A stable, prosperous Pakistan is NOT in India's interest

[Bhima]

The nub of the issue is whether Pakistan is interested in becoming stable.

Pakistan wants peace only when it wants some rest between high-cost conflicts or war.

At the very minimum a stable country should not facilitate an environment that threatens the safety and security of people in another country. Whatever madness that takes place should at least be confined within its borders. Pakistan's inability to harm/inertia to challenge/complicity with/and support of such extremist groups certainly qualifies it as an unstable country as far as we are concerned. But for most ordinary Pakis that is no concern at all. It is when their lifestyles are adversely affected that the country is "becoming unstable" and not before. In fact Pakistan is no more a stable, legitimate, sovereign nation than Iraq or Afghanistan. Worse, the leader of Ummah has sold its ass to the highest bidder(s) to project the impression of being a country worthy to frustrate and antagonise Kufr India. But a high cost "complication" resulting from its radical policies designed to snub us has sown seeds of a naturally evolving civil war. Solving this complication will require TSP to relax tensions with India in the short term to focus on the beating being dispensed on the western border. Problem for them is this complication requires honest and thoughtful discussions about the divergent interpretations of fancy ideological goals in the context of ground "wartime" realities between barbaric jihadi factions to come to a consensus of the Islamically pure way forward.

And that ain't gonna happen.

For Pakistan to become stable in the eyes of the civilised world every extremist organisation must be neutralised and the ideological vision watered down to moderation which in turn directly affects their ability to harm us. So will TSP continue harming itself in order to harm us? If experience is anything to go by it will and that makes the postulate of "a stable and prosperous Pakistan is in Indian interest" an oxymoron encapsulated within a ridiculous moot point. The question in fact is not about Pakistan at all. It is what steps will India take to end the existence of this clearly unambiguous threat?

[shiv]

So will TSP continue harming itself in order to harm us? If experience is anything to go by it will and that makes the postulate of "a stable and prosperous Pakistan is in Indian interest" an oxymoron encapsulated within a ridiculous moot point. The question in fact is not about Pakistan at all. It is what steps will India take to end the existence of this clearly unambiguous threat?

With apologies in advance, I would like to point out that if one must take remedial steps against one's ass being chewed off by a wild animal. one first has to realise that one's ass is being chewed off. A public acknowledgement of the realization that Pakistan is trying to chew India's ass off from the GoI would be greatly appreciated by the more discerning members of the Indian public and BRF in general.

Walking around with a hyena violently trying to tear off a piece of your buttock and whistling nonchalantly as if nothing is amiss is what the Indian government sometimes appears to be doing which is what is worrying.

It is in this context that I made the following list:

Our Prime Minister stated about two weeks ago:
http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/30/stories ... 670100.htm

We trust Pakistan but verify its action, says Manmohan

NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday asserted that the government had not diluted its position on terrorism by issuing a joint statement with Pakistan earlier this month but left the door open for dialogue provided Pakistan fulfilled its commitment in “letter and spirit” to root out anti-India terrorist activity from its soil.
Intervening in a debate in the Lok Sabha on issues arising from his recent visits abroad, the Prime Minister underlined the need for engagement with Pakistan to achieve enduring peace in the subcontinent and slammed the “enemies of peace” for trying to make alienation between the two countries permanent and the divide unbridgeable.
Speaking to a packed House for nearly 45 minutes — his longest speech in recent memory — and backed by animated party members and allies, the Prime Minister rejected third party involvement in talks with Pakistan because of its limited effectiveness. It could also lead to longer-term involvement of foreign powers in South Asia which is “not something to our liking.”
Tracing the highs and lows of India-Pakistan ties during his much-awaited intervention, the Prime Minister said India would follow a policy of “trust and verify” on commitments by Pakistan,

But it seems to me that he real policy being followed is

Trust Pakistan blindly. To hell with verification

I say this because history is replete with instances in which Pakistan as abrogated treaties and agreements and has failed to keep its word. After 62 years of this how the hell can a prime minister of India say "We trust Pakistan?" It only means that "verification" is not being done. Only trust is being given. Could the Indian Prime Minister actually have been misleading the Indian people?

Let me start with the Simla agreement of 1972 - in particulr check the bolded part and please say if Pakistan has adhered to its part of the treaty
http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/simla.html

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations.

(II) Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other.

Peaceful means? What was Kargil then?With Pakistan remaining continuously hostile to India how can our Prime Minister say "We trust Pakistan"? Obviously Pakistan's hostile intent, which is clear for all to see is not being "verified" by the government of its biggest victim, India
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullst ... wsid=74385

Islamabad, September 25: In the first official acknowledgement of involvement of Pakistan's regular troops in the Kargil conflict, President Pervez Musharraf has described it as "a landmark in the history of the Pakistani army".

And, regarding "hostile propaganda" - you don't really have to go back far in time
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=23743

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi on Friday said the government would disclose evidence regarding India’s involvement in Balochistan diplomatically at the right time.

Next. let me come to the Lahore accord of 1999, signed between Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Declaration

The Lahore Declaration and the MoU incorporated a joint commitment to intensify efforts to resolve the Kashmir conflict and other dispute, to enhance bilateral dialogue and to implement nuclear safeguards and measures to prevent conflict. Both governments condemned terrorism and committed to non-interference in each other's internal affairs and the objectives of the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation and promote human rights.

"Both governments condemned terrorism" Indeed. It appears that as far back as 1999 Pakistan was already given "equal equal" status as a nation that "condemns terrorism" - by the BJP goverement , no less, rather than being put on notice for promoting terrorism - in yet another example of the supine-ness of the India government.

Even as Vajpayee was enjoying his bus ride, Pakistan was preparing for the Kargil conflict and as regards the trash about "reducing the risk of nuclear war" in the Lahore declaration, check the news from a few months later:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1989886.stm

Pakistan deployed nuclear weapons for a possible attack against India in 1999 but was persuaded by the US not to launch them, former White House aide Bruce Riedel has said.

Mr Riedel says that the US became aware that Pakistan's armed forces were preparing for a possible deployment of nuclear weapons against India during a tense military stand-off in 1999.
In late June, successful Indian counter-attacks on Pakistan-occupied positions around Kargil in Kashmir, and Islamabad's diplomatic isolation, raised the probability of a Pakistani defeat.
According to Mr Riedel, this is when the US became aware Pakistan was preparing to use nuclear weapons, and President Clinton intervened to prevent their launch

And check more recent news:
Our foreign minister, the geriatric SM Krishna says
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS ... 837089.cms

rishna said whatever evidence and dossier is given, Pakistan's refrain is that it is not enough and cannot be proven in court of law.

