence and vulnerability in the Straits of Malacca and South China Sea by building direct overland access to the Indian Ocean Region through isolated states like Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Iran. The so called string of pearls, linked by pipelines and roads to western china. The additional benefit was that this connectivity would stimulate the economies of Tibet and Xinjiang, support further Han settlement, and bind these difficult areas closer to China proper.

This push in to the IOR has been one of the underlying sources of competition between India and the PRC - India fears encirclement, and resents the erosion of influence in its near abroad. It has led to far closer Indian strategic cooperation with the same group of states that the PRC fears around Malacca and the South China Sea - the US, Japan, and Vietnam, with Singapore as the silent member of the alliance.

The amounts of money that the PRC has sunk in to all of these states is absolutely huge - in the region of hundreds of billions of dollars. Not just the infrastructure, but the relationships to secure these lines of transit for energy and trade.

However, there are some signs that the PRC's hopes for Pakistan are dimming. Pakistan is simply too unstable to serve as a secure corridor to the IOR, and shows no signs of stabilising any time soon. The PRC has not abandoned Pakistan, but it seems to be in the process of downgrading its level of investment.

+ Nations are built around common identities, and shared values. Geopolitical competitions are also often competitions over identity and values. See below on the 60 year struggle between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

+ If you define the Cold War as something that started after WWII, its clear that Afghanistan did indeed serve as a buffer between Soviet and anti-Soviet blocs. Afghanistan was treated as neutral ground.

This continued the practice of the original Great Game where both the Russians and the British treated Afghanistan as a buffer state. Afghanistan played a similar role between the Safavid and Mughal empires.

This is a persistant pattern. Afghanistan is a handy buffer because its people, particularly the Pashtuns made it just too hard for any power to conquer.

What ended Afghanistan's status as a neutral buffer? Afghanistan's internal politics have often been highly unstable given the traditional tribal opposition to central authority (I've heard an Afghan saying to the effect 'its good to kill the king and burn down the palace every now and then'), but the fundamental territorial and ideological dispute with Pakistan resulted in a destructive battle over Afghanistan. All of the other players - Iran, Russia/USSR, the US, India have drifted in and out of it at various times.

+ There's no way anyone can look at the geopolitics of the region without also taking in to account regional players. Pakistan has been the biggest player in Afghanistan since partition. The Soviets were a distant second, the Iranians third, and the Americans pulling up the rear.

Surinder's question regarding Pakistani objectives in Afghanistan is a valid one. Besides the famous 'strategic depth', there is the fact that the Durand Line, which the Afghans reject is far longer than the LoC. Afghanistan was the only state to vote against Pakistan's entry in to the UN. Ultimately the question of whether Afghanistan or Pakistan won this contest came down to which state was able to win the loyalties of Pashtuns.

Afghanistan lacked India's conventional strength, but its threat to Pakistan's integrity and survival were at least as large. Pakistan's response has been to export the same ideology it has relied on for its internal cohesion in the face of subnationalism - acultural Islamism.

The growth of Pashto chauvanism, the PA's reluctance to fight the Taliban, and the Uzbek-Tajik-Dari speaking Pashtun alliance in the north seems likely to result in a de facto redrawing of the map. In other words, the competition between Afghanistan and Pakistan over the Pashtuns since 1947 may result in a situation where both have lost out.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by vsudhir »

Compare how close the great gamers have gotten to realising the aims of the great game 10 yrs ago and now - via their TSP proxy.

I presume the aim of each layer is to either command access to CA+ME+IOR or prevent other gamers from gaining such control

Seems to me, the gamers have suffered setbacks. The TSP horse they backed is unraveling slowly but surely and the virulent genie of pan-islamism it has unleashed now threatens the domestic peace and security of their peoples.

India now has no option but to cut the Gordian game knot and finish TSP by balkanizing it, reincorporate PoK and NA and normalize relations with Iran and Russia. Not doing so entails death by a 1000 cuts.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by shiv »

R Vaidya wrote:Steps to Shock and awe the TSP's Economy

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1212468

R Vaidya
Has anyone seen this response?

http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2008/1 ... i-economy/

Hurting the Pakistani economy
…shouldn’t be an objective in itself
R Vaidyanathan, a professor of finance at the Indian Institute of Management - Bangalore, suggests twelve steps to shock and awe the Pakistani economy. Many of them are, in and of themselves, powerful instruments to destabilise Pakistan. Many of them can make credible threats, because carrying them out will hurt India, albeit to a much lesser extent that they hurt Pakistan.
The problem, though, is that Prof Vaidyanathan’s arguments are premised on a stable Pakistan not being in “the interest of world peace, leave alone India” and that if “Pakistan is dismantled and the idea of Pakistan is gone, many of our domestic (religious) issues will also be sorted out.”
The counter-argument is that it is an unstable Pakistan—unstable since 1947—that is the cause of much of India’s, and the world’s security problems. It is the lack of an internal reconciliation, a sense of purpose beyond being India’s doppelganger and a lack of stability that lies at the root of its ending up as an “international migraine”. Plus, unless it is possible to be very sure that the post-Pakistan set-up will somehow be more stable, and less jihadi export-oriented, dismantling Pakistan cannot be in India’s interests. [See this article]
So while attempting to bring about a collapse of Pakistan is undesirable, many of Prof Vaidyanathan’s prescriptions lend themselves for coercive diplomacy. They allow India to pursue a variety of punitive and coercive policies in a calibrated manner, without raising military tensions. For instance, it would be untenable for the international community to disagree that all economic aid to Pakistan must be made contingent on its government meeting concrete deliverables, like extraditing terrorists that live in the open in its territory. In fact, The Acorn has long argued that the greatest failure of the “peace process” was that it distracted attention from the important objective of creating a range of flexible policy instruments that could not only be turned on and off, but also fine-tuned and targeted.
To modify B Raman’s words a little, the capability to cause “a divided Pakistan, a bleeding Pakistan, a Pakistan ever on the verge of collapse without actually collapsing—-that should be our objective till it stops using terrorism against India.”
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by Philip »

