Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Managing Pakistan's failure

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.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 07 Feb 2013 21:17

Iranian Baluchestan Front

From Baloch Homeland

Image


Image


Image


Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46749
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby ramana » 07 Feb 2013 21:34

So if we go by true single ethnic state principle a remake of West Asia will include emergence of Kalat.
I think by naming it Balochistan the antiquity of the idenity is obscured.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 07 Feb 2013 21:37

Iranian Baluchestan Front

Iran's Demographics 2004


Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46749
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby ramana » 07 Feb 2013 21:40

When did Iran get to grab parts of Kalat?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 07 Feb 2013 21:50

Iranian Baluchestan Front

Image

Bandar Abbas/Gemeron was a Hindu port city

The king from Gemeron
In 630 CE, Maharaja Derbar Raja of Gemeron (now known as Bandar Abbas) in Persia was defeated in battle and escaped to Sri Lanka, and he was later blown off course by a storm to the remote shores of Kuala Sungai Qilah, Kedah. The inhabitants of Kedah found him to be a valiant and intelligent person, and they made him the king of Kedah. In 634 CE, a new kingdom was formed in Kedah consisting of Persian royalty and native Malay of Hindu faith, the capital was Langkasuka.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 07 Feb 2013 22:04

Books for the Library

Image

The Baloch and Balochistan
Author: Naseer Dashti
Publication Date: 11 September, 2012

Description
Three thousand years ago, a group of Indo-Iranic tribes (called Balaschik at that time) settled in the northwestern Caspian region of Balashagan. Circumstances forced them to disperse and migrate towards south and eastern parts of Iranian plateau. In medieval times, they finally settled in present Balochistan where they became known as the Baloch. During their long and tortuous journey from Balashagan to Balochistan, the Baloch faced persecutions, deportations, and genocidal acts of various Persian, Arab and other regional powers. During 17th century, after dominating Balochistan culturally and politically, the Baloch carved out a nation state (the Khanate of Kalat). In 1839, the British occupied Balochistan and subsequently it was divided into various parts. In the wake of the British withdrawal from India in 1947, Balochistan regained its sovereignty but soon Pakistan occupied it in 1948. The historical account of the Baloch is the story of a pastoralist nomadic people from ancient times to mid-twentieth century. The author outlines the origin of the Baloch state and its variegated history of survival against powerful neighbors such as the Persians, the British and finally, Pakistan. This fascinating research work discovers the background of the long drawn-out conflict between the Baloch and Pakistan and Iranian states.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 07 Feb 2013 22:11

Iranian Baluchestan Front

ramana wrote:When did Iran get to grab parts of Kalat?


The British Division of Balochistan and the Incorporation of its Western Part into Iran 1860-1928

This chapter will deal first with the British division of Balochistan in 1871 and then the eventual incorporation of its western part into Iran in 1928. It is a historical analysis of events, which preceded the incorporation of western Balochistan into Iran, beginning with the rise of British colonial hegemony in the region and the ensuing division of Balochistan into western and eastern halves in 1871. This is essential for a better understanding of the present Balochi national movement, which is rooted, in their anti-colonial struggle for reunification of Balochistan. In this regard, the following brief narrative is adopted largely from the official documents found in the British archives as well as the writings of British authorities involved in shaping and implementing those policies. These documents are the only major recorded sources on the internal events in Balochistan during the period between 1860 and 1928

The Anglo-Persian Policies and the Division of Balochistan

Western Balochistan is bounded by the ''Lut ''Desert and the Iranian province of Khorasan in the north, by the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea stretching from the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz to the port of Gwadar on the south and northwest, by the province of Kerman on the west, and by the Goldsmith Line separating Pakistani and Afghani Balochistan on the east. Ethno-geographically it comprises the Jazz Murian agricultural basin in the center and northwest, the Sarhad highlands in the north, the Mashkel lowlands and the Sarawan agricultural oasis on the east, the coastal region of Makuran in the south, and the western-most districts of ''Byaban ''and Bashkard. To this one can add the Helmand Depression inhabited by a mixed ethnic population of Baloch and Seistanis?
Historically, as the original homeland of the Baloch, western Balochistan is the cradle of their past history and the focus of their ancient heroic ballads and popular poetry. It was from here that their ancestors began to spread to, and consolidate their power in eastern Balochistan during the period between the thirteenth and the fifteenth century as mentioned in the previous chapter. The territory was the center of the Rind-Lashari Tribal Confederacy prior to the shift of its power to eastern Balochistan under Amir Chakar Rind in the late fifteenth century. It was also united with the rest of the country under the rule of the khanate of Kalat for the greater part of the eighteenth century.

Upon the death of Nasir khan I, in 1805 and the subsequent deterioration of the central authority in Kalat, the Balochi chieftains (hakims and sardars) of the distant western provinces were the first to succumb to their centrifugal tendencies, which were in turn a function of their tribal/feudal loyalties, and declare their independence. Of these, the most important were the principalities of Dizaks, Pahra (Iranshahr), Bampur, Baho-Dashtiari, Geh, Sarbaz, Kasserkand, and the chieftainates of Sarhard and Bashkard. However, the Narui hereditary rulers of Pahra enjoyed a paramount position among the rulers of these principalities, a position that was held by them until about 1849. At the time of his visit in 1810, Sir Henry Pottinger, a British officer, found western Balochistan independent and the rule of Shah Mehrab Khan Narui acknowledged from Dizak in the southeast to Bazman bordering Kerman in the north. ~2~ In 1839 Haji Abdul Nabi, an Afghan sent by the British to collect intelligence on the political conditions of the country, reported that the Naruis-then under Mohammed Ali Khan were still ruling from Bampur, but observed that Muhammad Shah, the Hakom of Sib, had emerged as the strongest Balochi ruler even though he had no superior position among other chiefs.

Such were the political conditions in western Balochistan in the mid-nineteenth century when Britain began to move into Kalat, then reduced to eastern Balochistan, to establish her forward defense lines against the growing Russian expansion in Central Asia. This objective was accomplished by the Treaty of 1854, which reduced Kalat to a subordinate position by bounding her to abstain from any negotiation with other powers without British consent and gave Britain the right to station troops in whatever part of the country she deemed necessary, as mentioned in the previous chapter. The move was part of an overall strategy to forestall Russian
Southern expansion toward India and the warm waters of the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean by securing Iran and Afghanistan as buffer states, separating the British Indian Empire from Russia. Consequently, control of Balochistan placed the borders of the Raj as contiguous to Iran and Afghanistan, thus enabling Britain to counter Russian moves in the two countries whose buffer status was regarded as essential to the defense of India. Moreover, Balochistan was also viewed by Britain as a significant line of communication linking India with her bases in the Middle East and Europe.