He said Pakistan has denied presence of dreaded criminals like Dawood Ibrahim, Tiger Memon, Chota Shakeel and Lakhbir Singh who are among the Indian nationals in the list.

"For Pakistani nationals, Pakistan has pointed to lack of extradition treaty and lack of evidence," he said. "We have made 11 futile attempts with Pakistan to conclude an extradition treaty," he said.

http://www.indianexpress.com/comments/l ... er/491359/

Lakhvi has been identified as "commander of LeT" and the "mastermind of terrorist attacks on Mumbai", Pakistan has noted, agreeing with India's contention.
LeT operatives provided transport, funds to 26/11 attackers
Five LeT operatives arrested in connection with the Mumbai terror strikes, including its operations chief Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, provided transport, accommodation and financial support to the 26/11 attackers, according to an updated supplementary chargesheet filed before a Pakistani anti-terror court.
The second chargesheet against the five men -- Lakhvi, Lashkar-e-Toiba's communications expert Zarar Shah, Hamad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jamil Riaz and Abu al-Qama -- was filed by the Special Investigation Group of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), which probed the Mumbai attacks, in a Rawalpindi anti-terror court yesterday.

With Pakistan remaining continuously hostile to India how can our Prime Minister say "We trust Pakistan"? Obviously Pakistan's hostile intent, which is clear for all to see is not being "verified" by the government of its biggest victim, India

[ramana]

Correction. India is the second biggest victim onlee.

[RayC]

So will TSP continue harming itself in order to harm us? If experience is anything to go by it will and that makes the postulate of "a stable and prosperous Pakistan is in Indian interest" an oxymoron encapsulated within a ridiculous moot point. The question in fact is not about Pakistan at all. It is what steps will India take to end the existence of this clearly unambiguous threat?

The question, to my mind, is all about Pakistan.

India has to address the issue dependant on Pakistan’s. Now, if Pakistan gets responsible, though that is impossible, except in the mind of the PM it is possible, then the situation is totally different. All my good wishes to the PM and his steadfast belief in Pakistan!

What steps will India take to address this issue? Nothing! We will be again subjected to the impotent bleating and tying ourselves in knots, the likes of what we saw in Sharm al Sheik. And there will continue to be the ‘brave’ defence of the monumental feeble mindedness committed, prominent Defender of the Faiths being the famous duo of Sibal and Singhvi, their formidable persona equalled by the array of their rather fierce looking dental ‘furniture’ that they flash so liberally that frightens the Nation into place!

I am also appalled by the unique quote Trust and Verify pizzazz of a US President, the quote that the PM must have learnt when he last visited ‘India Loves You Mr Bush’. Now, if such mushy outpouring is statesmanship, then obviously the way our Foreign Policy is being conducted does indicate a trifle touch of Jesus and turning of the other cheek. Commendable to say the least. The way India is kowtowing to Australia over the thrashing that Indian students are being subjected to does show we are very peace loving and compassionate to those who inflict indignities and undertake terrorist action. I am sure such sagacious statesmen of India do find Pakistan a very stable and prosperous nation and so peace is the highway to take!

Suderjee had written the book ‘Blind Men of Hindoosthan’ in a different context. Our statesmen cannot be blamed if they also appear blind to the Nation’s woe that is being inflicted by the 1000 cut theory and the terrorism in the hinterland. They are after all cocooned in the various rings that the NSG provides and so they are blind to the atmospheric beyond the security rings. Remove these protective rings and they will discover Mother Earth and learn to not trust and verify, but verify and then trust. One wonders if the PM got confused in getting the sequence of the words wrong since confusion appears to be his forte. He said something at Sharm a Sheik and said something totally different in the Parliament and kept all confused as to what he said and said not. He is as good as Rumsfeld - There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. Or maybe he is an ardent fan of Irving Berlin - Life is 10 percent what you make it, and 90 percent how you take it. So, we take it real up!

Given that Pakistan renegades every treaty and is adroit in breaching trust, she will continue to be a thorn in the side of India with liberal doses of terrorism amidst the mealy mouthed pious platitudes regularly spun by their corrupt leadership held at ransom by their Army and ISI.

The solution is dissolution of Pakistan. War is an option. However, the geopolitical reality does not allow the total destruction of Pakistan through war as has been repeatedly proved. Notwithstanding, one can do many ‘Bangladeshs’ so that the cancer is dissipated and made powerless to act.

There can never be either a stable Pakistan or a prosperous one. Their very birth was under such incomprehensible rationale that they are themselves confused as to what is their identity and hence suffers from serious bouts of schizophrenia.

Our statesmen may revisit Ruyard Kipling:
“If you can keep your wits about you while all others are losing theirs, and blaming you. . . . The world will be yours and everything in it, what's more, you'll be a man, my son.”

Drake he was a Devon man, an' ruled the Devon seas,
(Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?),
Rovin' tho' his death fell, he went wi' heart at ease,
An' dreamin' arl the time o' Plymouth Hoe,
"Take my drum to England, hang et by the shore,
Strike et when your powder's runnin' low;
If the Dons sight Devon, I'll quit the port o' Heaven,
An' drum them up the Channel as we drummed them long ago."


Mr PM, since you love quotes, take the one above for mulling over. It is time to hang the drum by the border! The Nation's patience is running low!

Awake from your romantic slumber. Pakistan is not Heer, so dont be a Ranjha!

[shiv]

With Pakistan remaining continuously hostile to India how can our Prime Minister say "We trust Pakistan"? Obviously Pakistan's hostile intent, which is clear for all to see is not being "verified" by the government of its biggest victim, India

This post should be read along with this article ( cross post)

Mastering the language of strength --- Vir Sanghvi

I am getting increasingly tired of people — well-meaning Indians and not so well-meaning Americans mainly — telling us that we have to look at the problem of terrorism from Pakistan’s point of view. We should accept, we are told, that we have not given Pakistan any proof about Hafiz Saeed or the 26/11 plotters that will stand up in a court of law.

Besides, we are advised, we cannot expect the Pakistanis to hand over terrorists to a country like India against whom there is so much public sentiment. Moreover, India is interfering in Pakistan’s internal affairs and its area of influence. It is arming Balochis and establishing a presence in Afghanistan. In the circumstances, we should accept that Pakistan has gone as far as it can in meeting our demands.

The most annoying thing about these arguments is that they seem superficially reasonable. Surely, as a liberal democracy, India must respect the rule of law and understand the need to provide proof. Can’t we accept that Pakistani public opinion is against us and so the Pakistani government must tread carefully? How can Pakistan stand by and watch while we establish a presence in Balochistan? And so on.

