Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

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.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby johneeG » 27 Dec 2014 07:41

Is a Stable Pakistan in Indian interests? or
Is Breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

If a stable pakistan is in Indian interests, then was it wrong to break Pakistan in 1971?
If Breaking Pakistan is in Indian interests, then how should Pakistan be broken?

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9894
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby Vayutuvan » 27 Dec 2014 07:44

Is there any doubt? Give peace a chance ... :wink:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8068
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby Pratyush » 27 Dec 2014 09:15

The question is too binary. While in the long run. I would have gone with option 2. But will vote for option 1 as a tactical choice.

As a divided Pakistan, cannot be absorbed in greater India unless the domestic issues have not been resolved. Because for me it represents an externalization of a domestic issue.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby abhischekcc » 27 Dec 2014 10:56

Is the Shankaracharya Hindu? Hell yes breaking pakhanastan is in India's favour.


----------

And who is the kuffar who voted for a stable pakhanastan? Hain ji?

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4409
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby Mahendra » 27 Dec 2014 14:02

When downloading your inner jihad in a fast train if Pakistan is not stable then you will end up downloading your inner jihad all over the place thereby making it difficult for the next person. I'm assuming that is the logic used by the person voting for a stable pakistan

I'm however an Ulanbatori bhakth and fully subscribe to Give peace a chance................

rajithn
BRFite
Posts: 470
Joined: 27 Dec 2008 01:52

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby rajithn » 27 Dec 2014 14:47

It's a matter of 'when' and not 'if'. However, a broken P'***n with its refugees and IDPs heading into India will be a nightmare. A broken P'***n with people either held within or moving westwards, making the broken P'***n a buffer zone between Bharat and the *ihadis, is a more suitable outcome.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Dec 2014 16:07

I did not vote, because the choices are too simplistic. It all depends on just how the breakage of Pakistan proceeds. I think some scenarios are highly dangerous for India and others are highly beneficial.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby RajeshA » 27 Dec 2014 18:25

abhischekcc wrote:Is the Shankaracharya Hindu? Hell yes


Did he ever say so? :P

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 261
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby Ramesh » 27 Dec 2014 20:32

Stable pakhanastan is certainly not in our interest.
It may fragment, they kill each other .. not our concern. Just build a huge wall, electrified fence and may be add a moat as well while at it.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby johneeG » 27 Dec 2014 20:34

A_Gupta wrote:I did not vote, because the choices are too simplistic. It all depends on just how the breakage of Pakistan proceeds. I think some scenarios are highly dangerous for India and others are highly beneficial.


The options are straight-forward and its policy decision:
a) should Bhaarath be working for a stable Pakistan? or
b) should Bhaarath be working to break Pakistan?

a) if Bhaarath should be working for a stable Pakistan, then
i) why is a stable pakistan in Bhaarath's interests? i.e. what are the advantages to Bhaarath by keeping pakistan stable?
ii) what is a stable Pakistan?
iii) how can Bhaarath keep Pakistan stable?
iv) does that mean breaking Pakistan was wrong in 1971?
v) should Bhaarath consider compromising on Kashmir or Siachin to keep Pakistan stable?

b) if Bhaarath should be working for breaking Pakistan, then
i) why is breaking pakistan in Bhaarath's interests? i.e. what are the advantages to Bhaarath by breaking pakistan?
ii) how can pakistan be broken?
iii) what might be the situation after breaking pakistan?

AGupta saar,
what are the scenarios where breaking pakistan is beneficial? and
what are the scenarios where breaking pakistan is adversial?


matrimc wrote:Is there any doubt? Give peace a chance ... :wink:


abhischekcc wrote:Is the Shankaracharya Hindu? Hell yes breaking pakhanastan is in India's favour.


----------

And who is the kuffar who voted for a stable pakhanastan? Hain ji?


Please answer:
b) if Bhaarath should be working for breaking Pakistan, then
i) why is breaking pakistan in Bhaarath's interests? i.e. what are the advantages to Bhaarath by breaking pakistan?
ii) how can pakistan be broken by Bhaarath? what should be the exact procedure and roadmap?
iii) what might be the situation after breaking pakistan?

Pratyush wrote:The question is too binary. While in the long run. I would have gone with option 2. But will vote for option 1 as a tactical choice.

As a divided Pakistan, cannot be absorbed in greater India unless the domestic issues have not been resolved. Because for me it represents an externalization of a domestic issue.


I didn't understand your argument, saar.

My questions on your post are:
a) What do you mean by 'absorb' pakistan into greater Bhaarath?
b) How can Bhaarath 'absorb' pakistan?
c) Why is it difficult to 'absorb' a 'divided' 'pakistan' into greater Bhaarath?
d) Why would it be easier to 'absorb' a 'united' pakistan?
e) Does that mean you are saying that breaking pakistan in 1971 was wrong and east pakistan should have been allowed to remain?
f) At what timeline, do you support breaking pakistan? And what timeline, do you oppose breaking pakistan?
g) At what timeline, do you envision 'absorbing' pakistan?

----
I think before trying to come to the decision whether Pakistan should be broken or kept united, one has to first understand what pakistan is and how it works.

Following is my understanding of pakistan:
Pakistan is a country dominated by Pakjabi elites. The army is mostly dominated by the Pakjabis. Sindhis are given some share in power and are allowed to rule Sindh.

That leaves: Pashtuns, Balochs and Bengalis.

