Is breaking Pakistan in Indian interests?

[A_Gupta]

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

I guess "manage the fallout" includes establishing strong relationships with the likely leaders of the pieces? Who are the Sheikh Mujibur Rahmans of the parts of Pakistan?

[KLNMurthy]

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

A crumbly mountain under attack by winds will break up over time with occasional landslides, and one can "manage the fallout" by being alert about the falling rocks--e.g put up warning signs, disallow construction in the area, or budget for rescue and relief, insurance etc. for landslide victims etc.

Or one can decide to pre-emptively break the mountain into smaller fractal hillocks by directing super-forceful winds at the mountain using well-directed explosives. The hillocks will have the same properties--still made of crumbly rock, subject to wind erosion(or human-engineered explosive winds for that matter) but their potential for damage to humans living around them will be less, due to reduced scale.

There may be more sand sliding down to ground level instead of being halted in the mid-levels of the previously integral mountain (analogous to immigrants from BD for example) but one could have plans to constructively integrate the sand into surrounding human structures--it may require political planning also, to avoid the formation of sand mafias etc.

For Asimov fans, it is a Seldonist viewpoint: take control of an inevitable psychohistoric process, but with a twist: don't aim for the eventual resurrection of the Empire but ensure that it never gets resurrected.

[ramana]

Bingo! Was hoping some one will point out.

One way of thinking is that Independence of India was Reconquista by Bharat. However the early founding fathers ushered in the idea of India before its time without resolving the inherent instabilities.
Its for the traders to come up with solutions.

BTW PVNR was a true Seldonist.

[KLNMurthy]

Bingo! Was hoping some one will point out.

One way of thinking is that Independence of India was Reconquista by Bharat. However the early founding fathers ushered in the idea of India before its time without resolving the inherent instabilities.
Its for the traders to come up with solutions.

BTW PVNR was a true Seldonist.

Interesting. As an aside, do you think, widely-read intellectual powerhouse as he was, he was familiar with The Foundation? Or he may have read Gibbon's monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which was the original inspiration for The Foundation?

[Philip]

The "break-up" of Pakistan is surely in India's interests. "Breaking" Pak ourselves requires a very complex strategy and assets required to do so which may be beyond us acting singlehandedly.As long as Uncle Sam gives Pak billions,"to fight terrorism",actually to promote terror using the ISI to do its dirty work,Pak will be kept afloat by the US and China.The Saudis too have a deep interest as their nuke capability has Paki fingerprints. The best personae to break up Pak are the Pakis themselves and they're doing quite well at the moment.We have to be patient,but establish a ring of nations encircling Pak to constrain it and from where we and they can counter Paki terror directed against us.In this Iran and the Central Asian states ,along with Russia are vital. Our commitment to supporting the Afghan regime must never waver.Pak's fault lines must be widened when opportunity presents itself.

The popular US Homeland series ,where a US intel head calls Pak "sh*thole" indicates that even in Uncle Sam's domain there are those who detest the TSP.

[govardhanks]

The. The real question is to manage the fallout. TSP Nukes are bokwas.

Oh yes! they are not TSP nukes by the way, someone paid and someone went on shopping spree, but possibility also exists shopping list is large enough. Eventual reality is TSP is nuke power although not by self invention or design. So, it is always good to be prepared for actual that fallout.

I wish it would have been titled as " Is breaking Pakistan in World's/Asian Interest?", ultimately World/Asia minus Pak, is much peaceful and happy, well when terrorism is taken in account.

[devesh]

JohneeG,

Your poll lacks important nuance. It lacks details. We've broken Pakistan before. The broken part also became Jihadized. I don't want Pakistan to break. I want them to destroy all dissenting Islamic sects (Ahmadiyas, etc) and coalesce under 1 umbrella. I voted for option A: Pakistan needs to be stable in its existing state as a destroyer of all diversity within its boundaries. No more nautanki of preserving the Jihadi memes in smaller political units which actually become a welcoming pot for foreign intervention. Their secular pretensions making it hard for H to see them for what they are.

[devesh]

In the process if Pak delivers a thorough kick to USA and reduce them to mute external "buyers" of services, it will be all the better. Any move against Pak must come with single goal of destroying the roots of Jihad in ALL Pakistan territory.