Like all sensible people, I have no desire to see India go to war with Pakistan. Nor do I believe that diplomacy between neighbours should be conducted on the basis of threats. India and Pakistan have to learn to co-exist.

But when you consider the differing responses that Pakistan has given to America and India, you cannot escape one conclusion: the language that Islamabad understands best is the language of strength.

That’s a lesson that all Indian governments should never forget.

[Bhima]

The animal, fed well by Unkil, and high off the ideological hatred for India was the initial problem. But I do not regard TSP a problem any longer. It is the source of the terrorist threat but it is not the problem to be solved. A bloodthirsty animal will behave according to its nature. The only treatments here are domestication or termination. Domestication is no longer an option as TSP has come too far and the poison has infected every sphere of its society.

The victim must take steps to terminate this threat. But it is not. This is the problem.

The first step in solving a problem is to recognise the problem. Once recognised the problem can be articulated. Based on what is being said GoI has not recognised the TSP threat. Sadly it appears that GoI believes that TSP can be domesticated – that it can reform itself. Pranab Mukherjee’s eye watering statement exemplifies this mindset:

"We can't erase Pakistan. It's going to exist. War is no solution".

If one agrees with this statement then Pakistan is the problem. If one disagrees with this statement GoI is the problem.

[SSridhar]

Mastering the language of strength --- Vir Sanghvi


But when you consider the differing responses that Pakistan has given to America and India, you cannot escape one conclusion: the language that Islamabad understands best is the language of strength.
That’s a lesson that all Indian governments should never forget.

Shiv, IMO, even if we are as strong as the USA, Pakistan's behaviour vis-a-vis Bharat will just be the same. When it comes to India, Pakistan is driven by an obsession that doesn't see reason, that doesn't care about putting itself in harm's way, that doesn't care about world opinions, that doesn't care about dragging its people to starvation, death and destruction etc. It simply wants to prove they are superior to us, and also settle scores with India for the Bangladesh debacle. Pakistan behaves rationally with other countries, but with India, it is consumed by a blind rage. History is repeated testimony to this.

That's why I believe that there is absolutely no point in having 'talks' with Pakistan. We *must* actively work for its destruction even if it were to turn around, by some magic, tomorrow and undoes every bad thing it had done to us for the last 62 years.

[tripathi]

create india's Laskar to destablize pak.pay by the same coin.didnt this simple thought get into the pea sized brain of indian policy makers.

[Hari Seldon]

Yup. Apply the Golden rule to Pak. Do to them what they would have doen to us if we were in their shoes. Shut down their water supply.....

[ShauryaT]

So we are back to who is Sita? Please see top of this page!

Whether we reclaim TSP or not the entitiy in its present form shouldnt be allowed to exist. We can argue later what to do with the fallout.

No, we have to determine the fallout (to the maximum extent that we can hope to "manage" it). Everything... our methods, our risks, our resource allocation, our timeframe, our fallback options... depends on how we want the FINAL picture to look (not merely on the destruction of Pakistani entity in its present form).

FWIW, I am perplexed by suggestions that we should actually bring all of present day TSP within our national borders and assume the burdens of providing governmental services, socioeconomic restructuring and law and order to its population... however laudable the motives for doing so might be, I can't imagine a practical implementation to accomplish such goals in the near to medium term.

For anything this side of 2050 the best solution, IMHO, would be the establishment of a Monrovian hegemony by India over the subcontinent, including Pakistan's successor states (each of which would fall within the weight class spanning SL and Bhutan in terms of comprehensive national power). Yes yes I know about Talikota and all that... but if the Americans could learn something from Custer, we can learn from Rama Raya as well.

I agree with both RD and ramana.

ramana says the entity TSP in its current form should not be allowed to exist and RD says we have to think about the fallout and game all the scenarios. Which brings us to my two pet end goals for our brothers across the Radcliffe line.

1. To take away the head of TSP, that belongs to us - the NA
2. Help form greater Afghanistan with Baluch areas embedded in it and this new country completely dependent on India, for its security

.....yes, yes, I know these are Jingo dreams, but can we argue against the fact that it accomplishes both, on what RD and ramana are saying and is the most sensible end goal (medium-long term) that India needs to work on, manages the fallout by keeping a viable but severely weakened TSP.

Now, the only question, do we have a leadership, that identifies with these goals and embed them into the national strategic missions for the Union that is India? I know for sure there are people in the corridors of power, who would identify with such goals but am not sure if anyone in the current government will make these as part of their long term missions, even if covertly?

[RayC]

ramana says the entity TSP in its current form should not be allowed to exist and RD says we have to think about the fallout and game all the scenarios. Which brings us to my two pet end goals for our brothers across the Radcliffe line.

1. To take away the head of TSP, that belongs to us - the NA
2. Help form greater Afghanistan with Baluch areas embedded in it and this new country completely dependent on India, for its security

Good idea.

How do we do it?

[Hari Seldon]

How do we do it?

My 2 cents.

By forcing the khans to choose either to have the cake or to eat it, not both.

The way to do that, IMO, is another massive buildup near the border - under the guise of a multi-corps or even interservice exercise - all the time bellowing sweet diplomatic nothings into the air. TSPA will soil its pants again, amass near our border and leave its Talib/TTP axis unguarded for a few months.

After enough brouhaha, pull back having completed the long exercise successfully. The TTP will have gained enough breathing space in the m,eantime. The khans will have been further driven to take on the talibs across the durand by directly reaching into the areas the TSPA pulls out from and so on.

Of course, what PRC will seek to do remains an unknown.

Hey again, std disclaimers hold. Some of my more fanciful imaginings are admittedly silly. But then, WT heck.

[RayC]

Interesting!

But that 'Khan' Gilani has made India look real stupid, inept and spineless!

One wonders!

[Sanku]

I had suggested the following recipe immediately after Mumbai V attacks last year.

Mobilize and build up a huge "wall" at the border --> at the same time take no overt mil action, also make soothing noises that the mobilization has been done to forestall infiltration and attacks by Non-state actors, we are helping Pakistan by taking charge of the border so that they can free up their armies since we are taking care of insurgents in border area.

At the same time, launch precise and target covert/semi-overt attacks on Pakistan through Klub-Kilo combination as well as assets inside Pakistan (I am sure some body some where in Af-Pak region wants revenge against some one else there)

In short keep the lid tight, build up the flame and boil the whole pig alive.

[Hari Seldon]

But that 'Khan' Gilani has made India look real stupid, inept and spineless!

Err, no. Gilani is not a 'khan'. In BRF parlance (at least some threads), khan refers to the amrikhan.

Water is another weapon we have not used for far too long. Not since PVNR, IIRC.

[brihaspati]

Good to see, some at least considering my long standing proposal for dissolving TSP and incorporating those major areas of strategic significance for India.