Historically, the consolidation of British power in eastern Balochistan, which started with the occupation of the Kalat for a short time in 1839, coincides with the beginning of Iranian encroachments on western Balochistan during the reign of Nasir-u-Din Shah (1848-1896) of the Qajar dynasty (1779-1925). In 1849, an Iranian force was sent to punish the Baloch incursions into Kerman, defeating the latter and capturing Bampur, a major Balochi town on the edge of Kerman. The Qajar expansion, however, intensified after the extension of the Indo-European Telegraph Line from Karachi to Gwadar in the domains of Kalat and then up to Jack on the coast of western Balochistan in 1861. By the time the line was completed in 1869-70, Iranian forces had advanced as far as Sarbaz between the coast and Bampur. “These conquests, however, wrote Lord Curzon, the Viceroy and Governor-General of India and a principal architect of the British policies at that time, “testified to no more than the superior might of the victors, while they left a number of bordering Balochi states in a position of semi-dependence, which had no sanction save that dictated by fear.
During the course of the British investigation for the construction of the telegraph line, they were confronted by conflicting territorial claims to western Balochistan by the Shah of Persia, Khan of Kalat, and Sultan of Muscat. At the beginning, the British took a neutral stand by avoiding accepting pretension of sovereignty by any side. On March 11, 1862, the government of India warned the Secretary of State for India that by entering any arrangement with Persia as to the recognition of her claim, “we could not expect those chiefs (Balochi) to look without suspicion at such an engagement between our government and that of Shah, although it does not in terms prevent us from neutrality between themselves and Persia.”

Another official report, dated December 9, 1863 prepared by the British Commissioner Sir Frederick Goldsmith (then a colonel in charge of telegraph negotiation) for the Secretary of State for India in regard to the Persian claims, places the question into historical perspective, thus, given in extensor;
As to her (Persia) right, I know of none but of the strong over the weak, of the prestige of a high sounding monarchy over the obscurity of a small chiefdom. More than one hundred years ago Nadir Shah appointed Nasir Khan Brahui, the Governor of the whole of Balochistan, inclusive of Makuran, and in such capacity he was no doubt to some extent a feudatory of Persia, but it is also more than a hundred years ago that he exchanged the quasi service of the Shah for that of the Afghan King. His allegiance to Kandahar was no less binding than to Persia. It was the allegiance exacted by a stronger arm than his own. When the Afghan monarchy fell to pieces, the service ceased; but Balochistan also fell to pieces, and its chiefs set up claims of independence for themselves... Of late years she has, perhaps been more than usually active in this re-assertion of Makkuran sovereignty. The present state of affairs in Kalat must be especially favorable to her views. Anarchy in that quarter cannot but afford occasion for intrigue, if not for the actual advance of troops. But no new argument will be needed to show that anything like the dismemberment of Kalat would be as advantageous to Persian interests as detrimental to our own.

If possession for a period of years must necessarily imply “acknowledgement by the local rulers” it is the acknowledgement of helplessness. I do not for a moment believe that the Persian yoke is acceptable to the Sardars of Makkuran west of Kalat. (7)~

Subsequently, the British side-stepped the questions of territorial sovereignty and signed separate agreements with the Shah of Persia in 1858, Sultan of Oman in 1865, and the Balochi chiefs of Bahu, Dastiari, Geh, and Jask in 1869. These agreements dealt only with the question of the protection of telegraph wires and stations, and in each case the British undertook to pay a fixed subsidy to the separate parties involved. The agreements with the Baloch chiefs, which are discussed by Mahmud Mahmud, a contemporary Iranian historian, under the heading of relations between the British Government and the savage Balochi tribes, were entered because Persia, in spite of her claims, had no authority in that part of Balochistan and, as such, the British had to negotiate directly with the independent Baloch chiefs as well as to depend on them for the protection of-the telegraph lines and stations.

Moreover, the British were well aware that any acknowledgment as to the Persian claims on their part would have been taken by the independent Balochi chiefs as well as the Khan of Kalat as a sign of Anglo-Persian collaboration and that would have endangered the success of the telegraph negotiations which they had to enter with the Balochi chiefs. Colonel Goldsmith, then serving as Chief Director of the Indo­ European Telegraph and deputed to Tehran to help negotiate a telegraph treaty, reported to the government of Bombay on October 4,1865, that although there were objections to the plan by Persia on the basis of her demand for an arrangement as to the acceptance of her claims on Britain’s Part, the Baloch opposition constituted the sole obstacle to the scheme. Referring to this difficulty, he stated that;
The sole difficulty that I see in the way, is the discontent likely to be raised among the petty Baloch chiefs on the west of Kalat line, who may look upon themselves as given over to Persia by this arrangement. The point is, no doubt, one of great delicacy, but it is presumed that the question must be met if the telegraph line is to be run eventually through these tracts of country. I cannot but believe that we might come to a satisfactory understanding with the Persians to the effect that up to the long strip of Coast formed by the Imam of Muscat, of which Bunder Abbas is the western extremity, we treat the local chiefs as independent in regard to any subsidy given; but carefully stipulate a policy of non-interference in the general question of sovereignty, in which we neither acknowledge or disown the Persian claim.

Once the telegraph line was completed and its security assured by the Balochi chiefs, the British began to shift their policy of neutrality in favor of Persia. The official explanation was that Persian encroachment was threatening the security of Kalat as a protected state of British India and as such, a settlement with Persia would serve the interests of Kalat as well. Meanwhile, Persia took advantage of the British Presence in western Balochistan to consolidate its conquests as well as to further her expansion in order to enhance her claims and strengthen her bargaining position. It was during this time that Persian troops first advanced as far as Sarbaz and then suddenly the Wazir of Kerman was officially entitled by his sovereign as Sardar of Balochistan around 1866. With the completion of the telegraph line in 1869, the road was paved for an official investigation suggested by Lord Mayo in the same year and the subsequent formation of a joint boundary commission by Persia, Britain, and Kalat was instigated by the Shah in 1870. Consequently, General Goldsmith was appointed as the British Commissioner on the boundary commission.

The commission, however, was not able to hold a joint meeting due to a strong sense of ill feeling displayed toward the Kalat delegate by the Persian commissioner Mirza Ma’sum Khan, who refused to meet with his Baloch counterpart. As a result, General Goldsmith became the sole actor and arbitrator on the issue. In 1871 he received detailed instructions from the Viceroy in Council, who had carefully outlined the limits of a proposed boundary line to be suggested for approval by Persia, but had also added that “a very liberal view may, therefore, be taken of Persian claims to the west of that line. The proposed line was, in turn, based on Goldsmith’s own previous suggestions and reports, which had been prepared in connection with his mission concerning the Makuran telegraph. In one of these reports prepared for the government of Bombay and the Secretary of State for India on April 27,1864, he had underlined the basic historical argument for recognizing the Persian claims as to the latest conquests in western Balochistan. The report stated:
I. That, in my opinion, the claims of Persia to Makkuran generally are based upon somewhat tradition conquests of former years, more or less substantiated by the formal disposal of the province to Mohbut Khan Brahui in the middle of the last century; that the later rise of a new Government and enterprise of a new Chief in Balochistan virtually dispossessed Persia of her never well-defined Makuran territories; but that forcible reassertion of the Shah’s sovereignty over certain parts of Makuran, so for as hitherto carried out, however warrantable in accordance with the rule of European politics, is not a matter with which we can interfere upon a bare principle of justice and equity. In this view, such Makuran territories as Persia now holds in tributes, are hers by mere right of possession.

II That those portions of Makuran obeying the authority of the Khan of Kalat are that chiefs by possession and also by acknowledgement of the local rulers. They are part of an inherited Balochistan state, held, at first, in quasi-feudal tenure from Persia, subsequently from Kandahar, but in reality on a basis of independence, The revolutions which distracted the province after the death of Nasir khan in 1795 can only effect such petty chiefdoms as have been successful in permanently throwing off their allegiance. Those, which revolted and were afterwards subdued, still remain component parts of the inheritance of the Khans.