Further, you cannot take "ownership" of a process that hasn't begun yet. The process of Pak breaking is nowhere in sight. On the contrary all signs point in the singular direction of the entire Pak population tacitly acknowledging supremacy of Jihad as an ideology & way of life. The terror unleashed by Pak army is not leading to its break. I only see the population further submitting to Jihad as "required discipline".

Prematurely "taking ownership" is more disastrous than even inaction. Our confusion vis-a-vis the source of Jihad will tarr the "project" in future generations' eyes.

[johneeG]

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.

So, was it wrong to break pakistan in 1971 according to you?

You are talking about de-islamising which is a total different ball game. I am not talking about that. But, let me give you my understanding of how it is generally done:
Instead of islam, let me use Hindhuism as an example(because it is secular and progressive as long as Hindhuism is the victim of such strategies).

If I had to wipe out Hindhuism, what would I do?
a) Deny one unifying factor to Hindhuism. Deny that Hindhuism is a religion. Deny that Hindhus have common interests(including social and political interests).
b) promote sectarianism, regionalism, casteism, ...etc. In short, promote identity non-Hindhu criteria and deny identity based on Hindhu criteria.
c) pit each sect, region, caste, group, ...etc against the other.
d) Weaken the priests and monks who happen to be the main source of a religion.
e) Discourage the Sanskruth language.
f) Provide anti-Hindhu education and consolidate it by anti-Hindhu media(print and electronic including the popular media like movies, music, ...etc).
g) Then, once the Hindhus are alienated from Hindhuism, they become easy to convert to any other ideology.

This above process can be easily repeated with any religion or ideology in the world.

Now, if a country has been formed on the basis of a particular ideology or religion, then what do you do?
The first step is to break the country into smaller manageable parts by supporting dissident groups. Then, all the steps in the previous process can repeated in the same manner.

First step to solving any problem is to break it down to manageable pieces.

Even if you are saying that your ultimate goal is de-islamisation, then I still don't understand how the present status quo is de-islamising? Infact, it is islamising. Because the Pakjabi army is islamizing the Balochis and Pashtuns to weaken the Baloch and Pakhtun nationalism.

Further, isn't easier for Bhaarath to manage Bangladhesh then to manage to Pakistan? If Bangladhesh were still east Pakistan, wouldn't it be more unmanageable. If Bhaarath cannot even manage Bangladhesh, then it just shows the importance of breaking down pakistan.

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.

What kind of domestic consolidation are you envisioning? And when and how will it happen?

The reason given by you to oppose breaking up Pakistan seems not good enough to me.

JohneeG,

Your poll lacks important nuance. It lacks details.

Its basic policy decision and therefore the details will come after the policy decision. If breaking Pakistan is in Bhaarath's interests, then Bhaarath has to work towards breaking pakistan. If status quo is in Bhaarath's interests, then Bhaarath has to work towards keeping the status quo. How it should be done is the next question.

The question is not about 'what will happen to Pakistan?' The question is 'what should be the path that Bhaarath should take in regard to Pakistan?'

We've broken Pakistan before. The broken part also became Jihadized.

So, it shows that breaking Pakistan will not necessarily stop jihadism. The source of jihadism is petro-dollars. In the region, Pakistan plays an important part in jihadism. Weakening Pakistan definitely weakens jihadis.

I don't want Pakistan to break. I want them to destroy all dissenting Islamic sects (Ahmadiyas, etc) and coalesce under 1 umbrella. I voted for option A: Pakistan needs to be stable in its existing state as a destroyer of all diversity within its boundaries. No more nautanki of preserving the Jihadi memes in smaller political units which actually become a welcoming pot for foreign intervention. Their secular pretensions making it hard for H to see them for what they are.

So, you want a stable united jihadhi Pakistan. But, I didn't understand how a stable united jihadhi pakistan is in Bhaarath's interests? Please explain how a stable united jihadhi pakistan is in Bhaarath's interests?

Does that mean that you are saying Bhaarath should not have broken Pakistan in 1971 and instead should have kept Pakistan united?

----
It seems that some people are opposed to breaking pakistan because
'it is not a solution to jihadism.'

Arrey, this is only the first step. The first step is to break the entity which is the main supporter of jihadhism in the region. It is not the final step. But, the final step cannot come without the first step.