Reports that Pakistan is trying to flood India with counterfeit currency should be payed back in the "same coin".We have some marvellous "printing experts" at home,one classmate reportedly years ago was a "state guest" for the same.In WW2 the Nazis fooled even the Bank of England with billions worth of fake currency,which they used for foreign reserves.A Propaganda War ,a Diplomatic War, an Economic War and lastly if neccessary,a War on the battlefield should be carried out.As far as the Afghan War goes,India should step up its cooperation with the erstwhile Northern Alliance and Russia,who are supposedly trying to provide a supply corridor for US/NATO forces and exercise effective military control over areas of Afghan's north and kabul.India could also help "assist" air strikes against the Taliban using bases in the region.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by SSridhar »

Philip wrote: . . . .In WW2 the Nazis fooled even the Bank of England with billions worth of fake currency . . . .
Nazi Germany and Pakistan have so much in common. Pakistan is certainly following all the steps of Nazi Germany, starting from xenophobia to fake currency to looting heritage to fabricating history etc. etc. Like Nazi Germany, Pakistan has become a menace to the rest of the civilized world. There is every indication that history is repeating itself after 70 years with the evil force being represented by Pakistan.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by Philip »

Sridhar,an Israeli academic has described these acts as not just "terrorism",which is merely a means to an end,which is actually a religious war being perpetrated by "Islamic Nazism".
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by SSridhar »

That's an apt description, 'Islamic Nazism'. I have posted here before comparisons between Nazi Germany and Pakistan and they have amazing and close similarities.
skher
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 23:58
Location: Secured; no idea

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by skher »

Philip wrote:Reports that Pakistan is trying to flood India with counterfeit currency should be payed back in the "same coin".We have some marvellous "printing experts" at home,one classmate reportedly years ago was a "state guest" for the same.In WW2 the Nazis fooled even the Bank of England with billions worth of fake currency,which they used for foreign reserves.A Propaganda War ,a Diplomatic War, an Economic War and lastly if neccessary,a War on the battlefield should be carried out.
Saar,the indirect implication of the above is that we counterfeit dollars [Jehadi-ISI-PA currency in Yamri-khan's control] far more than we counterfeit the rupee {people's currency}.
Kammandu ruler has bankrupted the local economy-no money,no resistance.Hence,Nazi economy different from present Pakjabi begging bowl.
But counterfeiting is still fun for :twisted: revenge and employment for tiharis.
IMHO,Yamri-khan must freeze/withdraw all money & material and avoid the resulting pinch through involvement of Iran-Russia-India.
As far as the Afghan War goes,India should step up its cooperation with the erstwhile Northern Alliance and Russia,who are supposedly trying to provide a supply corridor for US/NATO forces and exercise effective military control over areas of Afghan's north and kabul.India could also help "assist" air strikes against the Taliban using bases in the region.
Now here the Great Game becomes the Great Bargain.
Phase Zero is entirely upto Bush,as a part of a grand exit strategy [not for the troops,but for himself].Bush,Rice and Co. must bargain prices with Khatami,Menon and Putin.

After a few cups of kawa,the following might emerge:

I. Iran:


a)To become the new Persian Corridor style ISAF supply dock and given most of the dollars meant for Pakistan.Road and construction projects carried out by US. In exchange,Iran opens up nuclear program with 70%+ reactors under IAEA inspection & central reprocessing facility.

b) Anti-US sloganeering and activism to be stopped with Kurdistan, hezbollah/hamas support etc. absolved and Iran's pledge to fight against the Saudi Qaeda.In exchange,IRGC is identified from terror organization list(temporarily).

c) Pipeline grid project from Iraq to Afghanisthan to be started and joined to the Central Asian grid.

?Two sorries said by Bush and Ahmedinijad regarding past speeches ("which were out of context and misreported").Meeting proposal between Livni,Mahmoud and Ahmedinijad arranged.

II.Russia
a)Missile shield heat lessened (joint BMDs) -free political hand in CIS states and backseating in GUUAM.In return,open door policy in Caspian Sea spoils for American companies.

b)Putin to be let off to sign a Treaty of Good Neighborliness,etc. with the current Afghanistan govt.Trains and equips on soft loans Afghan & NA Army/Air Force.In return,Russia gives support on Iraq War, helps to check China's posturing and promises to reduce mafia activities.

?Bering Strait Bridge:Sarah Palin should be able to "see Russia from my house".Rail-cum-pipeline project to be started.Russia to withdraw unilateral claims over Arctic.

III.India

a)CIA Training,equipping and support of lost covert capability (CIT-J/CIT-X) against Pakistan.New anti-Pak & covert counter-terror executive agency to permanently established by India.India pledges more visible support to Afghanistan and Iraq.

b)Abstain and tacit support regarding NA's reunion.IA ensures lessening of excess troops transferring onus to RR regiments after this.
Last edited by skher on 24 Dec 2008 01:49, edited 1 time in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by ramana »

SSridhar wrote:That's an apt description, 'Islamic Nazism'. I have posted here before comparisons between Nazi Germany and Pakistan and they have amazing and close similarities.