It is interesting to note how, at the time, the report had equated the claim of Persia to the territory with that of Kalat, a Balochi state, thus leaving the door open for the later recognition of Persian claims. Eventually, the proposed boundary line as sketched by Goldsmith was accepted by Persia and was embodied in a treaty signed between the two sides in September 1871, hence known as the Goldsmith Line separating Eastern and Western Balochistan. At present it forms international boundary between Iran and Pakistan. Reflecting on the ambitions of the Persian empire in western Balochistan and her attitude as to “the small and unknown state of Kalat,” General Goldsmith wrote in the final report of his proceedings to the Secretary of State for India on November 9, 1871, that “these traits, had they power to be independent, would be independent; not having power to be independent, they are as fair prey to the strongest neighbor. (’4) Thereafter, the name “Persian Balochistan replaced “Western Balochistan” in the official colonial documents.

There are several Principal reasons for the aforementioned change in British policy and her decision for the division of Balochistan in favor of~ Persia. The most important was related to the strategic developments in Central Asia at the time. In this regard, the late 1 860s coincided with the rapid Russian expansion toward the Merv in Central Asia as reflected in her conquest of Bokhara in 1866 and of Samarkand in 1869, an event which was particularly alarming to the British strategic interest in South Asia. These developments doubled her resolution to strengthen and defend the buffer status of Persia and Afghanistan against the Russian southward thrusts. Thus, by officiating the Persian claims in western Balochistan, the British helped strengthen her buffer status. In one of his later lectures on Central Asia, Goldsmith has pointed out that since Persia had lost a large portion of her territory to Russia in the north, checked by the Ottoman Empire in the west and by the British in Afghanistan, the only avenue for her expansion was in western Balochistan, where the constant feuds between the petty chiefs had made the land an easy prey to the Persian designs. Second, the British welcomed the Persian advance ~ the territory as a further assistance in pacifying the unruly and independent minded Balochi tribes which were viewed as a constant source of threat to their lines of communication. As we shall see, the British joined hands with Persia in launching several joint expeditions for suppressing the constant tribal revolts in Balochistan throughout the Qajar rule. Third Persian control and pacification of western Balochistan would have prevented the spread of the tribal revolts to the eastern part ruled by the British.

Therefore, the Persian expansion in western Balochistan would not have taken place had it not been for British approval and support. “Persian Balochistan (which) in its present shape,” wrote Lord Curzon in 1892. “Is the creation of the last thirty years, and to a large extent owes its existence to the intervention and the recognition of the British government. Thus, once Persia acquired British recognition of her claims in 1871, she began to extend her power farther in the region by seizing the district of kohak in 1872, expelling the Arabs of Muscat from the port of Chah Bahar, which they had held since 1789, annexing the independent Balochi principality of Bashkard in 1874, and then gradually moving toward Sarhad in northern Balochistan. In spite of these military moves, the Qajar rule in the country was more nominal than real and was directly limited to Bampur, then the capital of Balochistan. The rest of the country remained independent or semi-independent to be disturbed only by periodic military expeditions sent to levy taxes.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46749
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby ramana » 07 Feb 2013 22:43

RajeshA, Confirms my statement, "States are created and maps are made!"


Always find a British hand at perfidy.

BTW bandar means port

Porbandar, Gujarat, Home town of Mahatma Gandhi

Bandar = Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh the gateway for the Mughals in Bay of Bengal

Bandar Aceh in Indonesia, site of the Asian tsunami

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4539
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Supratik » 08 Feb 2013 00:12

So there are two nations without a country - Kurds and Baloch. We could potentially lethaly arm the Pak-Baloch as we did the mukti bahini but may be we are not doing it or unable to do it due to US pressure. Since this is about Pak the Taliban uprising in FATA and NWFP has great potential. If the Pak-Taliban makes a move for an Islamic North Korea then coupled with the Baloch, Pak could break along vertically. We have to see how far the US goes to keep Pak intact.

lakshmikanth
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 27 Oct 2008 10:07
Location: Bee for Baakistan

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby lakshmikanth » 08 Feb 2013 00:24

I was thinking that Pak-Balochs could be armed by Iran (since Iran is already under US sanctions anyway), but Iranians are even more suppressive of the Iranian Balochs. We need to consider the Iranian equation (and thus the US-Iran and Iran-Sunni equation as well) for developing a right strategy, since an independent Balochistan would end up being a war ground for Bakis, US and Iranians for influence and control.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4539
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Supratik » 08 Feb 2013 00:36

IIRC, the heaviest concentration of Baloch are in the Pak portion.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 08 Feb 2013 15:09

Supratik wrote:So there are two nations without a country - Kurds and Baloch. We could potentially lethaly arm the Pak-Baloch as we did the mukti bahini but may be we are not doing it or unable to do it due to US pressure. Since this is about Pak the Taliban uprising in FATA and NWFP has great potential. If the Pak-Taliban makes a move for an Islamic North Korea then coupled with the Baloch, Pak could break along vertically. We have to see how far the US goes to keep Pak intact.


There are a few differences:

1) With the theater of operations of Mukti Bahini, East Pakistan, we had geographical contiguity, and so both arming them and militarily coming to their aid was easier, whereas for the enemy - (West) Pakistan, it was much more difficult. In the case of Balochistan, it is the other way round. The enemy, Pakistan sits next door, while we have no land border.

2) The other major difference is of course, that once one starts giving them aid in a major way, one raises the expectations of the other people. You tell them we are there for you. But when the crunch comes and they start getting butchered by a far better armed army - TSPA, and we don't show up with our fighter jets and tanks, then there is also a big let down. That gives rise to much more mistrust and disappointment than what may be the case right now.

3) Considering what the Balochis have been able to achieve till date - a complete cultural and physical alienation from the Pakjabis and the Pakistani forces on the ground as well as internal consolidation is laudable. If India however comes and puts up a fortress in West Balochistan, which is presently in Iran, the liberation of East Balochistan becomes a certainty.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 08 Feb 2013 15:12

lakshmikanth wrote:We need to consider the Iranian equation (and thus the US-Iran and Iran-Sunni equation as well) for developing a right strategy, since an independent Balochistan would end up being a war ground for Bakis, US and Iranians for influence and control.

Not unless Balochistan through a Instrument of Accession joins the Union of India, giving it all the freedoms and rights available to any other state and people in India.

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2387
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Yogi_G » 08 Feb 2013 16:37

RajeshA wrote:
lakshmikanth wrote:We need to consider the Iranian equation (and thus the US-Iran and Iran-Sunni equation as well) for developing a right strategy, since an independent Balochistan would end up being a war ground for Bakis, US and Iranians for influence and control.

Not unless Balochistan through a Instrument of Accession joins the Union of India, giving it all the freedoms and rights available to any other state and people in India.


Whats the guarantee that they will not do a Bangladesh on us? Once a Paki, always a Paki.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 08 Feb 2013 16:39

Iranian Baluchestan Front

What are the imperatives of various countries to see a Western Balochistan freed from Iranian rule?

Saudi Arabia

  1. Iran is Saudi Arabia's "mortal enemy". That is what the House of Saud believes. There is deep animosity towards the Persians. So if in any way, Iran becomes weaker, it would be highly welcomed in Saudi Arabia.

  2. Saudis do fear that when Iran has a nuclear weapon it would be able to blackmail the Gulf countries. Imagine that Iran decides to attack Saudi Arabia and free the Shias in Al Ahsa region in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Eastern Province where most of the Shias live is also the biggest petroleum producing region in Saudi Arabia. In fact, it is possible that Iran can start a Shia Spring there, sends in the military and threatens Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons as well as any other country which come to their help. So they do want to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon in any which way.