This is the high time to squeeze TSP government's neck. Tell Gilani and PA, that if Jihadists are detected within 100 kms of Indian international border, IA will move in to prevent access to the Kashmir Valley. So it is in TSP interests to keep them in check, and see to it that nothing untoward happens in India.

If TSP does not agree to Indian proposals, India will recognize a free Republic of Balochistan and conclude security treaty with the government of this Republic. India will also support an independent Pashtunistan in the tribal areas, and will start negotiations with tribal leaders for this. However, if even after this Taleban and Jihadi presence is detected around Islamabad or further East, India will no longer rely on TSP to stop the Talebs and will move in to secure the Valley and NA.

TSP will be in horns of dilemma over this - as it cannot easily do a counter to Baloch poroposal by recognizing "independence" for an indepedent "Kashmir". It cannot allow PRC to do the same either - as it will show endorsement of something by the closest "ally" that its semi-feudal elite has fed the commons as abhorrent.

In ultimate analysis, safety of the Indian populations, and concern for the safety of the common populations in Sindh, Valley, and Balochistan should be openly declared by India to be its primary concern, and that India will do whatever it feels necessary to protect the "people" as and when it sees the TSP government and PA failing to carry out this essential duty.

This is high time, as the AFG situation before the elections is fluid, and will be rapidly changing, and not necessarily in the direction USA wants.

How I wish we had some presence at the policy making level! We are missing opportunities which may never turn up in this way again in the near future.

[RajeshA]

We have to be clear which aspects of Pakistan need to be neutralized. Here is a recap -

a) Nazariya-e-Pakistan - Personality Syndromes to do with India like pathological hate, paranoia, vengeance, Two-Nation Theory, identity-crisis. This has an Outlook Aspect, but also State Policy Aspect - a state carrying out a policy of wounding India any way it can, which brings us to the issue of capacity of Pakistan state to carry out this policy.

b) Rentier State for India's Enemies - Pakistan has always shown eagerness to be drafted in any policy or initiative of other countries to harm or contain India. At some point of time or another Pakistan has played this role for Islamism from West Asia, People's Republic of China, Great Britain, United States of America, etc. Often Pakistan gets a shield of protection from these states for Pakistan's services against India. There is no question, that one can talk Pakistan out of carrying this policy. It derives its motivation from Nazariya-e-Pakistan itself. This threat is as such dependent on the motivation of India's adversaries to want to harm India, as well as Pakistan's relations with such countries and most importantly Pakistan's capacity to live up to this role.

c) Pakistani Military Threat - Pakistani Military has built up a formidable capacity to hurt India, as well as to act as a deterrent for Indian retaliation for Pakistan's sub-conventional warfare against India. The military capacity is a function of Pakistan's economic and technical capacity to make resources available for the military. It is also dependent on other developed countries willingness to supply arms to Pakistan either at a discount price, or as giveaways, which depends on the usefulness of Pakistan for these countries. This capacity to cause serious injury to India and Indians should not be there.

d) Barrier between India and Central Asia - Had India had its traditional access to Central Asia, we would have been in a far better situation to influence the developments in Central Asia, as well as to benefit from its potential in politics of Asia, strategic theater, minerals availability, transit facilities, etc. Pakistan has successfully cut us off from Central Asia. Not only is Pakistan a physical barrier, Pakistan has followed a state policy of not allowing any transit through its territory with a degree of security, confidence, sustainability, unconditionality, price which would be acceptable to India. So either the physical barrier needs to go or Pakistan's current attitude.

e) Islamism - Islamism is a long-term threat but it also needs to fought long-term as well. Pakistan actually has a positive role to play in this. Instead of letting the Indian frog to be boiled in slow heat, Pakistan increases the temperature of the water abruptly causing our frog some discomfort and raising our level of threat perception somewhat more. On the other hand, Pakistan also allows Islamism to make quantum leaps forward. We are losing our ability to respond adequately to terrorism. The Indian State's acceptance of overt terror and brutality increases our levels of tolerance for the hot water, thereby allowing our frog to cook even in uncomfortable heat, and still not doing anything, because Pakistan has virtually put a lid on the pan, with its nuclear deterrent. Pakistan has however decided to itself throw itself onto the coals in order to increase the heat for the Indian frog. Jinnah's Pakistan is seeing a quick death over a period of 4 decades.

f) Rising Entropy of Violence and Lawlessness - The loss of areas under governance in Pakistan are steadily increasing. Their society is steadily seeing a rise in lawlessness, extremism and violence. With no central authority and even provinces losing their ability to exert their authority, the chances are of a complete state collapse are high. IMHO, the next elections will be the last elections in the history of Pakistan, and that too only if there is no military coup soon. Pakistan is becoming a land where everybody will be having a weapon, a collapse of food security and/or inflation could lead to general aggressiveness in society, which will manifest in food riots, making the situation even more precarious. Gangs and organized crime will become rampant. Tribalism and Vigilantism will take over, and that too only if people can cooperate. The 'religious charities' will be using the situation to increase their stock of brain-washed followers even further. The danger of this chaos to jump over to India is also great.

g) Terrorism - Terrorism is actually a product of Nazariya-e-Pakistan, Pakistani Military, Islamism, and to an unknown extent of its Services as a Rentier State. In order to fight terrorism we will have to take on the other threats head-on.

h) Consumption of Indian Resources - Through the Indus Water Treaty, the Pakistanis are availing of Water resources which could have been used by the Indian populace instead. This is the only burden on India, which I feel, originates from the people of Pakistan themselves, and not from the Ideological-Structural context in which they live.

[RayC]

Brig. saab, what ramana is trying to say that there has been a lot of discussion over why TSP needs to be reclaimed/destroyed/merged with India in multiple threads including this one. There is pages of stuff written. he was probably wondering whether you went through all of it... (Hehe.. I say so because made the mistake of arguing about why we need to do it with brihaspati before I had read all the previous posts in the scenarios thread )

OK, it is something like having heard the Ramayana, one question who was Ram!!!!!

My problem is that such sophistication in allegory escapes me!

While Ramana and Shiv can be understood by me most of the times, Brihaspati is too esoteric for comfort for me! The sad part for me is that I cannot 'read between the lines' and that is a huge drawback!

[brihaspati]

just in case it helps -

cross posting reply to nachiketji, from "scenarios" thread: ---------

nachiketji,

I will try to briefly summarize the main points in favour of incorporation of the territories currently occupied by GOTSP.

(1) Strategic necessity:

(a) As long as a separate and independent entity of TSP remains it will continue to try everything in its power to bleed India, take over Kashmir, and further expand its dream of a Mughalistan. This means undercover operations, terror attacks, or even formal invasions on India.