I had posted in the Non Western World view that Hitler's Nazism was Evanjelized Darwinism. I think he was trying to be the Muhammed for the Western Europeans.

He had a slogan which effectively said, without Jews, without Rome he would lead the people. By this what he means is the new killigion will get rid of Jews, get rid of traditional holy places and religious centers and march on. Contrast this with Gul's feverish pitch to vcreate a new Medina and the TSP terrorists penchant for targeting Jews- Chabad house wasnt the first. There was that poor Dutch tourist beheaded in Kashmir by Al Faran(precursor to Jaish-e-Mohammed) and then the case of Daniel Pearl.

Sadly the Brits thought they knew their Indian Muslims and created thier new operating base in the sub-continent but these folks ahve turned backwards/regressed since then.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by ramana »

X-posted...
satya wrote:IIRC , Milliband was a challenger to Brown not so long when Brown's ratings were hitting lows as PM , one hand he can be playing to domestic audience , again might be wrong but haven't muslims specially mirpuris voted for Labor? He also goofed up big time during Russian-Georgian Crisis ending up as all talk no substance , somewhere like a teenager who wants to be taken seriously .
But its not so then it seems Brits are reading Indian Sub-continent leaves more closely and are seeing a collapse of TSP as an entity but are trying to make sure that access to CAR is denied again with Tailbunnies making sure in Frontier & trying to keep PoK somehow as an independent entity. We need to think of a scenario where in case of TSP collapse , PoK ending up either with NWFP/Pakhtoonistan or with Pakjab or maybe even independent ?
These three situations are already gamed by the VSG. If you look at all the maps from Bernard Lewis to Ralph Peters to the Pusthunstan billboard maps they all want to retain POK with the rump state of TSP, they also ensure that Sindh is attached to PAkjab to ensure sea access.

Its only the Indians who dont have their own maps except the one that shows the Indian claim line for Punjab.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by ramana »

X-posted for continuity...
Rye wrote:Apologies to Narayananji for the abuse on the SL thread....I have taken a chirr pirr and some koor aid.

On Topic:

Following the "watch what they are doing, not what they are saying" dictum, it is clear UK and its allies have no interest in seeing the above long-term outcome become true -- that is a death kneel to western dreams of power projections in Asia. Clearly, any benefits of sending Indians into a landlocked area must exist in short, medium, and long term. Elsewhere in the great game thread, people want to think of PoK going to NWFP or Pakjab, rather than asserting India's claim over all of PoK. If India does not reclaim PoK -- It is a guarantee that India will never be any kind of power in the world in the long term (IMO,etc.). Just for kicks, if we assume that all of J&K becomes a full state of India like any other at some point down the line (due to Indian actions, obviously -- the question is what Indian actions are required). Following the "watch what they are doing, not what they are saying" dictum, it is clear UK and its allies have no interest in seeing the above long-term outcome become true -- that is a death kneel to western dreams of power projections in Asia -- their behaviour certainly indicates that their interests are not aligned with India's by a long shot when it comes to Afghanisthan.


In the long term, the outcome needs to be: India and Afghanisthan become neighbours with a boundary in J&K, so that India can maintain a stabilizing presence in Afghanisthan with the entire supply route being under Indian control.

So the question is what are the intermediate "stages"/"states of being" that are necessary to move from where we are today to the above situation. Clearly, the following events need to happen before the above comes true: (1) All the terrorist camps in PoK need to be cleaned out and wiped clean of all pakistani jihadi elements that are creating murder and mayhem in India (2) The Indian army squeezes out these people with a presence in the north and in the south (3) This means that India needs a presence in the North with a stable supply line (4) Given the clash of interests between India and the US/UK combine (who are the bankrollers of the pakis) in Afghanisthan, India cannot and must not depend on the US for supply routes (5) This mean that supply routes must be diversified before any boots are on the ground...an obvious secondary supply line needs Russian support (6) This means that the first order of affairs is to build the supply route with collaboration with other neighbouring contries like Tajikisthan and other CAR states.

In the above list, it is hard to get to stage (1) with low risk/high reward steps without having gone through stage (2) and so on.

One of the important things in evaluating outcomes is the probability of the outcome, which is usually in inverse proportion to the inertia from the current state of the world to a required state of the world. So each individual step has to be of sufficiently low inertia (which means, it must not involve changing the world in order to fix problems, but must be in line with current realities). Building a supply line is doable, and once capability (6) is realized, then low cost and low risk options become available for step (5) and so on.

Of course, the subtext for the entire reasoning here is to aim for low/medium risk and high reward actions with a definite pre-definited outcome. Going to war can be considered a high risk/high reward situation (if the war results in denuking of Pakistan in the world's eyes and reduces its use as a foil against India).