Bengalis posed a collective threat to the dominance of Pakjabis and Sindh due to their larger population. In any democratic scenario, Bengalis would be dominating the Pakistan politics. So, Pakistani elites(i.e. Pakjabi elites coopting the Sindhi elites) were not at all ready to share power with the Bengalis in a democratic set-up. They were even ready to break Pakistan rather than share power. While the Bengalis were part of Pakistan, most of the revenues generated by the Bengalis were also used up by the Pakjab(Lahore) and Sindh(Karachi).

Ultimately, it led to Bengalis revolting against the Pakjabis and Pakjabi army genociding the Bengalis(particularly Bengali Hindhus). Bhaarath helped Bengalis organize themselves and it resulted in breaking Pakistan in 1971.

After the exit of Bengalis from Pakistan, Pashtuns and Balochs are the other two.

Balochis:
Balochis have been consistently trying to fight for their freedom from Pakistan. Even the most Pro-pakistani Balochi leader still insists on autonomy of Balochis. Most of the Balochi people seem to be anti-pakistan. The elections are boycotted(only 3% voted in elections). Pakistan is interested in Balochistan region due to the rich natural resources of the region. Balochistan has gas, oil and even gold mines. Further, there is an access sea through Gwadar port. These things make the region import strategically and economically. The gas of Balochistan is transported to Pakjab through pipes while the people of Balochistan have to depend on burning wood. Balochistan is steeped in poverty. There is a large-scale military operation by Pakistan army using helicoptors ...etc against the Balochis. The Pakistan army(mostly dominated by pakjabis) uses a kill and dump policy. Many Balochis go missing and later their dead bodies are found by the roadside or in caves or buried in mass unidentified graves. Balochis have organized themselves into liberation armies and are fighting against what they consider as occupation of Pakjabis. Frequently, Pakistan media(mostly dominated by Pakjabis) accuses Bhaarath for being responsible for Balochistan situation. Pakistan has allowed the Chinese to work at a large scale in Balochistan to build Gwadar port. Balochis say that it is listening post for the Chinese in the Arabian sea. Balochis accuse Pakistan army of conducting a genocide of Baloch people. They say that the idea of Pakistan army(ie. Pakjabi army) is to kill the baloch people and take baloch resources and land.

Balochistan has a tribal past. Each tribe has their own heads. Pakistan army and pakistan state has tried to play one tribe against the other in the past and continues to try and sow differences. However, it seems that the large scale military action is uniting many Baloch people and they are ready to set aside their tribal differences to face what they consider as their common pakjabi enemy.

So, Pakistan is now trying a new approach: radicalize the Balochis and create a new Taliban like outfit in Balochistan. Lashkar-e-jhangvi is the one doing this on ground. Lashkar-e-jhangvi is headed by Pakjabi and supported by the Pakjabi army.

The idea is to do to Balochs what has been done to the Pashtuns.

This leads to next topic: what was done to the Pashtuns and why did Taliban emerge?
Pashtuns were not suppressed by the British and they remained in a sort of autonomy fighting against the British. When the Pakistan was created, it seems that the Pakjabis felt their greatest threat was from the Pashtuns who were never totally under the control of the British(and the Pakjabi pakistan was a successor state of the british system).

So, it was decided to use the Pashtuns as cannon fodder or irregular force. This idea was first used in Kashmir in 1948 and it resulted in Pakistan occupying a part of Kashmir. These Pashtuns looted and raped the Kashmiris. At that time, Kashmir had still not joined with either Bhaarath or Pakistan. The idea was to use the Pashtuns to force the Kashmir King to accede to Pakistan at the point of gun. But, it backfired. The Kashmir King requested the help of Bhaarath. Bhaarath's then home minister Patel was adamant that no military help will be given to Kashmir unless the Kashmir's King accepts the Kashmir's accession to Bhaarath. To save Srinagar from falling to the Pashtun looters, the King accepted to accede to Bhaarath. This decision was supported by the people of Kashmir.

But, Bhaarath's PM Nehru took the matters to UN instead of ousting the Pashtuns and the Pakistan army from pakistan occupied Kashmir.

This is an example of using the Pashtuns(who are internal threat for the Pakjabis) against the external opponents. The idea is quite simple: if the Pashtuns die, its still the victory of the Pakjabis. If the Pashtuns win against the external opponent, then its still the victory of the pakjabis. Then, the pakjabis will find another external opponent and again send the Pashtuns to fight them. This is a simple formula which will keep getting repeated.

To give an example, the blacks were sent to fight in Vietnam. Boxer Mohammad Ali refused to go and fight in Vietnam. At that time, the blacks were fighting for their rights against what they considered as white hegemony. From the white elite perspective, sending the blacks to fight in vietnam is a win-win situation. If the blacks die, then the white elites still win. If the vietnam is defeated, then the white elites still win. Then, they will find a new enemy and again send the blacks to fight them.

The same happens in Pakistan with respect to Pashtuns.

When Soviet Union invaded Afghanisthan, America outsourced the job or creating proxy war against the Soviets to Pakistan. Pakistan again used the Pashtuns as the cannon fodder.

But, why would Pashtuns want to fight the Soviets in Afghanisthan?
Pashtuns could be coerced to fight Bhaarath using Pakistani nationalism, but making them fight in Afghanisthan would be quite difficult. This is where islamic extremism comes in.

America and Pakistan used islamic extremism to motivate the Pashtuns to fight the Soviets because the Soviets were 'kaffirs'. A large amount of funds were poured in. Weapons and training was given. And extremism was supported. Those people who opposed this scheme were taken out and others were forced and coerced to take up islamic extremism and fight the soviets.