  3. As of now, Saudi Arabia shares cultural hegemony over Pakistan. Sure, the Taliban are on the advance, but much of the elite looks up to Iran for their cultural moorings. If Iran weakens, then Saudis can be assured of cultural victory in Pakistan, or so they would think.

  4. There is also a chance that Pakistan would decide to reach a strategic alliance with Iran with the aim of sealing up Central Asia, something I have spoken of earlier. This strategy works only as long as Pakistan and Iran are the only two countries enabling access to Central Asia from the Indian Ocean. If Western Balochistan is free, an alliance between Iran and Pakistan with this motive becomes useless.

  5. If the House of Saud desires to have Indian protection in the future, then the presence of Indian Navy nearby, say in Western Balochistan, would be very helpful.

  6. Perhaps one important reason, the Saudis may be keen on India moving in into Western Baluchestan may be because it would set up India as another power in the region with which Iran would be enemies with, since India would be holding territory which was previously Iranian.

Qatar

  1. Qatar would be able to sell Gas to India directly through a pipeline as West Balochistan over the Straits of Hormuz would be India.

  2. The region can get more prosperity with India close by and an active participant in the Persian Gulf Community.

Turkey

  1. Turkey is a Sunni country and wants to have a similar leadership role it had during the Ottomans. That may be an unrealistic desire, but it is still there. As a leading Sunni country, one job description is of course to stop Shi'ite expansion.

  2. Turkey at the moment does not have contiguous land access to the Turkic Central Asia. There is Armenia, Georgia and Iran between Turkey and the next Turkic country - Azerbaijan, from where there is then access to other Central Asian Turkic countries - Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kirghizstan over the Caspian Sea. If South Azerbaijan, which happens to be in Iran comes free and joins up with Republic of Azerbaijan, Turkey gets unhindered access to Central Asia, unhindered in the sense that other power brokers - Iran, Russia and even USA do not get a veto on this access. Liberation of South Azerbaijan can come only in a larger unraveling of Iran, where its regions with minorities break off - Khuzestan, Kurdistan AND Western Balochistan.

  3. If Iran becomes weak, Turkey becomes stronger. The Turks, the Arabs and the Persians are in a competition with each for the leadership of the Ummah as the "3 Master Muslim Races". A weakened Persia means that Persians cannot really be in the running for leadership. Then it becomes a two horse race, with Turkey getting an edge because Persians and Arabs cannot become allies leaving the Persians to side with Turkey.

Israel

  1. The other country terrified of the Iranian nuclear bomb is Israel. They know that just striking Iran from the sky would only delay the Iranian nuke by a couple of years and not more. Iran would also be able to ride out the sanctions. The only way to stop Iran is to cripple it for good - by breaking it up.

Afghanistan

  1. Afghanistan is going to the dogs, for that is what the Paki ISI is, and basically Pakis have checkmated every one else in Afghanistan through supply route control and pure terrorist violence. Iran is also a spent force in Afghanistan. In fact, Iranians cannot even come to the aid of Shias being massacred in Afghanistan and Pakistan. USA is willing to give the Pakis the free hand and UK is chaperoning the surrender of NATO in Afghanistan, hoping that the Pakis would give them a promise of not exporting all too many Jihadi terrorists to their shores. So the Taliban is coming back and nobody is going to stop them this time. This time the Taliban would even be having recognition is the West and not be limited to Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan. Taliban are nothing but Pakistan's proxy. So Afghanistan is going under Pakistani rule. And if doesn't suit the Afghans, tough luck, they can go kill themselves for nothing.

  2. India can help Afghanistan but we do not have a route to Afghanistan. Nobody would be happier than Afghanistan, if India can get a route to Afghanistan through Western Balochistan. Then the Afghans have a fighting chance to pushing back the Taliban, at least from the non-Pushtun areas.

Central Asian Republics

  1. Central Asian Republics know that when Taliban take over Afghanistan, they are the next in line for Islamist terror. Tajikistan, Uzebekistan and even Kirghizstan are particularly vulnerable. They would welcome an Indian presence which stops the spread of Talibanism northwards. Iran cannot do it. NATO is exhausted. Russia has itself started giving in to the Chechens.

  2. Also the Central Asian Republics look like prisoners of either Russia or China. These are the only two countries they can really sell the valuable minerals and energy to or through. Getting direct access to the Indian Ocean through an India-stabilized Western Afghanistan and India-integrated Western Balochistan would open up the world markets for the Central Asian region.

Russia

  1. Russia has many concerns related to what happens in Central Asia. It forms the vulnerable belly for Russia. If Islamist expansion starts in earnest again in Afghanistan, Russia would have to send its forces to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to halt the menace. Russia would get again embroiled in the southern wars which took place between 1991-2001.

  2. Russia is also concerned with all the drugs that come that way, so if India can start economic activity in Afghanistan, that would certainly help Russia.

  3. Also Russia would be able to finally sell its Oil & Gas through pipelines to the Indian market. It would not have to transport these through tankers passing through the Pacific, through Southeast Asia and finally to India. So besides Europe and China, Russia gets a third big market for its minerals, which can be transported through India-integrated Western Balochistan.

USA & NATO

  1. What does USA really expect post 2014, when it leaves the region or leaves a smaller presence in the region - that Islamic terrorism would stop? What stops everything from reverting back to how it was pre-9/11? Sure they will keep some counter-terrorism forces in Afghanistan, but they would really be again at the mercy of Pakistan, a very untrustworthy "ally". If USA wants to keep their forces there, what they do need is a reliable supply line. An India-integrated Western Balochistan can provide USA with such a supply line. In fact India can provide much more - we can provide all the logistics to and from Afghanistan. India can help setup a solid infrastructure of roads and railroads between Afghanistan and the Indian Ocean, passing through India-integrated Western Balochistan.

  2. India can help the USA by simply helping Afghanistan build a stabler society, and thus stopping another sanctuary for Islamic terrorism from taking root again there.

  3. India-integrated Western Balochistan can help the West in trading with Central Asia, and thus competing with Russia and China there.

  4. If USA wants to have some leverage over China, then American presence in Central Asia can be helpful. First it would not leave the region totally at the mercy of Chinese business, and secondly Americans may wish to support Uyghur self-determination in the future.

  5. If the West feels under pressure from Islamist terrorism and extremism, then it is because countries like Pakistan have been given a free reign to export these to them. With India forming a cordon around Pakistan, mainly through an Indian presence in Western Balochistan and by extension in Afghanistan, the danger to the West would subside.
Last edited by RajeshA on 08 Feb 2013 18:12, edited 1 time in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 08 Feb 2013 16:46

Yogi_G wrote:
lakshmikanth wrote:We need to consider the Iranian equation (and thus the US-Iran and Iran-Sunni equation as well) for developing a right strategy, since an independent Balochistan would end up being a war ground for Bakis, US and Iranians for influence and control.
RajeshA wrote:Not unless Balochistan through a Instrument of Accession joins the Union of India, giving it all the freedoms and rights available to any other state and people in India.

Whats the guarantee that they will not do a Bangladesh on us? Once a Paki, always a Paki.


Is Bangladesh under pressure from any neighbor trying to take over its territory or trying to destabilize its territory through exporting revolutions there?

As it is not, Bangladesh could afford to go its independent way, especially with such a big population.