----
Balochistan Was Occupied By Pakistan & It's A Shame India Isn't Helping Balochis And Sindhis - Tarek


Tarek Fatah explains that while the people wanting to liberate Sindh from the Pakjabi army are sitting on the footpath in Nai Dilli, Hurriyats(who want to break separate Kashmir from Bhaarath) get to meet Pakistan Ambassador in 5 star hotels.

Hamid Mir speaks truth in Balochistan Conference


Hamid Mir explains the Balochistan situation.

An Indian Friend about Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch

In the above video, an Indian is talking about the leader of Balochistan liberation army and why Bhaarath should support to Balochistan freedom struggle.

[RajeshA]

On the contrary all signs point in the singular direction of the entire Pak population tacitly acknowledging supremacy of Jihad as an ideology & way of life.

This means they all recognize the supremacy of terror over everything else. That makes the maths even easier, for it means, it is all about who can incur/commit a higher level of 'Khauf' (terror) on the other.

A higher level of terror liberates one from the lower level of terror and the ideology behind it, and one embraces the ideology and power behind the higher level of terror, i.e. if suitably demanded.

[Shanmukh]

So, was it wrong to break pakistan in 1971 according to you?

No-it was not wrong to break Pakistan in 1971. But the terms on which we did it were utterly wrong. The only groups we should have been concerned about were the Buddhist Chakmas and the Hindus of Bangladesh. As it was, we have ended up subsidising the Bangladeshi Jihadis against India. Those who were once the Pakistani problem are today India's problem. Under no circumstances should we have created the whole East Pakistan a new state, a state which we essentially would have to subsidise. We should have left them together - they deserve each other.

Au contraire, we should have demanded and got 20% (this was the Hindu population of Bangladesh in 1971) of Bangladesh as a Hindu homeland (say everything west of the Ganga, possibly Barisal too - see the Bir Bango movement). And then, we should have demanded a Buddhist homeland and got the Chittagong Hill Tracts as a Buddhist country. We should have demanded repatriation of the refugees by faith, and those involved in the land grab scheme of the 1920s (the swap of the Mymensinghia colonists of the undivided Goalpara, Kamrup & Nagaon, in exchange for India rehabilitating the Hindu refugees who had fled under Pakistani violence). We could possibly have got a few vital places in Kashmir (like Haji Pir, Skardu, etc), but that anything more than that would be impossible, I am afraid. US, and even USSR, opposed us trying to extract concessions on Kashmir using our eastern gains for gains in Kashmir. Lastly, we should have imposed a force limitation in E. Pak or even demilitarisation. We should have fenced them in, and let that sore fester for Pak, as they vainly tried to contain that infection in their eastern part.

[devesh]

johneeG,

geopolitics is half timing, half sequential justification for current and future moves. together, you "create" your geopolitics.

I hope Pakistan succeeds in its quest to impose its version of Sunni thought on all Pakis. I hope that in the process it destroys "sects" of Islam which it considers heretical (to Hindus this means nothing, because even those "sects" took part in the rape and pillage of Partition). in the end, I hope that the cognitive dissonance in the minds of Hindus when they look at Pakis, also reduces to "manageable" level. the more "homogeneous" the enemy appears, the easier it is to "identify" them as the enemy.

I don't want India to prematurely stop Pakistan State's avowed mission of Islamization. what happened in BD was that the Pak State disappeared, but another Jihadi State replaced it. I don't want same thing happening in Paki territory.

do you think the current Indian State has the WILL or even UNDERSTANDING of what needs to be done to Pak to permanently neutralize Islam and prevent another BD? you can introspect for yourself and tell me if you think the current Indian State is fit to begin the process of "dealing" with Pak in more than a defensive manner.

even now, Modi/BJP is fundamentally responding in a defensive manner. yes, the response has been overwhelming such as in the recent border actions by BSF, but it's only tactical superiority being demonstrated without any restraint. this does not necessarily mean that either the Forces or the Govt in power has the strategic outlook to strike at the "roots" of Jihad. not merely the overt form of the existing Paki State.