After the soviets exited from Afghanisthan, Pakjabi elites were now faced with a Pashtun population which was talibanized, and large weapons training, without productive jobs, and war veterans. Pakjabis realized that this population would attack them or atleast revolt against them. So, they started sending these pashtuns to die in Kashmir. If they didn't die in Kashmir, then the Pakjabis would have sent them to die in someother place in the name of jihad.

Anyway, the pashtuns were again sent as cannon fodder into Kashmir. This was a redux of 1948 tribal attack on Kashmir. This created a huge insurgency situation in Kashmir. But, the insurgency failed in changing the political status of Kashmir.

Among the pashtuns, retreat of Soviets was seen as huge victory and they didn't mind going on to fight the Bhaarath who were also seen as 'kaffirs' by them. But, as they started facing reverses, the situation changed and resentment towards the pakjabis started expressing itself.

In Pakistan, one thing is above question: islam. So, frequently, any group or person who wants to do something can use islam as their excuse. The pashtuns who were already talibanized used this as their political weapon. They started demanding sharia state. The trick in this demand is that it is never ending demand. Each concession by the state will be followed up by a demand for more islamic state. The pashtuns had one thing going for them: they could claim that they were more islamic then the pakjabi elites. They utilized this fully.

Pakjabi army didn't want to start full scale civil war against the pashtuns. So, they started selective targeting of those who opposed the pakjabi elites and promoted those who toed the line of the pakjabis. The pashtuns also were divided as tribes and fiefdoms. So, the pakjabi army tried to play one tribe against the other.

But, all these are temporary measures. And they started becoming less and less effective. This is the problem today for Pakistan. The pakistan taliban is this problem. In simple terms, it is a struggle of Pashtuns vs Pakjabis. Both sides use islam as coin to gain credibility because it is seen as beyond questioning. But, it is a political and ethnic struggle for dominance.

Now, the same thing is being repeated with the Balochis. The pakistan army has not learnt anything from its Pashtun experience. It is trying to repeat its pashtun formula on the Balochs. They want to radicalize the Balochis, so that they the Balochis can also be sent to fight the external jihadhs for the pakjabi elite.

In short, Pakistan was never stable. The ruling class of Pakistan i.e. Pakjabis were never interested in keeping Pakistan stable. They were only interested in dominating the Pakistan. Their formula was to distract their internal opponents by pitting them against the real or imagined external opponents.

In this scheme, they need to find an external threat. After the partition and the partition riots, it was easy to incite hate against the Hindhus. It also served the purpose of supporting the two-nation theory.

Off late, they have added America and Israel into the list of external threats. It is quite a paradox because the Pakistani army is able to dominate the Pashtuns, Balochs and Sindhis only because of the American supplied weapons and free doles. Without the American largesse, the Pakjabis will not be able to dominate the Balochs, or Pashtuns or Sindhis.


[youtube]krDlGN7FQW8#t=4248[/youtube]

In the above video, at 1:10:48, Akbar Bugti explains that if Bhaarath had crossed the border(in Jaisalmer) in 1971 and entered west Pakistan, the people of Pakjab would have fought Bhaarath. But, the people of Sindh, Balochistan and Pashtuns would not have opposed the Bhaarath's army. He is saying that only the Pakjabis are emotionally invested and economically interested in Pakistani state. Sindhis, Balochis, Mohajhirs and Pashtuns are not interested in protecting Pakistan.



In the above video, a Balochi leader explains how the Pakistani state is supporting the talibanization of the Balochis to weaken the Baloch nationalism and instead distract them by keeping them busy in external jihadhs.

One of the targets of this external jihadh is obviously Bhaarath.

Further, Pakistan already blames Bhaarath for the situation in balochistan and also for the actions of Pakistani Taliban. So, regardless of whether the Bhaarath is involved or not, Pakistan will blame Bhaarath because it needs an external threat to deal with its internal threats.

Now, the question:
a) is a stable pakistan in Indian interests? or
b) is breaking pakistan in Indian interests?

My understanding of the word 'stable pakistan' is 'status quo situation'. The status quo means that the Pakjabis will continue to use Balochis, Pashtuns and others as cannon fodder against their neighbours(and anybody else). That means Bhaarath will continue to face the jihadhi problem because pakistan has people which it wants to expend. And Bhaarath is the easiest target.

The cunning genius of this plan is:
a) The internal threat is handled i.e. the balochis, pashtun, ...etc are busy fighting some external enemy instead of fighting against the Pakjabi dominance.
b) The external enemy is also busy fighting the islamic extremism.
c) The Pakjabis insert themselves as the moderates and start negotiating for sops which will again be used to the advantage of the pakjabis.

The problem in this scheme is that the pakjabis can open the tap of armed islamic extremism, but they cannot close it without a full scale civil war.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby johneeG » 28 Dec 2014 00:23









----
A follow up question to those who voted for breaking pakistan:
what should be the post-pakistan scenario?
What kind of states/countries do you envision will replace pakistan?

I think Balochistan, Sindh, Pakhthun and Pakistan-Punjab should be made independent countries.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3635
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby KLNMurthy » 28 Dec 2014 00:35

A_Gupta wrote:I did not vote, because the choices are too simplistic. It all depends on just how the breakage of Pakistan proceeds. I think some scenarios are highly dangerous for India and others are highly beneficial.

Isn't the manner of breakage a separate question from the core question of what outcome would be in India's interest?
Last edited by KLNMurthy on 28 Dec 2014 00:49, edited 1 time in total.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3635
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby KLNMurthy » 28 Dec 2014 00:47

Ultimately it is a question of helping Islam, despite itself, evolve into something more compatible with progressive human values. We need to do this for the continued survival of humanity.