(b) As long as TSP exists, it will be seen as an instrument to pressurize and manipulate India by outside powers like USA, UK and PRC. Which means certain weaknesses for India in international bargaining situations. Such bargaining can extend not only in purely foreign interests for India, but also have impact internally on India in its economy and internal security situation.

(c) Even if TSP is not trying to infiltrate, terrorize, or invade at any given instant of historical time, India has to maintain a large portion of its defence efforts and expenditure all along the western borders, from POK to Gujarat. This is more than a normal border maintenance operation becuase of persistent vicious hostility from the Paksitani side.

(d) Independent TSP provides alternative routes to the IO for PRC as well as a means of separating India physically from the CAR, and Iran - all vital for Indias future energy and further strategic needs.

(e) Independent TSP provides locations for nuclear weapons delivery system targeting India, by proxy, by PRC. Without this PRC is restricted to submarine based and Tibet based ones only. It also provides naval facilities to hostile powers like PRC at ports like Gwadar.

(2) Social necessity :

(a) destruction of TSP means the final acknowledgement that the original touted purpose of TSP as a beacon and hope for Muslims on the subcontinent was a false one. Muslims in India have to realize that they cannot have a non Bharatyia future, and none of their fondly looked forward cultural centres outside of India have ever done anything or will do anything positive for their future. As long as TSP exists, the political and military false hope remains and an alternative to integration with the mainstream remains. Submergence within the main Bharatyia stream can only be possible when no alternatives are left for social esteem through a separate and distinct identity.

(b) destruction of TSP and its incorporation finally paves the way for healing the trauma of Partition. Access to pilgrimage centres and cultural centres of the Sikhs and Hindus and possible resettlement options after potential "collateral damages". At the least we can expect "some" of our people to be liberal enough by tradition to "socially" heal trauma after conflict where the male population of Pakjab gets severely reduced in offering marriage to surviving women.

(c) the greatest destroyer of parochialism and ethnic/religious xenophobia is genetic and marital mixing. Opportunities for this can only be exploited within a single unified socio-political framework.

(3) Governance :

(a) Socio-economic reform striking at the base of Islamic retrogression can only be done under a unified state. The first reform is educational, striking at the base of the Madrassah based social control that generates terror on India.

(b) For a long time after reincorporation, there has to be strong administrative and legal mesaures that prevents or controls flow of people out of incorporated territories, and a staged and staggered intrdouction of democratic reforms. Prior to political reforms, economic and social reforms are necessary - especially land-reforms - that is the key to break the backbone of the feudal landowning class at the head of Pakistani politics right from the beginning and the chief criminals behind the trauma of formation of TSP and the Partition.

I do agree with you that a lot of Indians would have strong reservations against incorporations of the lands and peoples currently occupied by GOTSP. But the long term prosperity and peace for all peoples in the subcontinent is crucially dependent on unification under a common rashtra and world-view. I hope you understand why I am asking all to consider taking up this vision alongside the purely economic one we are pursuing now, and which is still not touching large sections of our own populations and which has every possibility of getting jeopardized in the long run if the TSP problem is not solved.

Kashmir or Balochistan is not the "problem" - there is no "Kashmir problem" or "Kashmir issue" but only a "TSP problem" or "TSP issue".

[Prem]

Copy of this thread needs to posted on our beloved PMO website and TTT i.e Talking Tactile Tablet version to be sent to starategically impaired NSA and other babbus not to forget Rajnath and other stale-warts of Indian politics .

[RayC]

What if Pakistan just 'dissolves' due to its internal contradictions assisted by external influences?

That sure is a 'clean' and easier way of a solution!

[Virupaksha]

What if Pakistan just 'dissolves' due to its internal contradictions assisted by external influences?

That sure is a 'clean' and easier way of a solution!

Sure it is, but we also need to consider their 3 1/2 friends + paki mentality (i.e. I dont care if I am in the gutters and go down the drain tommorow, I will throw a stone at you)

[ShauryaT]

What if Pakistan just 'dissolves' due to its internal contradictions assisted by external influences?

That sure is a 'clean' and easier way of a solution!

Not likely. TSP is a fairly viable state. It has a feudal structure, which is fairly easy for the elite to control, especially with a populace rooted in the same ethos as Indians and hence the chances of an over throw of the elite by the masses is low. It has a geographical location of rentable value to the US and PRC - leading to all types of toys thrown into the mix. It is a state dominated by one ethno-linguistic group in population, economic and military terms.

India is the only state that has an interest and can likely acquire the means to break the structure of TSP, as it exists. Unlikely that TSP will dissolve due to internal contradictions.

Example: A lot of noise was made of how the Taleban was knocking on heaven's door and that TSP is doomed. I do not see those some noises any more. TSP and its army have done their job of being the biggest mercenary in that area.

[RayC]

..........An unexpected but interesting development seems to have taken place during Richard Holbrooke’s recent visit to Pakistan. During his meetings with the president, Asif Ali Zardari, the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, the army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and the minister of state for finance, Hina Rabbani, Holbrooke insisted on intensifying operations in Helmand, coupled with enhanced intelligence-sharing and military offensive in Baluchistan. The sudden emphasis on Baluchistan by the US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, coming in the steps of the joint statement issued by Manmohan Singh and Yousaf Gilani at Sharm el-Sheikh, has created waves across South Asia.

Holbrooke reportedly referred to India as a “great regional power”, to be “taken on board on actions against militants that are the common enemy of the US, India and Pakistan”. It also appeared that Holbrooke made a subtle distinction in his references to the United States of America, India and Pakistan. He referred to the actions of militants in the US and in India as “attacks”. But when it came to militant strikes in Pakistan, he stated that the extremists were “killing innocent people and had murdered Pakistan’s great leader, Benazir Bhutto”. Holbrooke seemed to have created two distinct categories. The US and India — victims of a common terror — have been bracketed together. As for Pakistan, Holbrooke suggested that it faces a threat from ‘within’. Holbrooke’s concerns for the US and India are easily discernible. He seems to share the belief that the origin of terror lies in Pakistan. Hence his stringent demands on Pakistan and its government. Holbrooke, in keeping with his special status, also declared that “tension between Pakistan and India was now over, and both countries needed to move forward and take action against the common enemy.”

However, it is unlikely that Holbrooke’s demand of a military offensive in Baluchistan will be met by the Pakistani authorities. Pakistan is unlikely to open a new front in Baluchistan because of a number of factors that might inconvenience its military deployments.