Those conditions are not available to the Balochis. Either they join a benign India, or they would again be used as a football by Pakjabis, Pushtun, Persians, Arabs, British, etc, none of whom have given the Balochis any dignity or rights over their resources and land. They have in fact actively worked to keep the Balochis controllable and thus partitioned into 3 countries.

In Iran the number of Balochis is 1,557,000 according to Wiki, who are spread over a huge land area. That many should be manageable, No?

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4539
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Supratik » 08 Feb 2013 21:11

I don't see a free Balochistan joining India which is OK. Our cultural interests extend only upto Hinglaj. An independent Balochistan with wide ranging economic and military engagement with India and free movement of people should be the goal. I think once Pak breaks along the North-South axis the Pakjabis and Sindhis will move towards India. Remember that the Punjabis and Sindhis were late entrants in the Pakistan movement. The main culprits were the UP< Bihar and Gujrati-Mumbai financiers and in Bengal. Sindh is likely to see further partition of Mohajirs. We should not touch the Mohajirs even with a barge pole and isolate them in a small territory around Karachi-Hyderabad which they can call Pakistan.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 08 Feb 2013 21:22

Supratik ji,

Why do you think Pakistan would break along the North-South axis? Why don't you think that Pakistan would simply Islamize and Islamize and Islamize ever more? Sure the Kabila would lose some ground, but that is ground they can win back anytime, just like Taliban were driven out of Afghanistan, but they came back.

The stories about Pakistan breaking up have been making the rounds since before even its creation, and it is still there - rock solid. Everybody has been talking about "Pakistan on the brink", "Pakistan at crossroads", "Pakistan, a failed state", etc. and predicting that it would break up in 6 months time.

I too have been a long believer in the upcoming demise of Pakistan, but I have had to revise my earlier confidence. It is not happening, except by external force, and by acceptance of world powers stronger than India, whoever they may be at any given time.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46749
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby ramana » 08 Feb 2013 21:37

RajeshA, The Ottomans were the new Caliphate and they also appeared monolith till Lawrence and a generation of Arabists in England figured out the fault lines and struck during WWI. Now the remnants of Ottoman Turkey and all are organized on nationalities. TSP is also a manufactured Islamic state and the schisms are there being papered over by brute force of the Kabila and US dogma of 'stability' which is keep their goons in charge.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 08 Feb 2013 21:52

ramana wrote:RajeshA, The Ottomans were the new Caliphate and they also appeared monolith till Lawrence and a generation of Arabists in England figured out the fault lines and struck during WWI. Now the remnants of Ottoman Turkey and all are organized on nationalities. TSP is also a manufactured Islamic state and the schisms are there being papered over by brute force of the Kabila and US dogma of 'stability' which is keep their goons in charge.

ramana garu,

Of course "US dogma of 'stability'" refers to only the stability of their interests, as well as to stability of legacy thinking about their interests in the corridors of power in USA.

However I do think that Islam is a cultural and ethnic identity destroying force, and it works especially well in an environment where Kafirs are around - West, India, etc. In Pakistan, this unifying ideology slowed down a bit, since all Kafirs were gone or converted with Pakistan 97% Muslim. So now the unifying force, and the cultural-ethnic identity destroying force being used is not just Islam but a certain sect of Islam - Wahabbandi. So the melting pot would keep on churning until more homogeneity is achieved. From the perspective of sects, Pakistan is still a land full of multiple religions, so the Islamic grinder can work on some more - on the Ahmadiyyas, on the Shia, on the Barelvis. This process can continue until each and every man does not have 10 cm of beard and wears a salwar 3 cm above his ankles.

The Kabila has of course failed to curtail Baloch identity, just as it failed earlier in Bangladesh, but when the Greener Kabila, the Talibanized Kabila takes over, the grinder may reach the Baloch as well.

So brute force may one day not just paper over the schisms but can destroy them as well one day - depending on the greenery in the ideology.

I am not so hopeful anymore that "letting them stew in their own juice" suffices as a strategy. External intervention is necessary, IMHO!

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4539
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Supratik » 08 Feb 2013 22:11

Rajesh, Ramana answered you. I think they have lost the Baloch mentally. The Pashtuns are ambiguous. As long as US remains invested in maintaining Pakistan it will somehow manage to survive. But I don't think they have been able to make a nation out of Pakistan. How much more Islam can they use that they already have not used. So when the US is unable or unwilling to keep Pakistan intact you will see centrifugal forces taking over. That may happen in 5, 50 or 500 years - hard to tell. Pak will split along the North-South axis because the Baloch want to get out and the Taliban want their own version of Islam.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 08 Feb 2013 22:31

Supratik wrote:Rajesh, Ramana answered you. I think they have lost the Baloch mentally. The Pashtuns are ambiguous. As long as US remains invested in maintaining Pakistan it will somehow manage to survive. But I don't think they have been able to make a nation out of Pakistan. How much more Islam can they use that they already have not used. So when the US is unable or unwilling to keep Pakistan intact you will see centrifugal forces taking over. That may happen in 5, 50 or 500 years - hard to tell. Pak will split along the North-South axis because the Baloch want to get out and the Taliban want their own version of Islam.


Taliban want their own version of Islam, true, but who is really putting up the fight against their version of Islam which is based strongly on coercion? Nobody! TSPA has allowed its soldiers to become Talibanized in increasing numbers. So TSPA would one day in fact become Talibanized completely, with only the CoAS, as the sole TSPA-Taliban shaving off his beard in order to talk to USA.

Taliban is how Pakistan would look in another 30-40 years time.

As for Baloch, they have been able to keep back Pakistani Army by making a stand that they are not Pakistanis. Can the Baloch continue their resistance against Talibanized Pakistan as well? Can they say that they are not Muslim? Hardly!

So if everything goes this way, even the Baloch would crack in 30 years time and become Talibanized Pakistanis in 50 years.

So there will be no North-South cleavage of Pakistan. It will become one monotonously dark-green country with a Ghilzai at the helm and at war with India.

The TSPA version of Islam was not brutal enough. The Taliban version is much more terrifying and thus much more effective.

In any case, "stewing in its own juices" is a useless strategy, because after stewing, the soup would simply get another poisonous flavor and start boiling over into the neighborhood!

The USA does not live in the neighborhood. India does!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 08 Feb 2013 23:09

Supratik wrote:I don't see a free Balochistan joining India which is OK. Our cultural interests extend only upto Hinglaj.


As I mentioned earlier, Bandar Abbas alias Gemeron, which lies to the West of Greater Baluchistan was a Hindu Port City, ruled by a Hindu Ruler Maharaja Derbar Raja as late as 630 CE.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4539
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Supratik » 08 Feb 2013 23:11

If Pak comes under the Taliban entirely then the crap is going to hit the roof. Both the US and India will be forced to act. The current ambiguity will end. So it may have unintended consequences for Pakistan which may actually bring it down. More importantly the Pashtuns are ambiguous viz-a-viz Pak. The nationalists would want to get out but haven't tried hard, the Pashtuns outside their land and in the army want to stay with Pakistan while the Taliban want their version of Islam but have shown no inclination to break-off. However, if the Taliban would like to setup their own state in the NW then you will see centrifugal forces taking over. I don't think Pak can handle full-fledged insurgencies in both Baloch and Pashtun areas. So far the Taliban have a love-hate relationship with Pak army. They want the Americans out, often collaborate with the ISI and want to setup a Talibani state over whole of Pak. If at some point in future they decide to setup a Talibani state in the NW then Pak will be in deep trouble.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4539
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Supratik » 08 Feb 2013 23:13

RajeshA wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, Bandar Abbas alias Gemeron, which lies to the West of Greater Baluchistan was a Hindu Port City, ruled by a Hindu Ruler Maharaja Derbar Raja as late as 630 CE.