It is amply clear that the change will never come solely from internal impetus. It is also clear that pakistan represents the most virulent, yet the most inept-at-the-core version of Islam. So its back needs to be broken to break its spirit. The rest--which way the refugees will run etc.,--is a matter of detail. Important, sure, but nothing to distract from the vital and compelling nature of the basic goal, which is to transform Islam out of all recognition.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby A_Gupta » 28 Dec 2014 01:18

KLNMurthy wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:I did not vote, because the choices are too simplistic. It all depends on just how the breakage of Pakistan proceeds. I think some scenarios are highly dangerous for India and others are highly beneficial.

Isn't the manner of breakage a separate question from the core question of what outcome would be in India's interest?


The manner of breakage is integral to the outcome.

E.g., Breakage accompanied by nuclear war would be really bad. Remember, on a human losses scale, one 26/11 per day for three years continuously would dwarfed by one nuclear bomb set off in a major city. I for one would rather have a 1000 26/11s with intact Pakistan than a nuclear-war-with-Pakistan-breaking-as-a-result. In part because these 1000 26/11s won't happen.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1051
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby Rishirishi » 28 Dec 2014 03:58

The Pakjabs would keep the nukes and the water, but would be landlocked. Sindh would be deprived of water. The nukes are not really that dangerous.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby RajeshA » 28 Dec 2014 04:14

What does breaking Pakistan mean?

It means two things -

1) each part of Pakistan considered broken away is able to protect its independence
2) international recognition

For international recognition, one needs a few key Western countries willing to support this cause and willing to take a different line than say Pakistan's patrons.

Now if Pakistan was able to push out Soviet Union from Afghanistan :wink: using Stingers, then Pakjabi Army too can be thrown out of Baluchistan, Sindh and elsewhere.

In fact considering Pakistan's continued support to "Kashmiri" terrorist groups, India too should declare openly our support to Baluch integration into India. Let all Baloch groups declare their allegiance to India and express their desire Baluchistan to accede to India, then we too can go full hog and fight for Baluchis.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23574
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby SSridhar » 28 Dec 2014 11:54

There are three possibilities that one can visualize for Pakistan. Pakistan is on an autonomous, irreversible mode moving towards breakage irrespective of whether we help the process or not. Our help might hasten the process of breakage, if at all. While this is an eventuality with an uncertain timeframe, there are two other more immediate possibilities.

One of them is Pakistan, or large areas of Pakistan coming under an anti-Pakistani Army Wahhabi/salafi/Deobandi rule like the IS or some fissure develops between a resurgent AQIS/Taliban combination in power in Kabul and the Pakistani Army or the pro-sarkari proxies of LeT, LeJ, JeM, ASWJ, Punjabi Taliban et al dramatically fall-out with the Pakistani Army and decide to take over the state. And, the second is that somehow the Pakistani Army manages to keep the extra-territorial groups out of Pakistan while continuing to rule the country (frontseat or backseat) with its proxy jihadi tanzeems, the Business-as-usual model.

My contention is that whether we help the disparate freedom-fighters in Pakistan or not or whichever of the three outcomes comes to pass, this abomination with the acronym PAKISTAN is going to attack us at some point of time with nukes. The Pakistani Army knows clearly that it has only as much chance as a snowball in hell of waging a conventional war anymore and achieving its objectives. The more the passage of time, the more the chances of India concluding the conventional war faster than its 1971 campaign. So, it knows that it has to use the nuclear weapons. Its articulation of security-paranoia ever since its independence has been to somehow justify its aggression against us. The same paranoia is being used these days to highlight the yawning gulf and the inevitability of resorting to nuclear weapons by a smaller and threatened nation.

If the Wahhabi groups get the power, then that means that Khorasan has already happened and Ghazwa-e-Hind has to happen and nuclear weapons would be assumed to be a quick, easy and safe bet for the same.

In the second scenario, if the situation continues to plod on as it exists today with an uneasy relationship between the Pakistani Army and the bad Taliban, then the Pakistani Army will be tempted to use the nukes against us when the breaking-point, which will have to happen in any case, nears. In such a case, a war is certain depending upon the redlines that a Pakistan with self-inflicted mortal wounds believes that India had crossed. Pakistan's nuclear doctrine already says that significant loss of territory (though there is no definition of how much would be considered as significant) would be a reason for launching a nuclear attack on India. Now, the nukes have always been meant for India and India alone.

I expect therefore that within a decade, there will be a nuclear war as it is certain that Pakistan's imaginary redlines will be crossed by itself and that would reflexively trigger an attack on us.

Apart from this existential threat, the mere existence of Pakistan allows countries like China and the US to play it against us at a great cost to our nation. Even countries in our backyard, like Sri Lanka, are starting to do the same. This is intolerable and suffocates our strategic reach

All these point firmly in the direction of dismantling the artificial construct, even as the original powers that created this entity and their reasons for doing the same are inexorably consigned to dustbin.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby shiv » 28 Dec 2014 12:47

SSridhar wrote:I expect therefore that within a decade, there will be a nuclear war as it is certain that Pakistan's imaginary redlines will be crossed by itself and that would reflexively trigger an attack on us.

Apart from this existential threat, the mere existence of Pakistan allows countries like China and the US to play it against us at a great cost to our nation. Even countries in our backyard, like Sri Lanka, are starting to do the same. This is intolerable and suffocates our strategic reach

I agree.

And while we will be hit badly I think everything should be done to demonstrate to the world that "weak states" with nuclear weapons can hold bigger and more powerful states to ransom. The world after a nuclear attack on India should be a less safe world where the US and China are more likely to get hit by a nuclear bomb or two. The more states that are encouraged to go nuclear the better and that includes Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and some south American nations.