ENEMIES WITHIN THE BORDERS

When I mentioned 'dissolve itself', one should not forget the Beatles lyrical lines:

What would you think if I sang out of tune,
Would you stand up and walk out on me?
Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song
And I'll try not to sing out of key,

Oh, I get by with a little help from my friends,
Mm, I get high with a little help from my friends,
Mm, I'm gonna try with a little help from my friends.

[shiv]

For over a decade I have been insisting that the Pakistani army is a formidable force. On paper it is - but it appears to me that a little rethink is in order.

Oh I have no doubt that the human and material assets of the Pakistani army are large, but the power of the Pakistani army transcended its human and material aspects because of its central position in decision making.

For example, suppose the Indian army was making all the decisions in India. The army could decide that the entire health, education and agriculture budget can be spent on the army. And the army itself would have the guns, men and coercive power to suppress any dissent. Even better if dissent could be suppressed by turning people against an outside enemy.

That is, of course how the Pakistani army added value to its power. Furthermore the army sometimes stepped into the background and allowed a facade of civilian government to exist, which could be pulled back like a curtain at will.

To me, it appears that these "value added" aspects that made the Paki army so powerful are being rolled back. This seems to be happening because of several mistakes made by the Pakarmy - all of which can be traced back to greed and the love of a good life. The earliest errors were the outsourcing of fighting to irregular non-army forces whom the Pak army probably felt could be controlled at will. The second was probably the love of a good life that made senior individuals in the army rich and fat.

The army now finds itself cornered in several ways and its room for maneuver has been decreased.

1) It has been unable to start a direct war with India because of India's dogged insistence on not doing what the Pakistani army has told Pakis that it will do - i.e. "Attack Pakistan"
2) Proxy war with India has not brought India down and covered the Paki army with glory
3) Proxy wars have come back to bite the Pakistani army and Pakistan gets pressurized for the actions of its non state actors
4) The US is actually looking for a degree of accountability and the new administration appears unwilling to support anything but a "civilian" government even if it is made up of criminals and gropers.

This is leaving a power vacuum of sorts in Pakistan right now and that vacuum is basically being filled most visibly by the US although the Talibunnies and Chinese have tried. The Baloch movement is an offshoot of this power vacuum although what transpires will depend on the will of Amirkhan

JMT

[John Snow]

you are on dot, but it must also be admitted that TSP has exploited the west and milked them the most. Conversely it is also true that west encouraged because of the very fact you mentioned that Paki Army is the Nucleus of that country society and scocial structure.

So there is a unholy congurence to the great disadvantage of India since Independence.
IMO

[Prabu]

Shivji,

Thanks for starting this Good thread. I completely agree with your view point. A stable pakistan is NOT in our interests ! If any people have doubts please check here why ? click here

[SSridhar]

. . . . It also appeared that Holbrooke made a subtle distinction in his references to the United States of America, India and Pakistan. He referred to the actions of militants in the US and in India as “attacks”. But when it came to militant strikes in Pakistan, he stated that the extremists were “killing innocent people and had murdered Pakistan’s great leader, Benazir Bhutto”. Holbrooke seemed to have created two distinct categories. The US and India — victims of a common terror — have been bracketed together. As for Pakistan, Holbrooke suggested that it faces a threat from ‘within’.

It is high time that somebody like Holbrooke or Obama categorically told Pakistan that their "We are also victims of terrorism" as BS of the highest order. This "We are also victims of terrorism" is an insult to all those killed, maimed and traumatized by Pakistani terrorism from across the border. Pakistan will shrug off subtle messages like Holbrooke's distinctions above. It needs to be told in clear and uncertain terms. It may ignore even then, but, this message should be off the chest.

[Bhima]

To the point of why GoI is unable to take a decisive stand against the existence of Pakistan. Is it safe to assume that everyone on this forum is in agreement that Pakistan in its current form is a clear and unambiguous threat? That is, does anyone believe that its present "civilian government" has the power or will eventually gain the power to reshape Pakistan's anti-India policies and national outlook? I think the answer is a resounding no. So its worth questioning what makes GoI project a non-confrontational policy for TSP. My attempt to understand this mentality:

1. GoI wishes for stronger relations with Unkil and the West: To that end we are willing to capitulate our stand which is Dharmic, dignified and honest IMO Unkil cannot be a friend to both TSP and India. GoI will have to grow a backbone sooner or later and must make them choose. Either choice will help us refocus on the TSP problem.

2. GoI is focused on building the economy and country. We cannot be bogged down by this failing state: Very understandable. But if this becomes a pattern, as it is on its way to becoming, then our military is just for parades, decoration and Jihadi target practice. We need to establish (and voice) a definite red line when crossed will result in disaster for the enemy.

3. Conflict with TSP weakens our ability to defend attack from PRC: True but under such conditions do we expect Russia and Unkil to sit back and watch PRC do that? There is always a reason for not doing something and making it sound Chankian. We have to do what we have to do to protect our interests. This calls for balls.

4. India has always stood for unity in diversity. Encouraging separatism based on different cultures, languages and nations is a logic that can be applied back on us with a vengeance. If Pakistan falls today India may fall tomorrow: This points to a fundamental weakness in self belief and the confidence in our capacity to shape our destiny to our requirements. This fatalistic approach is dangerous and I hope to God GoI is not infected by this thinking.

5. GoI is run by cowards: I have no evidence that persuades me to believe otherwise.

6. Running India is already a monumental challenge. Infact it is surprising, given our history, that much of India has been united under one authority! Such a large, diverse country requires all our resources, attention and effort to bring to developed status. We need to maintain a defensive policy towards TSP that requires minimum engagement and effort. Let them work (kill) themselves out as we work (develop) ourselves out: Sounds nice but in the meantime the Indian people will continue to suffer this never ending Jihad. It comes down to how much punishment are we prepared to suffer for the ill intentions of Pakistan and the pacifist, criminal neglect to these issues by GoI?

7. Elections have proved without doubt that the great Indian people want peace not war. As a democratically elected government we will honour this sentiment and attempt to develop friendly, neighbourly relations: No comment.

8. Pakistan entity is a useful tool to stir up public sentiment and score political points. PRC will not be the same enemy that unites us in passionate hate: To hell with Porkistan. I look forward to the day our cricket team defeats Azaad Pashtunistan in a game of 20/20.

9. Having a broken Pakistan may make it trickier to eliminate these terrorist organisations as a lack of accountable central authority that can enforce the rule of law: This mentality is indicative of not understanding the TSP problem.

I may not have brought anything new to the discussion but its absolutely vital GoI is refocused on the TSP issue and prioritises its dissent into chaos and ultimate partition. From all the points I think 1. is critical. GoI must make Unkil and the West understand that the enemy is not Taliban or Al-Queda. It is extremist Islamism. And it derives its strength from TSP and the idea of TSP.