Makran actually had a Sun temple which was destroyed by the Arabs. But that is distant past.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 08 Feb 2013 23:31

Supratik wrote:If Pak comes under the Taliban entirely then the crap is going to hit the roof. Both the US and India will be forced to act. The current ambiguity will end. So it may have unintended consequences for Pakistan which may actually bring it down. More importantly the Pashtuns are ambiguous viz-a-viz Pak. The nationalists would want to get out but haven't tried hard, the Pashtuns outside their land and in the army want to stay with Pakistan while the Taliban want their version of Islam but have shown no inclination to break-off. However, if the Taliban would like to setup their own state in the NW then you will see centrifugal forces taking over. I don't think Pak can handle full-fledged insurgencies in both Baloch and Pashtun areas. So far the Taliban have a love-hate relationship with Pak army. They want the Americans out, often collaborate with the ISI and want to setup a Talibani state over whole of Pak. If at some point in future they decide to setup a Talibani state in the NW then Pak will be in deep trouble.


Pushtun nationalism is very strong, but now it has submerged within the Pakistani-Afghan construct in Taliban Movement. Taliban have now a strong presence in Karachi through the Pushtuns there (the biggest Pushtun concentration in the world) as well as through their branches in Pakjab, who call themselves Punjabi Taliban.

So the ambitions of the Taliban have soared, that they can bring the whole of Pakistan under their control.

Yes at some point the shit will hit the fan, and US may not have a dialogue partner, but as long as Taliban is willing to tolerate the Pakistani memes within its area of rule, they will be able to strike deals with USA as well. But in case at some point USA thinks okay, they are shifting their support to Pakistan, what can we hope to come out of it?

Yes, USA will stop giving them money and weapons, but the Taliban can source that from several other places, now that Muslim populations in some Western countries are enough to force policy decisions, or they may get those from China, through alliance or blackmail. If not, they can still sell drugs through a network of Muslim entities spread across the globe.

But the point is that by attacking a fully Talibanized country like Pakistan, what can somebody hope to achieve? Which Talibanized Paki would want to break out of a Talibanized Pakistan, be he Baloch, Mohajir, Seraiki, Mirpuri, or Pushtun?

The thing is we are able to imagine only the evolution 5 years ahead, but in 5 years we will be doing nothing, rolling our thumbs and hoping something would come out of it, and then we start looking the next 5 years ahead with no change.

After a full Talibanization of Pakistan, if USA withdraws support to it, it is already too late for us to make any difference. We can of course do whole-scale genocide but then that too is day-dreaming.

Taliban would only be setting up areas here and there under their control until they have control over the whole country, but the Taliban are not going to break off from Pakistan. And the Baloch cannot.

I too would like to continue dreaming that all the violence we see in Pakistan brings something for us. On TSP thread, I do not really revel in the violence, not because I have any distaste for loss of life in that shitt state, but simply because it is simply a snapshot in its evolution to more green.

I don't even say that a Talibanized Pakistan is more dangerous for India. No! What I am saying is that a Talibanized Pakistan is even less solvable for India.

So if we want to solve it, it would have to be sooner than later. It would have to be with active intervention, rather than watching stew. It would have to be accepting USA's current support to Pak AND India's compulsions and still finding a different way!

The Iranian Baluchestan Front seems to be the most plausible way at the moment!

Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2348
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Brad Goodman » 08 Feb 2013 23:33

There is a big shakti peeth for Hinglaj mata over there which is protected by all tribes.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5147
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Agnimitra » 08 Feb 2013 23:46

RajeshA ji,

Baluchis already have a history of Mahdi-ism in the Zikri movement which mobilized effectively 150 years ago. So you're absolutely right - the Talibanization of the area "from the Indus to the Oxus" would make the "Greater Khorasan" dream of the Mahdi-ists come true, and Baluchistan will be ground into that.

Therefore, every opportunity lost will mean a bigger, more hypnotized army of orcs to deal with later, and one that has immense energy resources and pipeline control at its disposal. The US and the West (esp. Anglo-Saxons) would probably leave India to deal with that, and they have used Islamism to devour nations or split them since colonial times.

Freeing Baluchistan will still not stop the Mahdi-ism Islamism among them. Actually the freeing of Baluchistan is only a means to break down Islamist Iran (at least as a successful ideology, if not geographically), and thereby free the Persian south-Iranian core from the centuries-old Turko-Iranian Islamist grip. That core can possibly be freed from the ideology of Islamism. Maybe Kurds too, though I'm not sure. But that's unlikely to happen to the Baluchis.

Thus, as Af-Pak inexorably churns down into Mahdi-ism, it is important for India to ensure the rise of a non-Islamic apostate upstart to the WEST of this Caliphate - just to make things interesting on that side rather than ours. After all, there are hadiths more reliable than the Ghazwa beHind that talk of the "Jews of Esfahan" leading the rise of the Dajjal. Tie that to Israel, and its clear which side the Mahdi's army should be concentrating on. As for Ghazwa beHind, that can be fulfilled by the Taliban takeover of 'Sind' and Pakjabi 'Hind' itself. That's a narrative India should help fulfill.

Supratik ji,

Most Surya worship even within India was controlled by a caste called Shakadwipi brahmanas. They came from the area to the west and north of India, shaka-dwipa. So Baluchistan and a lot of Iranic C. Asia was Mithraic in ancient times.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4539
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Supratik » 09 Feb 2013 00:17

A nuclear Pak under Taliban will be a nightmare for both India and the US-led West. They will be forced to act either militarily or through economic sanctions like NK. Our best hope is that the Taliban is unable to do so and instead focuses on setting up a Talibani state in the NW.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6700
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby JE Menon » 09 Feb 2013 00:36

>>A nuclear Pak under Taliban will be a nightmare for both India and the US-led West.

Not for India. We have been facing them, dressed in Khaki and swilling whiskey, for decades. It might get to be one for the west if they don the clothes and the turbans and apply the kohl and keep a carnation in an appropriate orifice. In fact, it might even be better for us if they bare their teeth. Meanwhile, it might help us even more if we slip them long range delivery capability via the Chinese or North Koreans. That will really put the cat among the pigeons.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46749
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby ramana » 09 Feb 2013 02:34

Supratik wrote:A nuclear Pak under Taliban will be a nightmare for both India and the US-led West. They will be forced to act either militarily or through economic sanctions like NK. Our best hope is that the Taliban is unable to do so and instead focuses on setting up a Talibani state in the NW.



You need to understand the why of Pakistan. It is a sanctuary for Deobandis. Deobandis are a new school in Sunni Islam from Indian sub-continent. The Pak Army is a Deobandi lashkar and had eaten grass to acquire the clown jewels. The day the TTP/Salafist elements make a move to Isloo, the Jihad-e-fistula will stage a coup to secure the clown jewels.