ChandraV
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 29 Apr 2009 07:57

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby ChandraV » 28 Dec 2014 17:50

In the foreseeable future, the best thing would be to let Pakistan continue in an UNSTABLE state without breaking it up. The choices provided do not cover this option at all.

1. Stable Pakistan is NOT in India's interests.
2. Broken-up Pakistan will not serve India's best interests in the short term.
3. An unstable Pakistan, teetering on the brink, grappling with Pakhtun issues, Baloch separatism, protests, violence and terrorism is the BEST way forward in the foreseeable future.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby RajeshA » 28 Dec 2014 18:29

SSridhar wrote:There are three possibilities that one can visualize for Pakistan. Pakistan is on an autonomous, irreversible mode moving towards breakage irrespective of whether we help the process or not. Our help might hasten the process of breakage, if at all. While this is an eventuality with an uncertain timeframe, there are two other more immediate possibilities.

One of them is Pakistan, or large areas of Pakistan coming under an anti-Pakistani Army Wahhabi/salafi/Deobandi rule like the IS or some fissure develops between a resurgent AQIS/Taliban combination in power in Kabul and the Pakistani Army or the pro-sarkari proxies of LeT, LeJ, JeM, ASWJ, Punjabi Taliban et al dramatically fall-out with the Pakistani Army and decide to take over the state. And, the second is that somehow the Pakistani Army manages to keep the extra-territorial groups out of Pakistan while continuing to rule the country (frontseat or backseat) with its proxy jihadi tanzeems, the Business-as-usual model.

My contention is that whether we help the disparate freedom-fighters in Pakistan or not or whichever of the three outcomes comes to pass, this abomination with the acronym PAKISTAN is going to attack us at some point of time with nukes. The Pakistani Army knows clearly that it has only as much chance as a snowball in hell of waging a conventional war anymore and achieving its objectives. The more the passage of time, the more the chances of India concluding the conventional war faster than its 1971 campaign. So, it knows that it has to use the nuclear weapons. Its articulation of security-paranoia ever since its independence has been to somehow justify its aggression against us. The same paranoia is being used these days to highlight the yawning gulf and the inevitability of resorting to nuclear weapons by a smaller and threatened nation.

If the Wahhabi groups get the power, then that means that Khorasan has already happened and Ghazwa-e-Hind has to happen and nuclear weapons would be assumed to be a quick, easy and safe bet for the same.

In the second scenario, if the situation continues to plod on as it exists today with an uneasy relationship between the Pakistani Army and the bad Taliban, then the Pakistani Army will be tempted to use the nukes against us when the breaking-point, which will have to happen in any case, nears. In such a case, a war is certain depending upon the redlines that a Pakistan with self-inflicted mortal wounds believes that India had crossed. Pakistan's nuclear doctrine already says that significant loss of territory (though there is no definition of how much would be considered as significant) would be a reason for launching a nuclear attack on India. Now, the nukes have always been meant for India and India alone.

I expect therefore that within a decade, there will be a nuclear war as it is certain that Pakistan's imaginary redlines will be crossed by itself and that would reflexively trigger an attack on us.

Apart from this existential threat, the mere existence of Pakistan allows countries like China and the US to play it against us at a great cost to our nation. Even countries in our backyard, like Sri Lanka, are starting to do the same. This is intolerable and suffocates our strategic reach

All these point firmly in the direction of dismantling the artificial construct, even as the original powers that created this entity and their reasons for doing the same are inexorably consigned to dustbin.


SSridhar garu,

Some variation on the above scenarios.

1) Pakistan often takes to propaganda that "Bad Taliban" is a proxy army of India. I am sure it is not. But let's say we do make this case true. What if we do take over "Bad Taliban"? They can retain their rhetoric as they want. But what if the "hit lists" they roam around with, are lists which are directly or indirectly given to them by India?! And let's say we let the Army know! What changes? Army's propaganda about "Bad Taliban", and India being involved remains the same! There is going to be no more credibility to what they say than now! Many would believe, many would not! It is more like the the boy who called wolf too many times.

The good part about this, is that Pakjabi Army cannot really offset the "Bad Taliban" by being more pious. Nobody would buy it, especially with their relationship with the USA. Their move to more Islamism is useless, as they can never outmatch the Taliban. More Islamism is not going to protect the Pakjabi Generals.

So if Pakistan Army officers start getting taken down by Taliban, their only recourse is to plead with India, not to put them on the hit list.

This is where we get more leverage on the nuclear weapons, if they have any!

We should offer those officers who help India take out those nuclear weapons with a sanctuary.

2) Whether Pakistan attacks India, or not, depends really on how much strength India projects. People change their outlook sometimes depending on who is the strongest and who can provide one with sanctuary and a life, who can protect him and his family.

So India really cannot afford to show weakness towards the Pakis. We have to be ones, whose snarl alone sends the Pakis scurrying into their holes.

The Pakistani Army would look for sanctuary with India, i.e. would be willing to convert to Indians/Hindus, when they feel like they are weak houris with uncovered holes in front of Hindu Kshatriya manhood!

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11380
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby UlanBatori » 28 Dec 2014 18:45

I vote for a Stable (former) Pakistan: 5 states at constant state of 'readiness' against each other. All in the name of ATM of course. Every able-bodied, nit-witted TFTA terrirst carrying an AK and an Arr Pee Gee and a Soosai Vest, mijjile on full Al-Ert against instrusion into their Honor and Dignity and Sovirginity (and that of their pet goats) by their 4 neighbors. And constantly seeking to Do The Will of ATM by impregnating their neighbors' goats.