In all of this, "Revenge", H&D etc. have zero value as goals or outcomes and have been ignored.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by brihaspati »

(1) All the terrorist camps in PoK need to be cleaned out and wiped clean of all pakistani jihadi elements that are creating murder and mayhem in India (2) The Indian army squeezes out these people with a presence in the north and in the south (3) This means that India needs a presence in the North with a stable supply line (4) Given the clash of interests between India and the US/UK combine (who are the bankrollers of the pakis) in Afghanisthan, India cannot and must not depend on the US for supply routes (5) This mean that supply routes must be diversified before any boots are on the ground...an obvious secondary supply line needs Russian support (6) This means that the first order of affairs is to build the supply route with collaboration with other neighbouring contries like Tajikisthan and other CAR states.
Just wondering, at the minimum need a safe land route to CAR. At the moment the northern border of India is encircled by TSP+PRC occupation. Any opening of such a route, will bring the TSP+PRC into violent opposition.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by Rye »

TSP+PRC opposition is a given -- the question is which of those stages can they affect and how...if there are no answers now, then over time their reaction will be clear. The intermediate steps are mostly not negotiable (because the plan would fall apart) unless one of the assumptions are broken, in which case, the entire situation has to be re-analyzed, and possibly different set of intermediate steps are chalked out towards the final conclusion. But that would have to be a pretty significant assumption to be broken...if the US/UK combine decide to wash their hands off Pakistan is such example (and let 100 years of "work" go to waste? no way. The US/UK will not be interested in changing the nature of TSP (i.e.,its "raisin dieter") just its form).
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by ramana »

For a division how many truck loads are needed would be good start. And where to bring them in. Chah Bahar->Zaranj->Northern Areas or Black Sea -> Tajikistan->Northern Areas?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by ramana »

X-posted...
NRao wrote:
Supply is an issue unless the countries to the north agree to pitch in - no allow India to "supply", but actually send food, etc originating from those nations.

I am sure they will do so if the Indian "goal" includes some "goals" that are of interest to them too. That is not an issue at all.

Indian army is trained to fight there - too. IA has had a "second front" phil from 1980 and earlier. Granted Iran was the "second front". A'stan could be the "third front", nonetheless a non conventional front.

Indian Army IS trained to deal with Issues about Pakis (it includes the Taliban and AQ too). They have dealt with them for 20 years.

IA will NOT be in A'stan alone. There should be another 100,000 troops from other nations. And, IF I am to believe Obama and now the UK FM, they expect to ask NATO for more and for offensive purposes (see earlier posts).

The issue from an Indian PoV is not the capability of IA, but the will of the Indian politician. The weak link in the entire chain.

I understand that most people raising concerns about this issue mean well.

I also understand that what India has to pay for what she wants will not be cheap. And, IMHO, these moves by the Islamic fundoos has to be stopped. Thinking of sending 120 K to A'stan IMHO - just the thought - is a very good move. As a warming session perhaps the IAF should place 40 MiG-29s out there.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by brihaspati »

Okay, I understand. This was my own thought in December in suggesting an Afghan presence of the IA. The plan was to break the thin neck to the K-valley and reoccupy POK from the Afghan side. But thinking on it,
(a) US+NATO will be under pressure from the middle-east to prevent Indian presence
(b) India may not have the capacity and resources to fully replace US presence in Afghanistan. But on the other hand if India can offer this to AFG, US may be pushed to accept partial Indian presence (allowing India to commit less resource). This will be a game of nerves and bluff.
(c) India has to separately negotiate for investments and cooperation with Tajikistan. A separate line to RUS hinting at promising RUS entry back to "influence" in the region could be used.

But the greatest problem I see will be the exposed flank to Pakjab, unless a distracting move is made towards the south from the east.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by RajeshA »

brihaspati wrote:(c) India has to separately negotiate for investments and cooperation with Tajikistan. A separate line to RUS hinting at promising RUS entry back to "influence" in the region could be used.
Russia must be goaded to reenter Afghanistan. However considering that Chechnya is quiet at the moment, it is unclear whether Russia will oblige.

Only an India-Russia-Iran plan can save Afghanistan (at least the non-Pushtun part of it), and should a consensus be reached between the three, Pakistan can be given a burial.
satya
BRFite
Posts: 718
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by satya »

Baluchistan is the key for both Russia & Iran. Russia always had its sight on a warm water port & having come so near yet so far in their last campaign in A'stan , they want to be sure that any future venture has Baluchistan as the crown . I am not too sure Russia will like the idea of Baluchistan as a state of Republic of India. Independent Baluchistan is not in interest of Iran for its own Baluch province & population getting any wrong ideas. For India , Baluchistan as state of our Republic will do , independence or something is creating another pain in *** that we all can avoid . So the question is how to bring these two 'friendly' nations to the idea of Baluchistan under Tri-color . And precisely for this reason , we might be seeing these two nations not over enthusiast about large Indian presence in west A'stan. Another thing , Russia might not be averse to having a strong Indian presence in north A'stan but then we have to somehow pull a fast one around Unkil & creators of this game Brits for tht will mean us against Anglo-American alliance & PRC as PoK is the prized state for PRC to have any use of Baluchistan . Some sort of understanding has to be reached with Iran & Russia on A'stan & its territories & with Russia only on Baluchistan specially Gawadar port use but question is Gawadar port facilities could be thrown in as incentive by TSP-PRC alliance , what will make Russians go with us needs to be explored.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by brihaspati »

All depends on timescale - if there is sufficient time, you can wait until majority of Balochis convert to Buddhism or Hinduism (both existed there in the past and a few still survive). But unless that happens, I see great difficulty in convincing them to become part of India. They can be promised independence, with two strict conditions that they will have to be satisfied at the moment with only the TSP part of Baloch, as o.w. Iran's neutrality to this plan cannot be guaranteed - and Iran has to be kept out of this if the whole plan is to succeed. Second condition is to have mutual non-aggression and other bindings so that Balochis cannot attack from the South and the West, any move towards Pakjab. Too much UK and US dance in favour of TSP should be countered with hints of moving to the Russian side.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by ShauryaT »

Any move on Baluchistan is a no go, in the short to medium term for India. It just does not add up.