RajeshA, Iranian Baloch self determination is the key to remake the area just as it was Vahic Pradesh that helped Chandragupta Maurya to throw the Greek yoke.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4539
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Supratik » 09 Feb 2013 12:10

Yes, for the present US will like to maintain the military and nuclear status quo in Pak wrt India. But what if they are unable to stop the TTP e.g. with the Iranian revolution. However, I don't think the TTP by itself will take over Pak. The chances of Talibanis in the army taking over are higher. The best option for splitting Pak is a Taliban state in the NW and free Balochistan.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 09 Feb 2013 15:26

Supratik wrote:However, I don't think the TTP by itself will take over Pak. The chances of Talibanis in the army taking over are higher.

Exactly. It is actually the same process. TTP and Talibanized TSPA are two sides of the same coin.

Supratik wrote:The best option for splitting Pak is a Taliban state in the NW and free Balochistan.

Taliban would not demand a new state for them in NW for various reasons:

a) The highest Pushtun concentration is in Karachi and not in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa or FATA.

b) They need the rest of Pakistan for resources, for Jihadi funding, for plunder.

c) There is no instance in the whole of Pakistan providing them any sort of resistance, so why limit themselves to a small area.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 09 Feb 2013 15:56

Carl wrote:Thus, as Af-Pak inexorably churns down into Mahdi-ism, it is important for India to ensure the rise of a non-Islamic apostate upstart to the WEST of this Caliphate - just to make things interesting on that side rather than ours. After all, there are hadiths more reliable than the Ghazwa beHind that talk of the "Jews of Esfahan" leading the rise of the Dajjal. Tie that to Israel, and its clear which side the Mahdi's army should be concentrating on. As for Ghazwa beHind, that can be fulfilled by the Taliban takeover of 'Sind' and Pakjabi 'Hind' itself. That's a narrative India should help fulfill.


Ghazwa e-Hind was actually a very successful enterprise on the part of Islam. To the Arabs and Persians, Hind meant only the region around Indus. It is a completely different matter that Hindu Kufr also called the further inlying areas also as Hind but that is only as a form of psychological compensation for losing the real Hind, which is the area around Indus.

This is a prophecy which has been realized 100%. Hind, i.e. Western Punjab and Sind are today part of Dar al-Islam. It is only the Yahud-Hanud-Nassara evil kafir axis and their agents within the Islamic clergy who do not want to give Islam the recognition, Islam really deserves - as an ideology that finishes what it promises. The evil Kufr want to deny Islam just recognition. They deny the prophecy because they believe in Akhand Bharat and believe they can reverse the gains of Islam, but Ghazwa e-Hind has been a successful campaign, and Pakistan, the Fortress of Islam, has been the result of Ghazwa e-Hind.

May Allah's wrath be upon these agents.

Another glorious fulfilled promise of Allah that the Yahud reject is the coming of Mahdi. Allah fulfilled his promise to send the Mahdi when he sent Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (Saladin) to the momeen and they recaptured Al Quds in the Battle of Hattin (1157 CE). Again jealous munafiqs did not want to give recognition to Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, and the Mahdi Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn was all too modest to claim such glory for him which his peers were not willing to give. The Mahdi Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn spoke with his sword rather than just words.

May Allah's wrath be upon these Munafiqun.

Allah has fulfilled all promises he gave to the Muslims. In fact the Yawm ad-Din (Day of Judgment) has already taken place and the glorious Shuhuda dine and make merry with Sahabah (Companions of Muhammad) in Jannat and enjoy their deserved hoors. Those who did not make the cut, Allah sent upon the Earth to burn. That is the reason why the so-called Ummah is alight with fires and explosions everywhere. For Ummah does not live in Dar al-Islam anymore, but in Jahannum. What else is Pakistan today, if not Jahannum! The agents of Yahud-Hanud-Nassar will not allow the Muslims to recognize the true reality. The Yawm al-Qiyāmah, "the Day of Resurrection" is long gone. The so called Muslims are those who were found wanting and hence could not enter Jannat, but they continue their suffering in this cognitive dissonance, which is always part of Jahannum.

May Allah's wrath be upon these agents.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 09 Feb 2013 16:39

Iranian Baluchestan Front

ramana wrote:RajeshA, Iranian Baloch self determination is the key to remake the area just as it was Vahic Pradesh that helped Chandragupta Maurya to throw the Greek yoke.


Yes! The search has been for that stone, which if removed can bring the whole house down, which can trigger an avalanche, and Western Balochistan is I feel that stone.

The theory is:

  1. West, Israel, Turkey and Gulf invade West Balochistan throwing Iranians out and secure the place. India should not be part of this force, simply because we have to play the longer innings there, and we cannot have entry besmirched by accusations of "invasion".

  2. India moves in with massive development aid and teams. We extensively use Balochis who live in the India and nationalist Balochis from Pakistan, perhaps those recommended by various Azadi-pasand Baloch parties and orgs. We embed and integrate these Balochis in the Indian developmental aid push. We can of course bolster our presence with some security forces to look after the development teams. We can also make Chahbahar Port as the port of supply.

  3. Through these development effort we build positive vibrations among Western Balochis for India.

  4. We increase the interaction with the political class in Western Balochistan.

  5. We organize a referendum under the auspices of some international body with the help of the West on the question of sovereignty for Western Balochistan. It is recognized as independent.

  6. We move more nationalistic Baloch from Eastern Balochistan into Western Balochistan for doing propaganda and campaigning.

  7. After a year, there can be a second referendum on the question if accession to India. The campaign impresses on the people that if they do not opt for India, neither would they be able to retain their freedom as Iran would move in as soon as the international forces are gone, nor would they be able to free Eastern Balochistan from Pakistan.

  8. Once they accept accession to India, then India can integrate Western Balochistan into our union and build up a military presence there.

  9. The international forces can move out.

  10. The main political faces remain from Western Balochistan.

  11. The Western Balochis are given education and medical facilities and they help in the work of nation building there, but few are inducted into the security forces. Western Balochis are integrated into economic activity in Western Balochistan.

  12. We build an administration service in Western Balochistan made mostly (upto ⅔ of the total) of Eastern Balochis. Also we set up a Baloch Regiment made up exclusively of Eastern Balochis. This is so because Eastern Balochis have more of a Indian Subcontinental consciousness, they would be motivated as their homeland would still be occupied by Pakistan, they are still a lot more moderate and secular and they would be more willing to ensure law and order in Western Balochistan.

  13. We increase our investments in Western Balochistan manifold in road, railroad, ports and airport infrastructure as well as mining. Western Balochis should profit from this.

  14. We give professional training to the Baloch Regiment, which would be part of Indian Army (made up of up to 90% of Eastern Balochis) and then we send them in into Eastern Balochistan for kicking Pakistani butt with heavy weaponry.

  15. Also through Western Balochistan's border with Afghanistan we start cultivating renegade Taliban commanders for attacks into Pakistan, and open another anti-Pak front from there.

As to why "international community" would help us, please read the earlier post.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 09 Feb 2013 16:56

Cross-Posting a news item posted by chaanakya from "India-Russia: News & Analysis" Thread

Published on Dec 30, 2012
By Indrani Bagchi
Russian nod for India’s bid to link south with central Asia: Times of India

NEW DELHI: India's pet project to link south with central Asia got support from Russian president Vladimir Putin. During their talks in New Delhi last week, Singh and Putin agreed to unfreeze the north-south corridor through Iran within the next year. India has taken the lead role in pushing for the completion of this project.

Indian officials said they would push for the completion of the corridor and were willing to step in, if Iran found it difficult to accomplish the task. The corridor is, by and large complete, they said, except for a section inside Iran between Qazvin-Rasht-Astara. The corridor is useless unless the Iranian section is completed. Although the agreement was inked by India, Iran, Russia and Oman in 2001, Tehran has dragged its feet on the project.