JMT's.

[RajeshA]

Listing the threats and challenges Pakistan poses to India again from above post -

a) Nazariya-e-Pakistan
b) Rentier State for India's Enemies
c) Pakistani Military Threat
d) Barrier between India and Central Asia
e) Islamism
f) Rising Entropy of Violence and Lawlessness
g) Terrorism
h) Consumption of Indian Resources
i) Refugee Flooding
j) Drugs Smuggling & Abuse
k) Weapons Smuggling

Now let's look at solutions for these problems in short.

1) Ethnic Cleansing - Full scale wiping out of all Pakistanis or driving 200 million to the deserts of Arabia. (Something our Dharma would not allow us)

2) Mental Cleansing - We have tried peace with Pakistan in the future, and it didn't work. There are no indications that it can ever work. The Pakistani mind is beyond redemption and rationality.

3) Enforced Behavioral Change - This requires an occupation of lands under Pakistan and of Pakistanis, and they would be forced to behave differently, perhaps be forced to convert to some Indic faith, etc. This is a solution favored by brihaspati ji. This would require an enormous cost in effort and resources from an India and would have to be executed over a couple of decades. If however we fail to force the Indic way down their throats fully, we would be confronted with an insurgency many times more vicious and wide-spread than what we have faced in Kashmir. It could end up giving the Pakistanis and Islamism a new leash of life.

4) Contextual Transformation - All the vices in Pakistan with regard to India grow from three sources - Nazariya-e-Pakistan, Islamism, Legitimate National Interests. Whereas it is possible for India and Pakistan to find some solution for Pakistan's legitimate national interests like water resources, market access to Indian market, transit rights through India to Bangladesh and East Asia, etc., it is far more difficult to deal with the other two problems - Nazariya-e-Pakistan and Islamism.

Nazariya-e-Pakistan problem originates from the existence of the State of Pakistan itself, and the need of the state within the state, the Pakistani Army, to justify its behavior. So either we leave Pakistan as it is and take out the Pakistani Army, or we finish off Pakistan, and the Pakistani Army without a state loses its raison d'être and its aquarium and dissolves. The Pakistani Army cannot be wished away, as it is supported by the resources of the state, and its 3½ Friends (USA, PRC, Saudi Arabia, UK). So the only option left is to destroy its aquarium - Pakistani State. Without the State there will also be no need of a State Philosophy, a Nazariya-e-Pakistan.

Islamism in Pakistan is a IMHO a secondary problem which gets immensely magnified when it is put through the magnifying glass of Nazariya-e-Pakistan. It is Nazariya-e-Pakistan which keeps the Pakistani population anchored in Islamism. Without this Nazariya-e-Pakistan, the people may be more open to the idea of exploring their Indic side, as it becomes more a case of 2 historically equally legitimate philosophical pulls. Surely Islamist extremism would try violence as well to keep their flock from wandering too much over the Indic Hills, but there is a limit to influence that these can exert. One could very well ask why did Bangladesh not revert to Indic influence once the Nazariya-e-Pakistan was removed. That is a valid question, and refutes my contention that Islamism is a secondary problem and dependent on Nazariya-e-Pakistan. To that I can only say, that the Islamist pull remains stronger than the Indic pull, and that is because the Saudis can pump money and the Indics have become defensive and shy about their faith and culture. But that is a situation which can still be redeemed. Peak Oil and Indian Growth can again bring a new equilibrium there. That equilibrium can also be brought to Pakistan and even be made to tilt the Indic way.

That should basically be the way to fight Islamism
- through the expectation of Peak Oil
- through Indian Growth-driven resources
- through a renaissance in Indian Islam, which breaks its umbilical cord from Arab Islam.
- through the Indian Dream
- through a more aggressive presentation of Indic Heritage and Pride in it as well as Indic Missionary and Charity Work.

Fighting Islamism bereft of its support in Nazariya-e-Pakistan is a much easier challenge than one shouldered by Nazariya-e-Pakistan. Secondly the collapse of Nazariya-e-Pakistan would in itself be a big blow to Islamism, in a similar way Communism became a pitiable word after the collapse of Soviet Union.

Without the Nazariya-e-Pakistan and Pakistani State, all other threats arising from the region become far more manageable.

c) The Pakistani Military Threat would be gone for good.

b) The possibility of some State immediately to India's West being used against India by other powers would be substantially reduced, as no other big power would be allowed to either have a direct land access to the subsequent states emerging out of the break-up of Pakistan, and no other power would subsequently have so much influence in any of them as much as India.

d) The Barrier between India and Central Asia would be gone, as no emerging state would be allowed to determine the barrier. India would be having access to Central Asia through multiple access routes going through multiple countries, still outside India, but under India's influence.

f) Violence and Lawlessness may increase due to the lack of a central force, but that need not be so. India can invest resources into the Law Enforcement Agencies of the emerging statelets and strengthen them. Being closer to the local level, these forces would be far better in a position to deal with the challenge of lawlessness.

g) Terrorism would lose its biggest patron - Pakistani State. There may still be efforts by Islamists and the rump Pakistani Army, but these groups can be pursued and be hunted down. The emerging statelets should have strong law enforcement agencies supported by India but no independent armies.

h) India can use technology to share in the resources with the emerging statelets.

i) Refugee Flooding can also be controlled in the aftermath of the break up of Pakistan, if India moves quickly to prop up and strengthen local governments in the various new provinces. The Muslim refugees should not be allowed to enter India at any cost.

j) Drugs smuggling can be fought better when India's energies are also used to fight Drugs production at the source itself.

k) Weapons possession in the new statelets would have to banned by law, and the local law enforcement agencies would have to be used to put an end to both weapons production and weapons market in the region.

The only permanent solution I see is the break-up of Pakistan.

[shiv]

http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=149973

Pak does not wish for prolonged peace in India: Army
NEW DELHI: Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor Monday said Pakistan was following a "dichotomous policy" in fighting terrorism -- operating against militants within the country and "perpetuating terror" in India.
"I find it rather odd that on the one hand Pakistan would like to fight terror, therefore it is moving troops to fight them but on the other hand, it is perpetuating terror by sending in infiltrators into Kashmir," he said.

About recent spurt in terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir, he said, "Pakistan will use any and every opportunity to raise Kashmir (issue), whenever they get a chance. So, I see the increase in infiltration in that context." "They find things have gone far too peaceful. Amarnath Yatra has passed off peacefully...perhaps they don’t wish for this prolonged peace and stability," Kapoor said.