India first and foremost needs to play in the region to protect its own interests and not those of US, Russia or Iran.

Balushistan as its own entity is just not viable, unless merged with Iran's part and even then, it would be a rentable state. It would also be continuously be threatened by TSP and Iran. Please do check its GDP, population and other socio-economic indices, they are dismal Compared to Pakjab or the populated portions of Iran.

For the Indian state to convince anyone to go against TSP and Iran together are pipe dreams. Why will India try for such a thing? What is India getting except for inviting the wrath of all of the muslim world on it?

I said this in the initial pages of the thread. The game in the region changed from India being the prize, to the prize shifting to ME oil in the 30's to 40's, with Indian resources as the material used to secure these resources for the west.

The game is changing again. Oil is a dying story, though still relevant. New India is the prize again, for the west. This prize is worth at least 1000 trillion dollars over the next 100 years. The periphery is relevant, only to protect the prize. To ensure that disturbances to the prize can be checked at the periphery.

Translation, we have to let the periphery regions of the NW of the Indian sub continent firmly in control of India. This control is essential or else some other power will control this periphery and threaten the prize at will.

Indian control of Afghanistan, Iran and a major stake in CA is essential to protect and ensure that the prize is protected and the biggest beneficiaries of the prize are Indians.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by brihaspati »

I have always thought of Baloch independence as part of a comprehensive action which aims to dissolve TSP by simultaneously occupying Sind and Pakjab. Simply giving indpendence to Balochistan without simultaneosuly occupying Pakjab is suicidal. We have discussed this before.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by ShauryaT »

brihaspati wrote:I have always thought of Baloch independence as part of a comprehensive action which aims to dissolve TSP by simultaneously occupying Sind and Pakjab. Simply giving indpendence to Balochistan without simultaneosuly occupying Pakjab is suicidal. We have discussed this before.
Occupying or assimilating Sind and Pakjab, under present conditions, if it were in Indian interests, would have been done a long time ago. Nothing stops the Indian state from doing so today, if it so desires.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by RajeshA »

PoK and Baluchistan should belong to India. Sindh should have some associated status. Pakjab should be our rentier buffer state between us and the Talibs. Pushtunistan would remain in the hands of the Talibs for the next 2 decades.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by brihaspati »

The main reasons, the Pakjab should be occupied
(a) is to extend strategic depth from current borders of India, for Talebs will continue to target Indian heartland, and India will not be able to avoid tackling them in the future.
(b) to finish off the theologians network existing in Pakjab that maintains and regenerates terror
(c) to extinguish any legal framework or excuse for a nation, however tiny it might be, to gain international recognition and support and continue military activity
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by ShauryaT »

brihaspati wrote:The main reasons, the Pakjab should be occupied
(a) is to extend strategic depth from current borders of India, for Talebs will continue to target Indian heartland, and India will not be able to avoid tackling them in the future.
Strategic depth for India? What kind of strategic depth does a country with a 2000+ KM body and a 2000+ KM wing span need? The talebs were there before or one can say there are no talebs. Those god forsaken lands beyond the Indus were always with people organized as primitive tribes. Their conservative approaches goes beyond Wahabi ways. Ofcourse, with the Wahabi ideology mixed in, it makes for a potent cocktail, to go and destroy any and all around. The way to manage these folks is to first, ensure that no outside power can have influences in the region and second to ensure that their way to economic progress is to live in peace with the only giant in the region or get whipped.
(b) to finish off the theologians network existing in Pakjab that maintains and regenerates terror
First, the Indian state needs to finish this theological network in India and find a way to truly assimilate its own muslim population. The ISI would not be able to function in India were it not for the muslims of India. The theological base of the muslims of the sub continent was in deoband and the eastern plains of UP, not Lahore. Today, the pakjab, may have radical bases but so does, every other province in TSP. The Indian state is simply not ready for another 150+ million muslims.
(c) to extinguish any legal framework or excuse for a nation, however tiny it might be, to gain international recognition and support and continue military activity
Let them have their nation, for now, but do ensure that no other power can use these lands. The trick is to cut off their borrowed head, that rightfully belongs to us, by law and take away the reason the outside powers, seek the services of the generals of TSP.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by brihaspati »