What we NOW have is an unstable Pakistan: way out of equilibrium.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby johneeG » 28 Dec 2014 18:51

ChandraV wrote:In the foreseeable future, the best thing would be to let Pakistan continue in an UNSTABLE state without breaking it up. The choices provided do not cover this option at all.

1. Stable Pakistan is NOT in India's interests.
2. Broken-up Pakistan will not serve India's best interests in the short term.
3. An unstable Pakistan, teetering on the brink, grappling with Pakhtun issues, Baloch separatism, protests, violence and terrorism is the BEST way forward in the foreseeable future.


1. 'Stable pakistan' means status quo.
2. Why do you say that a broken-up Pakistan will not serve Bhaarath's best interests?
3. Pakistan tries to deal with its internal threat by:
a) directing them towards external opponents. Bhaarath happens to be the most obvious target.
b) by radicalizing the internal elements in the name of Islam. This leads to jihadhi terrorism. Again, this kind of terrorism in this region effects Bhaarath.


Pakjabis are playing a very simple game:
a) direct the internal threats towards external opponents.
b) use islam as a pretext to direct the internal threat towards external opponents.
c) insert themselves as middle-man between the internal elements and external elements. This is the most important aspect. They go towards the Pashtuns and tell them,"hey, we are all muslims and brothers. We should be united and fight the kaffirs. I'll support you to fight the kaffir." The same pakjabi then goes to the external opponent(like Bhaarath or America) and says,"hey, we are muslims but we are moderates. We are also victims of extremism just like you. Help us in fighting the extremism by giving us some compromises and money and weapons and..."

Nice scam. Breaking pakistan means removing the pakjabi middleman and dealing directly with the others. Keeping pakistan intact means keeping the pakjabi middleman intact.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby johneeG » 29 Dec 2014 07:41

Hamid Mir explaining NWFP is lost as far as Pakistan state is concerned.


The video is published on Dec 23, 2012. He says that he visited the NWFP area and saw that Pakistan state writ does not run in those areas. He challenges the Pakistan leaders to visit those areas and says that if they can atleast visit them successfully, then he will leave journalism. He says that the war against Taliban conducted by the Pakistan Army is a sham. He says that the Pakistan Army are afraid to attack Taliban and therefore they attack poor people to collect money from Americans by deceiving Americans by telling them that they are fighting the Taliban.

----
It seems that Pakistan flag is not allowed to be flown in Balochistan. And the Pakistan flag seems to be attacked in Pakhtun areas.

Pashtun people of khyber Pakhtunkhwa burn the punjabi-pakistani flag




Baloch women burn pakistan flag and shout pro BLA slogans:


baloch people burn pakistani flag in pakistan demanding free balochistan:


Read the comments in those videos in youtube. It shows the reveals the relationships and attitudes.

Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2902
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby Shanmukh » 29 Dec 2014 08:33

johneeG wrote:2. Why do you say that a broken-up Pakistan will not serve Bhaarath's best interests?


Because, 10 years after being broken, all pieces of Pakistan will be Bangladesh, exporting their excess population into India, and butchering the last remaining Hindus & Sikhs in their respective regions. There is no difference between the various regions of Pakistan when it comes to hating Yindoos. Short of destroying the mullahcracy by force and de-Islamising them, there is no hope. And we can't de-Islamise Pakistani pieces (heck, we can't reduce the power of mullahs in India, even when we have a supposed Right wing government.) So, in the final outcome, there won't be any major difference. At best, we can exchange Pakistan for multiple Bangladeshs on the western frontier. Expect millions of Punjabis, Sindhis to sneak into our Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat and create no-go zones on the border.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby abhischekcc » 29 Dec 2014 09:57

Nageshks,

The amount of anti-India feeling varies among the different ethnic groups in Pakiland. Some of them hate the Punjabi Muslims more than they hate India, but right now, since they are under the thumb of the Pakistani Punjabi army, they have to keep quite. Once these people are free from the Pakistani Punjabi army, they will resist islamization more fiercely than we give them credit for.

Also, remember that Pakistan was created specifically to resist India's rise. With the destruction of pakistan as a physical entity, the 'idea' of pakistan will also be destroyed, and with it, the fulcrum of resistance to Indian power will be gone.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8068
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby Pratyush » 29 Dec 2014 09:59

JohneeG,

I am of the opinion that unless the domestic consolidation is not in place it is in our interest's to have a stable Pakistan. Once we have consolidated domestically. We can go after the breakup of the TSP.

Because, as long as we have vote banks in in the country you will always have idiots who think that Indian Muslim == Pakistani Muslim. They will use any breakup on Pakistan to portray an anti Islam agenda. Inflaming passions and creating anarchy. This is what I meant when I said that it is an an external manifestation of a domestic issue.

However, once we have consolidated domestically, we can go after the TSP and break them up. Broken down parts can be assimilated at leisure in consolidated India.

Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6304
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby Dilbu » 29 Dec 2014 10:04

You kufrs will realise the value of a stable pakistan only on the day you eat too much butter chicken and ghee rice. Then you will cry to get near pakistan, stable or not.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby shiv » 29 Dec 2014 10:07

Dilbu wrote:You kufrs will realise the value of a stable pakistan only on the day you eat too much butter chicken and ghee rice. Then you will cry to get near pakistan, stable or not.

This is what fragmented Pakistan will look like
Image

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby abhischekcc » 29 Dec 2014 10:25

A big wild card is what will happen to the nukes pakistan is (alleged) to have, assuming the allegation is actually correct.