Now, the urgency for completion of the project is due to the imminent drawdown of NATO forces from Afghanistan in 2014. New Delhi figures that this project will be a game-changer for its trade and open Indian economy to the rising economies in central Asia, by connecting India with Afghanistan and beyond, bypassing Pakistan.

India's aims in the region is coalescing with Russia, which is paying greater attention to it's "near abroad". Russia is concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in its southern periphery and one of the ways of countering this is to open these landlocked nations to trade and connectivity with India.

Another reason for both Russia and India to concentrate on central Asia is the growing influence and presence of China in this region, which has raised concerns in Moscow and New Delhi. China is far ahead of both Russia and India in establishing connectivity with the central Asian countries — China's aims being to stabilize its own western periphery, with the restive province of Xinjiang as the focus. Beijing has already built an intricate set of oil and gas pipelines to Kazakhstan, and a Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan-China gas pipeline. In 2011, the trade turnover between China and the five central Asian countries reached $16.98 billion. Beijing is currently working on a rail link to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. China's progress, frankly, puts India's sluggish initiatives in the shade.

India has recently received help from other quarters. Turkey has stepped in, offering itself as a more viable transit route for the corridor, given its already-developed connections with central Asian nations and Russia. On the other hand, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have both asked Indian leaders to consider connecting them to the corridor.

The Northern Distribution Network (NDN), which is being used by the US to transport supplies and weapons to its forces in Afghanistan by steering clear of Pakistan, is on offer for trade and connectivity in the post-2014 environment, said sources. Tajikistan has offered to connect itself to the Zaranj-Delaram road and Afghanistan's garland highway, which will give it access to Iran's Chahbahar port.

All of this is certain to raise Iran's geo-political profile that India and Russia support. Iran, however, has been tardy in putting its own infrastructure in order. However, Iranian diplomats have recently gone on record to say that they have completed "70% of works on construction of Qazvin-Rasht-Astara railroad within the framework of North-South Transport Corridor project."

Iran, India and Afghanistan have recently started to coordinate work on the Chahbahar port project. Again, here, the delay is on the Iranian side. India has offered to undertake the development of the port in Iran — over $5 billion of India's oil payments to Iran are sitting in Indian banks in Indian currency, and the idea is that this could be used in the port's development.

The Chahbahar port would be a lifeline for landlocked Afghanistan, by reducing its dependence on Pakistan. It would also act as a bridge to connect central Asia with India. Ultimately, it promises to open up vast markets in Eurasian countries to Indian goods and services, cutting travel and freight time and cost.

Uzbek and Kazakh leaders have pressed India to complete the project because it would open up the Indian energy market to these countries. Kazakhstan has offered the Satpayev block to India and is slated to become a key uranium supplier to India's civilian nuclear sector. But lack of connectivity is a serious deterrent at present, said officials. In fact, its cheaper to bring goods to India through China from these countries!

But the focus is to complete the missing section in Iran. Of the 375-km-long Qazvin-Astara-Rasht route, around 300 km is located in Iran. While, 8.5km of railways will be built in Azerbaijan.


Iranian regime is preoccupied with its Pan-Islamism agenda, and actually feels that if Central Asia prospers, it would become less backward and as such less responsive to Iranian supremacy agenda. Iran's wish is to keep Central Asia in the dark ages and then to present itself as some messiah of high culture and center of prosperity to which all Central Asians look up to.

An Iran cannot compete with India for cultural influence in Central Asia if India gets a direct trade connection with the region.

Iran needs to be taken out of the equation!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 14 Feb 2013 19:55

Iranian Baluchestan Front

Continuing from 'TIRP' Thread

SSridhar wrote:Composite Dialogue with Pak., a failure - G.Parthasarathy, Businessline
Pakistan’s confidence about continuing US support is evident from the manner in which it has reached an agreement with Iran on the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline and virtually handed over the strategic Gwadar port to China. General Kayani will demand a high price for facilitating American withdrawal from Afghanistan.


I had written earlier
RajeshA wrote:In the end, after 2014, most probably Iran and Pakistan with the help of China are going to cut off Central Asia for good from the rest of the world. Iran and Pakistan are going to act as the gatekeepers to Central Asia and they are going to work in sync.


This is what I have trying to tell over this series of posts! India must make a move to nudge USA to do the needful in Iran.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5147
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Agnimitra » 16 Feb 2013 05:52

From the Letters section of Fri Times:
Punjabi pickle
Sir,

The partitioning of Punjab into smaller provinces is a hot topic nowadays. Without going into the historical perspective of the matter, we must understand that among all the federating units of Pakistan, Punjab was and still is the only unit which is a geographical entity rather than a cultural one. Punjab is so diverse in culture that within a district sometimes there are more than one dialects of a local language. The fact has been admitted by many Punjabi intellectuals including former Punjab governor Hanif Ramay in his widely acclaimed "Punjab Ka Muqadama". The interesting fact about the book is that the case of Punjab has been presented in Urdu.

The deprivation of southern Punjab or the Seraiki belt is no fiction, there are factual proofs of that. According to BBC, there are more than 1,000 CSP officers hailing from the north eastern Punjab and only 257 from southern Punjab. The contrast is very sharp and speaks for itself.

The other side of the picture is that the feudal aristocrats hailing from southern Punjab have always been at the helm of the affairs. Why have they not done anything for their own people?

The fact is that the partitioning of Punjab on the eve of elections is nothing but a political gimmick. The ruling party has lost its support in north and central Punjab leaving them with no choice but to strengthen their political future, along with that of other left leaning forces.

But the consequences of the division might favor the feudals of southern Punjab, and the common man may suffer more at the hands of traditional, absolutists power structures historically present there.

Asif Amin,

Multan.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 22 Feb 2013 21:48

Change Dance Partners

X-Posting from "India and Japan: News and Discussion" Thread

The way to solve North Korea and Pakistan cooperation on nuclear missiles is for India to take Arihant and beat the shit out of the North Koreans and for Japan to take their subs and bomb Pakistan to stone age.

Each can declare their target an enemy because of this nuclear and missile partnership. Would Pakis object if North Korea is hit by Indians? Well maybe! But do they want to start a war because of that? Would North Koreans attack Japan if Japan hits Pakistan's nuclear sites? Don't think so!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 22 Feb 2013 23:52

Continuing from "Turkey News, discussions, India Turkey Relations" Thread

shyamd wrote:They didnt have money before and still fight with or without but this is about changing their mindset into one that is productive or else eternal war and we won't progress either.

But the people can force them to change their mind

I am not saying this superficially, but we have it completely wrong. It is the other way round. They will change their mindset when they have zero hope of succeeding. Nuclear weapons, successful proxy wars, no retaliation on terrorism, demographic expansion, and an Afghanistan victory means their hopes are sky-high, all the rest statistics be damned. With sky-high hopes, there will be no letting in their Ghazwa e-Hind fantasies.

After all the Gandhi coddling, Partition, return of conquered lands and PoWs, IWT, non-aggression, MFNs, CBMs, Aman ki Asha, if they can't come around, they won't come around.

Changing the mindset is a project best undertaken by those who don't live in denial and understand Paki mentality and not the WKK types.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, DrRatnadip, pravula, rakeshp, SBajwa, SSharma, Vyas and 41 guests