Strategic depth for India? What kind of strategic depth does a country with a 2000+ KM body and a 2000+ KM wing span need? The talebs were there before or one can say there are no talebs. Those god forsaken lands beyond the Indus were always with people organized as primitive tribes. Their conservative approaches goes beyond Wahabi ways. Ofcourse, with the Wahabi ideology mixed in, it makes for a potent cocktail, to go and destroy any and all around. The way to manage these folks is to first, ensure that no outside power can have influences in the region and second to ensure that their way to economic progress is to live in peace with the only giant in the region or get whipped.
If Pakjab retains its independence it retains borders with Taleb controlled AFG. The Talebs can use this to continue to wreak havoc right up to the current borders of India. Incorporating Pakjab takes away this access to come up to current borders of India. It is wrong to say that these people "beyond the Indus" were always "god-forsaken" and conservative "beyond Wahabi". There are well known Mughal period records of campaigns carried on "Hindu lands" beyond the Indus, and how such people were decimated. As long as Pakjab retains independence USA+UK will retain influence.There is no point claiming vaguely that outside influences can be kept out. In concrete real life, it would be impossible to do so if Pakjab remains an independent entity. How do you think that you can occupy POK while you leave Pakjab free, while you have simultaneously not taken out Sind and Baloch to prevent access of resources and help from the south?
First, the Indian state needs to finish this theological network in India and find a way to truly assimilate its own muslim population. The ISI would not be able to function in India were it not for the muslims of India. The theological base of the muslims of the sub continent was in deoband and the eastern plains of UP, not Lahore. Today, the pakjab, may have radical bases but so does, every other province in TSP. The Indian state is simply not ready for another 150+ million muslims.
The Indian state cannot finish off (even if it suddenly decideds to) the theological network within India right now. To wait for such a complete liquidation, will be suicidal - the Talebs and TSP are not going to give India such a long time. Moreover the existence of cross border centres provide mutual ideological incentives and rationale. Cross border existences give hope that if one part is "squeezed" the other part can put pressure or help with ideological and resource succour. It is this hope and promise on the "other side" that needs to be destroyed. Moreover within an extended India, the "Islamic state" gets diluted. The other bases in other provinces in TSP are more of the nature of colonies put up by the TSP regime, and not all of them are a source of "pleasure" to the locals, except a few impoverished recruits.
Let them have their nation, for now, but do ensure that no other power can use these lands. The trick is to cut off their borrowed head, that rightfully belongs to us, by law and take away the reason the outside powers, seek the services of the generals of TSP.
JN has ensured by his pussyfooting that legal solutions are no longer possible. The GOI and Congress regimes have ensured that by delaying resolution sufficiently and allowing Islam sponsored genocide to continue in Kashmir, that the demographic equation has changed and any legal steps under UN "supervision" will be used by USA+UK to separate Kashmir entirely from India. POK cannot be reunited except by military methods. To make such military methods possible, you have to have either a presence in eastern AFG, and then coordinate with forces moving from the west, or engage TSP farther south as a diversion while you occupy POK. In either case you have to move against Pakjab. It will be a waste of lives and material to advance into it and not occupy it or give it up once you have POK.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by RajeshA »

I have always been of the opinion, that it is far easier to do remote control of a country's politics than to go and occupy a country.

Pakjab should itself be divided into 3 parts: Hindko Region (in North), Pakjab and Seraikistan. Let us however consider Pakjab and Seraikistan together as India's policies towards both would similar and denote the duo by 'Pakjab'.

Secondly India should keep full control over the political, economic and military space for maneuvering by cutting off direct access to Pakjab from the Sea, Central Asia or China. We should keep Sindh as an close associate of the Indian Union, possibly have a confederation with Sindh. We should make Baluchistan another Indian State, just as PoK including Northern Areas are assimilated into India.

By controlling Sindh and Baluchistan, we control Pakjab's access to Sea.

By controlling PoK, we control Pakjab's access to China.

By keeping Talibanistan up in the North is constant struggle against PakSer, we restrict Pakjab's access to Central Asia.

Keeping Pakjab landlocked this way, US, Britain and China cannot use Pakjab as the next rentier country.

By controlling its access to the outside world, we control Pakjab completely. This control would have to be supplemented by having a Turkey like political system in Pakjab.

So I would prefer to control Pakjab without needing to occupy it, because occupation would be untenable over the long duration.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by brihaspati »

Sind has a significant non-Muslim population. As an independent entity, the Muslim presence will multiply and may gaive us a BD like situation. It is much safer to incoprorate Sind entirely. Balochis have gone too far into independence mode. Incorporating them at this stage will only mean loss of influence from Indian core.
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by Tilak »

PBS Doumentary : The House of Saud :

[googlevideo]4946388185611545522[/googlevideo]
Must watch! as its refreshingly frank...
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by RajeshA »

brihaspati wrote:Sind has a significant non-Muslim population. As an independent entity, the Muslim presence will multiply and may gaive us a BD like situation. It is much safer to incoprorate Sind entirely. Balochis have gone too far into independence mode. Incorporating them at this stage will only mean loss of influence from Indian core.
Incorporating Baluchistan is all about:

a. Starting big-scale mining for minerals, natural gas, oil, etc there, putting up refineries, and bringing infrastructure projects online and giving a substantial stake to the Sardars there.

b. In return for teaching feudals how to move up the value chain and giving up old habits, which kept the populace uneducated and backward, they let Indians to put up universities and hospitals there as well as encouraging civil society and rule of law.

c. One can get a land route through Sindh into Baluchistan, but one can reach just as easily over the sea route.

d. Give Baluchis a sense of ownership, empowerment, influence, a voice but also democracy and rule of law.

e. Baluchis know, that they would not be able to survive as an independent entity and will always be manipulated by outside powers, who might trying pitting one tribe against the other, etc. So as a part of India, they will fare better.

f. The population there is so low, their borders with Talibanistan up North will not be secure, especially as the Pushtuns see that their country extends all the way to the sea. Iran also will try and gobble the place.

g. With such a low population, integration into India will be much easier.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by brihaspati »

Oh no I am not against incorporating Balochis, but I am merely suggesting that within short time horizons, offering them to choose between incorporation and freedom will be a very delicate operation. They are much more militant than Sindhis, and it will be good if they are convinced to join us, but we should not pressurize them or occupy them to do this.
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by Yogi_G »

Tilak wrote:
PBS Doumentary : The House of Saud :
Must watch! as its refreshingly frank...
Its a great video, thanks Tilak...

The video reminded me of one thing, one of the justifications the King gives to the Ulema in fighting along with the Americans was that it is OK as even the Prophet had forged alliances with Jews when need be and then revoked them when the task was done...