A broken pakistan will no longer be able to shield the anti India elements in ISI, PA, Clifton area, etc. It will become far less costly for us to go after them. ISI will no longer find funds to foment terror against India, and there will be no PA to manage the drug trade. The entire edifice of basturds will collapse.

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby ravip » 29 Dec 2014 10:33

Before their disintegration we have to take out there nukes. Tomorrow we don't want a situation where 4 fuc*ing independent states with nuke trigger in there hand threatening us, because there Islamist tendency to create caliphate will only die along with there death.

Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2622
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby Altair » 29 Dec 2014 13:13

ravip wrote:Before their disintegration we have to take out there nukes. Tomorrow we don't want a situation where 4 fuc*ing independent states with nuke trigger in there hand threatening us, because there Islamist tendency to create caliphate will only die along with there death.


If only we had 1 decent enough leader in Pakistan who can roll up Balochistan (or Sindh) and declare independence and invite Indian Pradhan Mantri to speak in their assembly (or Parliament or Jirga, who cares!) the entire Asian balance of power will shift dramatically in India's favor.
That is all it takes..1 leader who can give a finger salute to Pakjabi Army and gather mass.
Other fragments will follow suit. Ummah Psychology 101. Who has the bigger dick or purer piss?

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3635
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby KLNMurthy » 29 Dec 2014 13:23

A_Gupta wrote:
KLNMurthy wrote:Isn't the manner of breakage a separate question from the core question of what outcome would be in India's interest?


The manner of breakage is integral to the outcome.

E.g., Breakage accompanied by nuclear war would be really bad. Remember, on a human losses scale, one 26/11 per day for three years continuously would dwarfed by one nuclear bomb set off in a major city. I for one would rather have a 1000 26/11s with intact Pakistan than a nuclear-war-with-Pakistan-breaking-as-a-result. In part because these 1000 26/11s won't happen.

Isn't there an assumption here, that we would be passive bystanders while the breakage occurs as a phenomenon like a climate shift which is not all that much ours to control or manage, hence we are talking about a "nice breakage" as opposed to a "bad" nuclear breakage? And the nice breakage, if it happens, would be acceptable, but the not-nice one of course wouldn't be?

What about seeing breakage as a human process that is instigated and engineered by us, in which we work by design to achieve the "nice" adjective?

By saying that nice- or not-nice- is integral to the breakup itself, you are ruling out the instigated-engineered viewpoint. It is not clear from your response whether you are ruling it out after giving due consideration to this viewpoint and deciding it is infeasible(for reasons which you don't state) or you have simply not considered the instigated-engineered viewpoint at all.

The larger question is, is India to be the arbiter and shaper of its own destiny or is it to be a plaything of inimical forces its people and leaders are too timid to attempt to grasp and control?

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3635
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby KLNMurthy » 29 Dec 2014 13:42

nageshks wrote:
johneeG wrote:2. Why do you say that a broken-up Pakistan will not serve Bhaarath's best interests?


Because, 10 years after being broken, all pieces of Pakistan will be Bangladesh, exporting their excess population into India, and butchering the last remaining Hindus & Sikhs in their respective regions. There is no difference between the various regions of Pakistan when it comes to hating Yindoos. Short of destroying the mullahcracy by force and de-Islamising them, there is no hope. And we can't de-Islamise Pakistani pieces (heck, we can't reduce the power of mullahs in India, even when we have a supposed Right wing government.) So, in the final outcome, there won't be any major difference. At best, we can exchange Pakistan for multiple Bangladeshs on the western frontier. Expect millions of Punjabis, Sindhis to sneak into our Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat and create no-go zones on the border.

Is there any difference between Pakjab and Bangladesh as far as their degree of susceptibility to being brought under the yindoo heel is concerned?

I think there is, and BD is potentially more amenable to control in this regard. We have been unmotivated, naive, timid and incompetent in learning to seize and achieve that control. That doesn't mean that the potential is not there to be exploited. We can control and track the Bangla illegals, even coerce them into becoming Hindus, for example. All it takes is resolve to stand up to the seculars who are some of the most useless and incompetent expressions of God's sense of humor.

It is a really big reductionist error that we make when we take a binary black- and-white approach. We have problems from Pakjab and Bangladesh; we wish to not have any problems at all; therefore Bangladesh and Pakjab are equivalent as trouble-causers.

Instead, we as a people should improve our skills at working with shades of grey, living with troubles, constantly improving our position and destroying our enemies one by one. That means splitting them.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby A_Gupta » 29 Dec 2014 13:44

1. No, India would not be passive bystanders.

2. But if India could control all variables, then Pakistan would not be a problem anyway.

3. We saw the US try to engineer its Saddam problem, didn't turn out well. The US doesn't have to live with the consequences next-door to it.

4. India split Pakistan in 1971 by skillfully using circumstances that it did not entirely create. The outcome was good, though some still wish for more; and the cost no one has complained about. That is the existence proof of the possibility.

5. Can this feat be repeated? Perhaps. I'm just pointing out that there are outcomes worse than Pakistan continuing to exist un-split. But the light at the end of the Pakistan tunnel should not be a train rushing in. India can try to split Pakistan, but depending on how the scenario unfolds, may have to sometimes back off if the cost-benefit ratio shows a significant risk of going awry. Marching to an absolute fixed-in-stone goal will likely lead to disaster.

6. This "arbiter and shaper of its own destiny" - tell that to the Hapsburgs. One is arbiter of one's destiny like a ship or airplane captain, but one never has full control, and should be ready to abandon a flight path instead of doggedly flying into it.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3635
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby KLNMurthy » 29 Dec 2014 14:14

A_Gupta wrote:1. No, India would not be passive bystanders.