I will provide another historic auxiliary: the exhaustion and formal withdrawal of Mughal Armies after the Maratha-Mughal war did not in anyway exhaust the ability of Islam to find other regional elites to fill the political role. the central power fell. but the individual pieces fell to Subahs, in the absence of a Hindu politico-military power to neutralize the very foundations of Islamic power.

BD is almost an exact repeat of the same. and if Pak breaks down, make no mistake you'll simply have 4 or 5 regional "subahs" replacing the political power of Islamabad. and like BD, they might pretend "secularism" to keep the Hindus confused.

Breaking is not the solution. the dissolution of Pak with its existing boundaries and simultaneous incorporation into an Indian "protectorate" is the only solution. the form and mission of the "protectorate" can be hashed out in time (no need to discuss it here).

[SBajwa]

Devesh

you are totally misreading it!! It is in the nature of all type of Islam to eventually become "Wahabis" and serve Arabians through all means (money if looted from non-muslims via jizya, zakat, hajj, etc eventually ends up there)., Thus at this time in nPakistan we have shias vs sunnis vs rest as Sunnis are consolidating!! Actually this is the best time as OPEC has decided to keep the production of oil same and thus petroleum prices are dropping everyday.

What we need to do is !!

1. Destroy Pakistan armed forces now!
2. Destroy Bangladesh armed forces now!

and then slowly encourage the Dargahs, qawallis, movies, saris, music, etc., so that Arabian Islam is replaced (dilute them)., and for that first you must destroy their armed forces (Puki army and Jarnails).

90% of Pakistans population is not LET rather other way around they watch indian movies, songs and go to dargahs to listen to qawallis and their children watch indian customs, etc. The people making noises are the Arabic Rabid Sunni Mullahs!!!

so it it will be and it was in India's interest in 1947 to break nPakistan and Bangladesh! the sooner the better!! with less blood!!

[johneeG]

Why the existence of Pakistan is not in India’s interest
By Dr Amarjit Singh
Issue Net Edition | Date : 30 Oct , 2014



Pakistan has been a thorn in India’s left side for 65 years, and amazingly, India has tolerated its pain and irritation, against most odds of human nature. After four wars and multiple proxy wars waged by Pakistan, it still doesn’t count as much for India – a big elephant that is difficult to move. India’s Pakistan policy practices restraint and constraint against an enemy that hates it, that was born in conflict against India in brutal bloodshed, and even now hopes one day to overcome a weak India.


Despite all the difficulties that Pakistan has faced and faces – internal political turmoil and terrorist threats, external issues in Afghanistan, an economy that is on the verge of collapse, and being condemned around the world for its export of terrorism – Pakistan still has the energy and gumption to promote proxy wars in India via Nepal, Bangladesh, and, of course, Kashmir. Which concept of rationality in the modern world can accept Pakistan’s belligerent and incongruent worldview, at a time when the civilized world wishes peace and economic prosperity against a threatening climate, growing population, an oncoming oil crisis, and worldwide economic woes?

By all facts and accounts, Pakistan has been sapping India’s productive and psychic energy every day for 65 years. It is somewhat true that Pakistan has been bleeding India by a thousand cuts. Look at the billions of hours of productive time and newspaper print and headlines wasted on a Pakistan that is an affliction for India and perhaps the world. None of the energy spent on Pakistan counts towards India’s GDP or improved industrial productivity, nor does it improve the economic position of India. The industrial production of India, creativeness of its engineers and thinkers, and ability to gain a foothold in the world has been compromised because a Pakistan exists that threatens war on the subcontinent, distracts national pursuits for excellence, and thereby diminishes foreign investment and confidence in India. For India to grow and have peace and confidence, it must get rid of the Pakistan that obstructs it in many ways, even standing against it in its quest for a rightful position on the permanent Security Council, and one that tried vehemently to oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Pakistan is more dangerous as an independent state positioned to be taken over by terrorist elements supported by a manipulative ISI than under Indian control. In fact, the USA must find merit in the argument that it can better contain the terrorists and Taliban with India controlling them than they themselves. While the USA realizes that Pakistan is duplicitous with its terrorists, the USA is unable to see through the haze that can only be seen by those who have lived with Pakistan and in Pakistan’s neighborhood forever, such as India. Neither does Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai trust Pakistan, nor do the Iranian Shia’s have much love for Pakistan’s Sunnis, even though the Iranians acquired nuclear technology from A Q Khan. A Pakistan that doesn’t exist is safer for the world than a Pakistan that does.

Once every few years, Pakistan feigns interest for diplomacy and negotiations (cricket diplomacy, bus diplomacy, this or that) and often brings up ethnic and language similarity with India to suit its temporary interests – only to back off at the last minute and plot new proxy wars or battles against India. This is of no use to India; in fact, it is a hindrance in India’s quest to be a self-confident power in and of itself. Pakistan presumably hates India and starts an anxiety disorder each time it realizes that Kashmir may slip from it is grip. Now, in another deceptive move, Pakistan recommends that India withdraw from Siachen – a mistake India can ill afford to make after the mistakes of Haji Pir and the return of 93,000 POW’s. Withdraw from Siachen for what? Only for Pakistan and China to occupy it in a sudden move before the onset of a future China-Pakistan joint invasion of Ladakh? None of the satellite monitoring or UN observation systems will be effective at that time, and China and Pakistan will be staring down at Leh and the valley of Ladakh in free sport. The sooner that India can realize it cannot ever trust Pakistan on anything, the healthier it is for India. In that vein, the dialogue and negotiation with Pakistan that is thrust on India by the USA, only helps to prolong the inevitable and the burning pain. The only way to put Pakistan in its place is to possibly have no truck with it, perhaps even not trade with it. One reason that India often enters into negotiations with Pakistan is because its diplomats need to generate work for themselves to justify their existence; also, the USA quite often exerts pressure on India in its usual patronizing attitude to negotiate with Pakistan. This is not healthy.

Among the most feared aspects of a war with Pakistan is the nuclear element. Now that India has allowed Pakistan to move ahead in this department in the 1970s and 1980s, and failed to implement Operation Brasstacks into a fully fledged invasion of Pakistan, India has to bite the bullet on this score. Though Pakistan threatens India with nuclear retaliation in an all-out war, that too must not hold India back against trashing Pakistan. Whatever others may believe, my opinion is simply that it is better for India to brave a costly nuclear attack by Pakistan, and get it over with even at the cost of tens of millions of deaths, than suffer ignominy and pain day in and day out through a thousand cuts and wasted energy in unrealized potential. This is not to say that the objective can’t be achieved without a nuclear war. In this respect, India’s no-first strike policy stands it in very good stead. In fact the process objective must be to achieve the strategic objective through conventional war. Without the elimination of Pakistan, India may never become a secure nation where the mind is held high without fear, and cannot ever hope to attract the type of foreign investment it needs for its economic growth. In addition, the psychological boost that India will get by eliminating Pakistan is unequal in and of itself—one which can propel India into the status of a future, stable, democratic, competitive, responsible, and secular nation.

Analysts tend to ask what will happen to a Pakistan if India defeats it in battle. The answer is not complicated at all: Baluchistan will become independent, but under Indian security arrangements; Kashmir will revert to India; Sindh and West Punjab will be de-weaponized and become special states under Indian protection; and the entire NWFP handed over to the Pathans for a Pakhtoonistan that includes Southern Afghanistan and Kandahar. This will have ramifications on Afghanistan, as well, which may then naturally divide into two for its own peace and stability; Afghanistan’s northern areas consisting of the Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazaras, need to form their own country because they have little in emotional and filial bond with the Pathans. This whole reorganization will change the boundaries of the region, but one that has to be undertaken which will be a welcome change to the current bloodshed, turmoil, and export of terrorism. Very often, major change is needed to change the status quo when minor changes don’t succeed.

Much of this is against formal Indian foreign and security policy. The United Nations might also tend to balk at the destruction of a nation member, though it is likely that the West may not shed tears at this. But, this article is not being written to agree with Indian policies, or to present a framework within those policies, or to appease those who worship the Indian mentality. Quite to the contrary, a reformation in Indian policies is presented, and perhaps indicated, one that can give confidence and bring esteem to its people. It is in this light that a new paradigm is advanced. For instance, for long, the Indian policy has been to not engage in cross-border attacks, especially since Prime Minister Inder Gujral passed an ordinance to that effect in the late 1990s. But, such instructions are counter-productive, and Pakistan has taken full advantage of that policy by increasing its own cross-border infiltration. It is to be pointed out that Indian security policies are nothing to be proud of simply for the sake of pride in government. Policies that trample on sustainable Indian pride must be dismantled. The writer feels that the implementation of this new paradigm is ripe for action at this current time where Pakistan is reeling under internal imbalances. If a boxer will not knock out his opponent when the opponent is dizzy and imbalanced, then other opportunities are only guesswork.

Subsequently, India must realize that it has deep religious and philosophical opposition in countries beyond Pakistan to the West. Saudi Arabia finances and supports Pakistan in every way possible and depends on Pakistan for its nuclear shield; the Arab nations have deep links to Pakistan. Discussion on what India needs to do in countries west of Pakistan is best left to another article. However, it can be well understood that India needs to fully secure its western flank and neutralize all threats from the west in order to concentrate better on China and Tibet, and thus strengthen its hand on the eastern flank. Thus, India needs to confront the uncertain future boldly, be a force in the region, spread the message of humanitarian rights and equal opportunity, project itself in the interests of peace and equanimity in the region, and avail of opportunities long before it is itself divided and dismembered.

Thus, the ideal planning option for India is to invest heavily on liberating Pakistan, invest massively in engineering enterprise and education that can advance indigenous armament production, and double or triple its ship building programs and shipyards in which it has exceptional expertise and capability; and it must plan this in ten years, for the plan to be effective to carry a punch. These actions will ipso facto stimulate Indian industry, GDP growth, and bring employment and happiness to its people. Very few educated people understand that money printed but used for stimulating indigenous manufacturing industries actually stimulates the economy, while inflation is checked by means such as control of interest rates and free trade with South East Asian nations. For India to throw its money into foreign nations for expensive defense procurement does not sound like wisdom in action, though one cannot deny that importing defense equipment may be necessary on occasion. India actually begs for enlightened leadership that has moral fiber and a spine to go with it. It is time for the politicians to stop squabbling, for the generals to relearn service in the name of the nation rather than being involved in corruption scandals, and for the nation to get its priorities right and initiate industrial, agricultural, and trade reform. Eventually, for India to succeed, Pakistan must be out of the picture and cease to exist for peace on earth, and India must actively work towards that objective rather than waiting passively in spectator stands.

Link

[devesh]

ok johneeG, you've won me over. what's the first step? how do we start this process? you can simply highlight some diplomatic processes.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm genuinely interested to know how you envision this process. if it has to be kept vague for obvious reasons, that's fine.

[Tuvaluan]

First step to this is to empower all the groups that can further weaken any institution in pakistan that can rally large groups of people across state boundaries. Currently, the paki army is rich enough and strong enough to do this in Punjab and Sindh, and even there the influence is fading. Precursor to achieving anything at all is strong human intelligence that can feed the Indian govt. about all the pressure points and the weaknesses in pakistan. That way, the whole "people-to-people" contacts may have had some positive effect from India's standpoint -- it is also why the Paki army does not want such contacts that allow Indians into paki territory. Clearly, having the ability to indirectly support/funds the Afghan groups that hate paki army and the anti-paki army taliban will help, not the worthless a$$wipes in the US govt. will allow it, even if it means getting their own citizens killed by the pakis. So India would have to actively work against US meddling in Af-Pak to achieve any of this and given how the LeT is being given a clean chit by Kerry today, the US must be considered a threat and an enemy as far as Pakistan related affairs are considered.

[johneeG]

ok johneeG, you've won me over. what's the first step? how do we start this process? you can simply highlight some diplomatic processes.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm genuinely interested to know how you envision this process. if it has to be kept vague for obvious reasons, that's fine.

Steps:
1) Highlight the continuing use of extreme force of Pakjabi army on Balochis and others in international forums and our own media.

2) Openly declare that such a suppression is wrong and must be stopped immediately.

3) The next step is to give sanctuary to leaders who may seek refuge.

4) Assert that Pakjabi Army is not in control of many of the regions on ground and therefore the ground situation must be recognized and hence the people in control on ground should be accepted as de-facto rulers in areas like Balochistan and Pakthukwa.

5) Engage the de-facto rulers in any issue regarding their regions instead of talking to Pakjabi govt.

I think these are the initial steps which will lead to the only eventuality.