Not long ago, Musharraf had provided the same justification when he sided along with US after the mother of all questions "you are either with us or against us"
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by shiv »

An excellent article by Bharat Verma

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/?p=439

Pakistan the Obvious Battlefield
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by Yogi_G »

The main basis of the Jihadi warfare tactic is asymmetric warfare otherwise known as crude hit and run and hide amongst civilian tactics. In many parts of the world this would be regarded nothing short of cowardice....what can the world do in terms of clearly identifying such forms of warfare as cowardice and propagate extensively in this regard? I know after every terrorist attack some or the other leader terms it as cowardice and that terrorists have no religion, but i am thinking more on the lines of building a stereotype of a coward around the concept of a Jihadi...just the way Jihadi is glorified with the 72 houris concept, can the world's best propoganda devices - Hollywood, Indian movie Industry, Chinese movie industry be leveraged to build a stereotype so derogatory that any potential Jihadi aspirant would rather not be identified with it even if it involves loss of the 72 houris...

Movies, pop videos etc etc used to demonise and develop a stereotype of a dumb coward Jihadi with bangles on hand would be a first good step....

In other words a sort of a world famous Khabar e Jehad al Phirengi sort of thingy :lol:
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by RayC »

Strategic depth

Strategic depth refers, broadly speaking, to the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants’ industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production.


How vulnerable are these assets to a quick, preemptive attack or to a methodical offensive? Conversely, can a country withdraw into its own territory, absorb an initial thrust, and allow the subsequent offensive to culminate short of its goal and far from its source of power?


The issue is the trade-off between space and time; a classic historical case is Germany’s failure to knock out the Soviet Union in 1941–42. The Soviet retreat, in the face of the German attack, from Poland in June 1941 to the outskirts of Moscow in December 1941, allowed the Soviet Union to move its industrial base to east of the Ural Mountain.

By taking Pakistani Punjab, what would be the implications of strategic depth?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by shiv »

RayC wrote: By taking Pakistani Punjab, what would be the implications of strategic depth?

RayC - if you take tribalism and Islamic fundamentalism as "primitive concepts" that have not yet been modified by modernity/secularism and democracy the words "strategic depth" take on a new meaning. The reason why the mountainous Pakistan-Afghanistan region can be called strategic depth is that nobody has been able to control these regions, leaving the areas in control of an ancient tribal system with a primitive outlook on religion and rights. Those areas are strategic depth only for people who ally themselves culturally (and in religion() with the people over there.

India was strategic depth for Britain in WW2, but that was an India that the Brits had carefully moulded and partially educated and industrialised. But a weak Britain after WW1 was so badly hit after ww2 that it was unable to hold on to its strategic depth.

In WW2 Russia's strategic depth was accompanied by a cultural unity upto Moscow and East of Moscow that allowed "Russia" to retake the occupied lands militarily, socially and culturally.

In the case of Pakistan there is a distinct cultural dissimilarity between Pakistani Punjab (PakJab) and the border areas. But this cultural dissimilarity has been obfuscated under the excuse that these are all "islamic" regions and that islam is all that is required a a binding factor.

This "Islam unites all Muslims" snake oil was sold by Zia and bought by Reagan. The "strategic depth" of Afghanistan was won by the same tribals and Islamits who have found those areas good refuge for centuries.

If Pakjab is taken, the "strategic depth" only means that those who control Pakjab will be in direct conflict with those who control the border regions - i.e the tribals and Islamists. If the controllers of Pakjab ruthlessly put down tribalism and religious fundamentalism - then the law and the law enforcement agencies become the "frontlline" between the tribal Islamists and Pakistani Punjab

But if the controllers of Pakistani Punjab think that Islam offers them strategic depth, then Pakistani Punjab must get Talibanized. In other words those areas are no strategic depth at all for the Pakistan army, unless the army becomes a Taliban clone and converts Pakistan to become Talibanic. The latter will not be easy. An uneasy coexistence has always been achieved between teh Brits and later the Pakis with the tribal regions. Each did their own thing and diod not interfere. With the cold war, Pakistan interfered by arming the tribals and tarning them and making Pakistan more attractive to the tribals by Islamizaton.

It is now payback time and India must exploit the situation.

But let me go and first bribe the nearest minister to get my work done. Pakistan and nukes and terrorism can wait. Its all so far away.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by RayC »

shiv wrote:
RayC wrote: By taking Pakistani Punjab, what would be the implications of strategic depth?

RayC - if you take tribalism and Islamic fundamentalism as "primitive concepts" that have not yet been modified by modernity/secularism and democracy the words "strategic depth" take on a new meaning. The reason why the mountainous Pakistan-Afghanistan region can be called strategic depth is that nobody has been able to control these regions, leaving the areas in control of an ancient tribal system with a primitive outlook on religion and rights. Those areas are strategic depth only for people who ally themselves culturally (and in religion() with the people over there.

India was strategic depth for Britain in WW2, but that was an India that the Brits had carefully moulded and partially educated and industrialised. But a weak Britain after WW1 was so badly hit after ww2 that it was unable to hold on to its strategic depth.

In WW2 Russia's strategic depth was accompanied by a cultural unity upto Moscow and East of Moscow that allowed "Russia" to retake the occupied lands militarily, socially and culturally.

In the case of Pakistan there is a distinct cultural dissimilarity between Pakistani Punjab (PakJab) and the border areas. But this cultural dissimilarity has been obfuscated under the excuse that these are all "islamic" regions and that islam is all that is required a a binding factor.

This "Islam unites all Muslims" snake oil was sold by Zia and bought by Reagan. The "strategic depth" of Afghanistan was won by the same tribals and Islamits who have found those areas good refuge for centuries.

