Abhijit wrote:Wow! What a policy prescription! The best way to defeat paki satan is to blame any and all terror attacks on a non-existent Hindu terror. This will force the paki army to do a coup on the paki civilians. Paki civilians won’t like it. And then what? I can’t imagine that people on BRF are going ga ga over a prescription that mani Shankar aiyer and susan roy couldn’t come up with in their moments of most intense intellectual onanism!
Shiv saar, I am an unabashed fan of your analysis but this prescription took my breath away in its terrible simpleton nature. This prescription is a non-sequitur from everything that preceded it (and I am assuming that I correctly interpreted your posts interspersed with these nuggets). If you want to engineer a split between paki civilians and paki army, by all means go ahead and do it(it has been done by paki army itself at least 4 times, so what's new? and it wasn't exactly done by PA with an India card. they in fact claimed that they had to step in to save paki satan from the greedy politicians) but why bring a non-existent Hindu terror into it? And what is the next step after this split? we sacrifice hundreds/thousands of our civilians to the bhasmasur of paki-army-engineered terror, so that paki civilians can have a better life? What is the end-game in this? And whatever the end-game, bringing a non-existent Hindu terror is unacceptable, at any cost.
Abhijit I did not say that and no thanks for imagining that I said that. I don't want to be given a break by people who choose to imagine that i said what I did not say because I do not give anyone a break for saying stupid things.
Disclaimer: I am not making a policy prescription. My policy prescription has been war. But my policy prescriptions have not been followed i am merely making a prediction based on my reading of events. You may not like the prediction but that is not my problem.
I will explain what I said again below and I request patient reading, but two questions before that:
1. Please explain to me what these previous civil military splits were that the Pakistan military created? I put it to you that the Pakistan military has never created a split wher it deliberately becomes unpopular. It has always used its popularity to sideline politicians and has moved out when it was unpopular. So I believe you are passing off some more misinformation there.
2. How did you interpret my words as saying that "We should engineer a split
". What do you mean "By all means engineer a split?
". I have not said a word about engineering any split. All I have said is to exploit a split that exists insofar as it can be exploited and suggested that this is what the GoI supported (to my surprise) by the likes of Bharat Karnad may be doing. This is not my policy. This is my reading of GoI policy. I hope you can understand the difference.
In this particular instance (2012)I have suggested that the civilians in Pakistan, for the first time in the history of Pakistan are asking that the Pakistan army protect Pakistan against the US. The Paki army cannot do that. The US is their main sponsor, but they can't go against the people either. They would rather have war with India that unites Pakistanis and allows them to get baksheesh from the US saying India is the biggest threat, not USA. The only way they can spark a war to unite Pakis is to conduct a terror raid on India.
Now if a terror raid on India occurs and India attacks Pakistan, the Pakistan army would have got just what it wanted. A unity of pakis behind the army, with India as enemy number 1. This is exactly what the Pakistan army tried with 26/11 when they were under great pressure.
I believe that the GoI has taken a new approach to terror. When the evidence against anyone is not clear they have started "spreading the blame" saying "We are looking at all possibilities. Pakistan, Naxalites, Hindu terror groups etc
". For the current GoI calling a terror attack Hindu terror is an extremely attractive option. Why this is so is a different (political) topic not for this thread. What is germane to this thread is that by making statements like "Hindu terror" the GoI is sending a signal to Pakistan saying "We are not automatically suspecting you in this terror attack. We will not automatically attack you
When the GoI sends an open signal to Pakistan that they are not suspected in a terror attack, they are telling a lie, but also telling a fundamental truth. The lie is that Pakistan is not suspected. The fundamental truth is that India is not going to attack Pakistan. As I have observed from 2000 to 2011, Pakistan was blamed for a lot of attacks. Not once did India punish Pakistan. But every time Pakistan was blamed, the Pakistan army got a chance to tell their civilians "See, India is against us. Unite and we will protect you
". Then the Paki army went right ahead and got arms and funds from the USA saying "We are fighting on two fronts - India in the East and Taliban in the West
If the GoI is going to hit Pakistan, they really should hit Pakistan. If they are not going to hit Pakistan, there is no use blaming Pakistan and not hitting Pakistan as we have done for a decade. Might as well blame Hindu terror, Martians, transformer burst, cylinder burst etc. The only advantage GoI can get by blaming everyone except Pakistan for terror is that
1. There is no pressure to start war with Pakistan
2. The Pakistan army cannot get unity and support by pointing at India as enemy number 1
This fits in well with India's policy even if they are not saying it out loud. If they say it out loud they will be screwed. India's policy is not to start war with Pakistan even after severe provocations like Parliament attack, Kaluchak and 26/11. None of us on BRF have agreed with this policy. We have always wanted Pakistan to get kicked. But India's policy has been to blame Pakistan, send faxes, dossiers but not make war. No Indian government is going to declare war on Pakistan following a terror attack. The only change from this "no war" is to stop blaming Pakistan. That is the new policy. Terror attack occurs. Don't even blame Pakistan. No need to blame Pakistan. No need to attack Pakistan. (Blame Hindu terror instead and attack RSS - the response to this is an internal political question for Indians, not for this thread)
is there anything good about this policy? The only possible good such a policy can achieve is IF
the Pakistani army is using a terror attack to fortify its own weak political position in Pakistan.
Has there ever been a time when the Pakistani army has been in a weak political position in Pakistan?
1. After the 1971 war, when Bhutto took over
2. After Drone attacks, Abbottabad and the US-Pak army firefight
The Pakistan army today is in a precarious position. They would probably want to provoke war with India more than anything else in the world. The last thing India is going to do is to fight war with Pakistan for another terror attack when the last 50 terror attacks have not caused India to declare war. I put it to you that if a terror attack occurs now (next 1 month), in the absence of clear evidence the GoI will_not_blame_Pakistan
. They may even blame Hindu terror. I don't care whom GoI blames - as long as the current pre-existing split where the Pakistan army is unpopular in Pakistan is made worse.
What to do with a government that blames Hindu terror is a different topic. Not to be confused with what we are doing/not doing with Pakistan.