[karthik]

IMO a stable TSP under an democratic leadership is in our best interest but thats obviously asking too much from a bipolar patient torn between its Islamic conscious and its silly need to impress its American boss by following an an half hearted quasi democracies. As long as they cant impeach General.Musharraf or sack the current Army chef, we can all be sure where the actual muscle lies. Pakistan army has only gone back into its hole but hasnt lost any of its venom or sting, it has placed an decoy puppet democracy in its place just to take the heat from world pressure but one can be sure the devil has not left the room but merely waiting for another opportunity.

All this said i suppose i am only stating the obvious that everyone here knows but then i also agree with the threads author that an unstable Pakistan is actually in our best interest. To keep the infighting going only gives us time to divide it and dissolve it slowly between Baluchistan, NWFP(Pashtunistan) and Sind. Having a smaller state along side us is good to keep our army in shape and spare on the border rather than have a raving double minded lair with nuclear bombs next to us.

[karthik]

http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=149973

Pak does not wish for prolonged peace in India: Army
NEW DELHI: Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor Monday said Pakistan was following a "dichotomous policy" in fighting terrorism -- operating against militants within the country and "perpetuating terror" in India.
"I find it rather odd that on the one hand Pakistan would like to fight terror, therefore it is moving troops to fight them but on the other hand, it is perpetuating terror by sending in infiltrators into Kashmir," he said.

About recent spurt in terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir, he said, "Pakistan will use any and every opportunity to raise Kashmir (issue), whenever they get a chance. So, I see the increase in infiltration in that context." "They find things have gone far too peaceful. Amarnath Yatra has passed off peacefully...perhaps they don’t wish for this prolonged peace and stability," Kapoor said.

Dare i ask this but how are we to be sure that those encounters at the border are true? The recent fake encounter at manipur and the army chiefs deafening silence when an Pakistani embassy man asked him the proof at an press conference all seems to create some doubts and skepticism in my mind.

Hope no one slings mud at me for this but some one needs to ask the though questions.

[RajeshA]

Dare i ask this but how are we to be sure that those encounters at the border are true? The recent fake encounter at manipur and the army chiefs deafening silence when an Pakistani embassy man asked him the proof at an press conference all seems to create some doubts and skepticism in my mind.

Hope no one slings mud at me for this but some one needs to ask the though questions.

Karthik,
The Indian Army is an institution which has remained true to the Indian Constitution, and remained beholden to the elected representatives of the people of India.

Looking at the quality of Indian Leaders and their lack of strategic vision, this is a significant proof of their discipline and their integrity.

Exceptions like some individual fake encounter are exceptions to the rule, and frankly which army in the world doesn't have some case or the other of misbehavior. When found out, the misbehavior is dealt with due process.

So if the Indian Army claims that there are have been terrorist infiltrations from Pakistan, their word is truth for any Indian, until proven otherwise. There is no scope for skepticism, especially with regard to Pakistan.

Now karthik,
if you are an Indian, you wouldn't have asked the question you did. Which means you are not. So I would request you to change your username accordingly, and to be honest with your location.

[karthik]

Dare i ask this but how are we to be sure that those encounters at the border are true? The recent fake encounter at manipur and the army chiefs deafening silence when an Pakistani embassy man asked him the proof at an press conference all seems to create some doubts and skepticism in my mind.

Hope no one slings mud at me for this but some one needs to ask the though questions.

Karthik,
The Indian Army is an institution which has remained true to the Indian Constitution, and remained beholden to the elected representatives of the people of India.

Looking at the quality of Indian Leaders and their lack of strategic vision, this is a significant proof of their discipline and their integrity.

Exceptions like some individual fake encounter are exceptions to the rule, and frankly which army in the world doesn't have some case or the other of misbehavior. When found out, the misbehavior is dealt with due process.

So if the Indian Army claims that there are have been terrorist infiltrations from Pakistan, their word is truth for any Indian, until proven otherwise. There is no scope for skepticism, especially with regard to Pakistan.

Now karthik,
if you are an Indian, you wouldn't have asked the question you did. Which means you are not. So I would request you to change your username accordingly, and to be honest with your location.

I am not sure but over the years i have learnt not trust anyone just because they are in power or on my side. Like the Buddha said, dont take my word for it, test my teachings for yourself.

Pardon my naivety but why did the Army chief back down embarrassingly when an Pakistani embassy officer asked him the proof in an press conference! I am not a nut to deny cases like Kasab or other terror attacks but i am not willing to serve anything like a blind moon bat.

Just becoz Bill Maher asks tough questions about US policy the Republicans brand him as unpatriotic, this is the same case with liberals in India.So predictable we have become, if anyone questions he becomes a Pakistani! How am i to be sure your not an Pakistani? I am not the sort that follows anyone blindly, do you want my facebook or Orkut account to verify who i am, why not meet me in person?

[harbans]

Karthik, it's because there are tons of evidence coupled with massive circumstantial evidence that Paki's do tend to turn the LOC into a hotspot, while India's interest lies in cooling it. If you've read why Musharaff loudly and openl proclaims Kargil was a success, you have our answers.

[karthik]

Karthik, it's because there are tons of evidence coupled with massive circumstantial evidence that Paki's do tend to turn the LOC into a hotspot, while India's interest lies in cooling it. If you've read why Musharaff loudly and openl proclaims Kargil was a success, you have our answers.

What evidence are we talking about? Offcourse captured militants are undeniable proofs but a single dead body with loads of ammo is hardly any proof, If producing guns and ammo is the only evidence then even in the recent Manipur incident they produced a gun. Either way after decade of reading closely i will take such stuff with a pinch of salt.

Either way i just cant get my head around why our COAS had to back down from that embarrassing show down. If he was confident then he should have thrown the evidence on his face.

[vera_k]

^^^

The Pak embassy man is using a familiar Pak tactic. It is like asking a) how we know that the elections were not rigged b) the groom to prove he was fathered by the man printed on his wedding invite and c) why all is not maya.

IOW, what proof does the Pak embassy man have to show that he is right?

[JE Menon]

>>Either way after decade of reading closely i will take such stuff with a pinch of salt.

Do you also take the Pak's allegation with a pinch of salt? If so, then there is no need to discuss this at all is there? Unless you are saying Gen. Kapoor is less credible in your eyes than the Pak guy (where is this Q&A anyways?)...

[karthik]

^^^

The Pak embassy man is using a familiar Pak tactic. It is like asking a) how we know that the elections were not rigged b) the groom to prove he was fathered by the man printed on his wedding invite and c) why all is not maya.

IOW, what proof does the Pak embassy man have to show that he is right?

If your wrong, you must know your insulting your own country men and cheating him out of an honest debate! Do you want to meet me? Or do you want to verify me on facebook or Orkut?

This is dumbness beyond repair.