If Pakjab is taken, the "strategic depth" only means that those who control Pakjab will be in direct conflict with those who control the border regions - i.e the tribals and Islamists. If the controllers of Pakjab ruthlessly put down tribalism and religious fundamentalism - then the law and the law enforcement agencies become the "frontlline" between the tribal Islamists and Pakistani Punjab

But if the controllers of Pakistani Punjab think that Islam offers them strategic depth, then Pakistani Punjab must get Talibanized. In other words those areas are no strategic depth at all for the Pakistan army, unless the army becomes a Taliban clone and converts Pakistan to become Talibanic. The latter will not be easy. An uneasy coexistence has always been achieved between teh Brits and later the Pakis with the tribal regions. Each did their own thing and diod not interfere. With the cold war, Pakistan interfered by arming the tribals and tarning them and making Pakistan more attractive to the tribals by Islamizaton.

It is now payback time and India must exploit the situation.

But let me go and first bribe the nearest minister to get my work done. Pakistan and nukes and terrorism can wait. Its all so far away.
Shiv,

It is correct that given the concept of ‘ummah’, the religious equation should contribute to Afghanistan allowing their country to be the ‘strategic depth’ for Pakistan..

While I concede that Islam has a great influence on those who are its followers and binds them, yet, whether it is agreed or not by them, there is this latent subnationalism as prevalent. An example is Balochistan. The sectarian divide (Shia – Sunni is even worse!).

Here is an analysis of the Afghan – Pakistan issue over Durand Line, which I append without comment:
http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/65724/47736

The British extension into the Pashtun areas was to offset Russia’s ambition to find ‘warm water’ ports.

Like India, the States of Pakistan are dissimilar in culture and peoples. However, unlike India, the religion was a binding factor. Yet, at the same time, I reiterate that subnationalism, irrespective of Islam, is turbulent under the surface, thanks to the dominant Punjabi ‘super’ race attitude and the attention to development being showered on Pak Punjab. Bangladesh is an example and so is Balochistan, while the sectarian divide is evident in the Northern Areas and the Mohajir factor is evident in Sindh. I might add that the Mohajirs are not looked upon favourably. Musharraf, is a victim of this prejudice! Notwithstanding, Sind and Blochistan saw the end of the Kalbagh Dam that would have benefited Punjab!

I totally agree that Islam unites all Moslem is snake oil.

If we capture Pakistan Punjab, where will they go to be the overlords that they are? It will hardly give India any strategic depth unless we are looking at it Indian Punjab centric! Or have I not understood your drift?

The Taliban and all these terrorist organisations are a great help to Pakistan and its Army and it has the patronage of the ISI. These are their strategic arm - covert and effective.

As I see it, Pakistan will never be able to contain the Pashtuns. Their affinity is closer to the Afghan Pashtuns!

Indeed, it is now payback time and India must exploit the situation.

Exploit the divisions in Pakistan – covertly!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stabi

Post by shiv »

RayC wrote:
Shiv,

It is correct that given the concept of ‘ummah’, the religious equation should contribute to Afghanistan allowing their country to be the ‘strategic depth’ for Pakistan..

While I concede that Islam has a great influence on those who are its followers and binds them, yet, whether it is agreed or not by them, there is this latent subnationalism as prevalent. An example is Balochistan. The sectarian divide (Shia – Sunni is even worse!).

Here is an analysis of the Afghan – Pakistan issue over Durand Line, which I append without comment:
http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/65724/47736

The British extension into the Pashtun areas was to offset Russia’s ambition to find ‘warm water’ ports.

Like India, the States of Pakistan are dissimilar in culture and peoples. However, unlike India, the religion was a binding factor.
RayC - no matter where (or when) you look in the world Islam is NOT a binding factor. I am still doing the math (research of existing records) but Islam has never "bound" more than a few tens of millions of people in one united body at any time in history. You cross a magic number and the ummah split into factions. Islam as a unifying force is balderdash.

In fact if you look at the history of governance in the world - no religion has ever managed to unite hundreds of millions. Only democracy and communism have done that so far. Who knows what system is yet to come - but that future governance system will not be religion. Certainly not Islam - which is yet to learn the lesson that Christianity taught its own followers through the middle ages - creating the enlightenment that booted out Christian governance and created secular democracies.

When it comes to governance I would not allow any needless sensitivities to stop me from saying that Islam belongs in the trashcan of governance systems along with any other religion that has had the gumption to meddle with governance of hundreds of millions of people. Religion is fascism and if you look at definitions of fascism you will wonder why more people are not saying it out loud. Talk of cognitive dissonance and the halo effect.

RayC wrote:
If we capture Pakistan Punjab, where will they go to be the overlords that they are? It will hardly give India any strategic depth unless we are looking at it Indian Punjab centric! Or have I not understood your drift?

I think I may have not got your drift. My apologies. I am in total agreement with this statement. We get no "strategic depth" by taking Pakjab. We get a strategic liability. Pakjab would better serve as a buffer state between the badlands of a new Pashtunistan and India. IMO And we can help bring stability to Pashtunistan perhaps.

RayC wrote: The Taliban and all these terrorist organisations are a great help to Pakistan and its Army and it has the patronage of the ISI. These are their strategic arm - covert and effective.

As I see it, Pakistan will never be able to contain the Pashtuns. Their affinity is closer to the Afghan Pashtuns!

Indeed, it is now payback time and India must exploit the situation.

Exploit the divisions in Pakistan – covertly!
Absolutely.
Post Reply