2. But if India could control all variables, then Pakistan would not be a problem anyway.

3. We saw the US try to engineer its Saddam problem, didn't turn out well. The US doesn't have to live with the consequences next-door to it.

4. India split Pakistan in 1971 by skillfully using circumstances that it did not entirely create. The outcome was good, though some still wish for more; and the cost no one has complained about. That is the existence proof of the possibility.

5. Can this feat be repeated? Perhaps. I'm just pointing out that there are outcomes worse than Pakistan continuing to exist un-split. But the light at the end of the Pakistan tunnel should not be a train rushing in. India can try to split Pakistan, but depending on how the scenario unfolds, may have to sometimes back off if the cost-benefit ratio shows a significant risk of going awry. Marching to an absolute fixed-in-stone goal will likely lead to disaster.

6. This "arbiter and shaper of its own destiny" - tell that to the Hapsburgs. One is arbiter of one's destiny like a ship or airplane captain, but one never has full control, and should be ready to abandon a flight path instead of doggedly flying into it.


I am in full agreement when you say that there should be constant review and room for flexibility in any endeavor to shape India's destiny and that of Pakistan. And prudence rather than rashness and brittleness should be our guides. I don't know much about Hapsburgs but Pakistan's own experience should be enough of an object lesson in this regard. And while I take the point about the American-engineered disasters in Iraq and other places, we might usefully remind ourselves that in rather important and significant ways, we are actually not Americans.

What should be properly integral to the project to break Pakistan should be a resolve to not be stupid while we are about it. There will be factors that can't be anticipated and managed even with a diligent execution of that resolve. How we survive and prevail when the events generated by those factors occur depends on our mettle as a civilized and strong people. In turn, that mettle is deeply intertwined with our self-perception about those cultural strengths. It is in this last aspect that i find near-unanimous agreement among the influential classes that we are, in fact, weak, and destined to remain weak as a people and a nation. This self-perception drives and informs nearly every thought and action of ours as a nation.

(Modi's election has opened up the possibility that the usually unregarded masses of India may in fact have a different perception. This phenomenon has been dismissed as fascism by the influential classes. I am betting that it isn't, and on the contrary the blossoming of a long-repressed positive human spirit.)

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby A_Gupta » 29 Dec 2014 14:33

FYI, also posted in STFUP thread:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jul/14guru.htm
quote:

Till 1977 the Indira Gandhi government actively worked for the democratic aspirations of the Baluchis and Pathans. Baluchi fighters were trained in the deserts of Rajasthan. We also provided them with financial and diplomatic assistance. With Bangladesh free, Indira Gandhi reckoned that Sind, Baluchistan and Pakhtunistan should follow.

After her electoral defeat in 1977, Vajpayee as the Janata government's foreign minister made his first misguided and woolly-headed attempt to normalize relations with Pakistan. We now remember Lahore as his first, but that is not correct. Indian support to various movements struggling for self-determination in Punjabi-dominated Pakistan was withdrawn. L K Advani was as much a comrade in arms then as he is now for he did not protest even when G M Syed's Jiye Sind movement was betrayed. He was quite pleased with being able to go to his hometown of Karachi and visit his old school.

End quote.


It is in this last aspect that i find near-unanimous agreement among the influential classes that we are, in fact, weak, and destined to remain weak as a people and a nation. This self-perception drives and informs nearly every thought and action of ours as a nation.


By this token this was not the self-perception of Mrs. Gandhi then, it is of Vajpayee-Advani-Manmohan Singh and that whole class of politicians.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby A_Gupta » 29 Dec 2014 14:58

^^^ 37+ lost years!

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby ravip » 29 Dec 2014 15:55

Altair wrote:
If only we had 1 decent enough leader in Pakistan who can roll up Balochistan (or Sindh) and declare independence and invite Indian Pradhan Mantri to speak in their assembly (or Parliament or Jirga, who cares!) the entire Asian balance of power will shift dramatically in India's favor.
That is all it takes..1 leader who can give a finger salute to Pakjabi Army and gather mass.
Other fragments will follow suit. Ummah Psychology 101. Who has the bigger dick or purer piss?


If it is the Pakistan army that is holding their country together, then who else better than us can beat there ass off. All that we need to do is keep pressure on paki army at broder (inch by inch take kashmir) and simultaneously open up fronts in balouch and sind. Already nwfp is a lost state so let it go with Afghan.

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 221
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby govardhanks » 29 Dec 2014 16:22

The outcome of breakage might lead more or less kind of civil war in here, but that's beneficial eventually, it should be a calculated risk. More and more destabilization of pak will break it eventually not in our hand;it is bound to happen in future, but as already mentioned we can speed up the process.

Alternatively, we can show off our prosperous achievements, scientific developments every now and then and try to change pak people's mindset for development, which is complete against talibanization and eventually let them both fight each other, we can take care of the winner at the end. It is pretty dharmic too..
^^^^^
This was my view but it is changed now break'em they won't learn anything,history has proved several times!! When whole world can't change them what can we do, nuke'em, frankly out of fear of pak nukes reaching India, which is the only possibility, we can just take a U turn and burn them up once and for all, in that way we might have brought a peaceful future of Indian without nuclear fallout for at least few more decades!!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52582
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

Postby ramana » 29 Dec 2014 18:41

The. thread title is moot for Pakistan is headed for break up. The real question is to manage the fallout. TSP Nukes are bokwas.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests