Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan-July 10, 2015

[SSridhar]

Tufail Ahmed: Pak's Continuing War against Indian Civilisation

http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns ... 949359.ece

Excellent article. I am adding it to the First Post of this thread.

[SSridhar]

The hazards of summit diplomacy - G.Parthasarathy, Business Line

The recent terrorist attack in Gurdaspur district has outraged public opinion across India. There is now credible evidence that the terrorists came from across the international border. The modus operandi of the terrorists was clearly that of the Lashkar-e-taiba.

What is, however, significant is that the attack came in the wake of intensified shelling by Pakistani forces that followed the Modi-Nawaz Summit in Ufa.

Hafiz Mohammed Saeed was scathingly critical in describing the outcome of the Ufa Summit, as a virtual surrender.

The army, operating as always, from the background, got its protégés to accuse Nawaz of virtual betrayal of the “Kashmir Jihad.” General Raheel Shareef, who has lost an uncle and brother, in conflicts with India, is known to breathe fire about India and to have blocked moves for promoting economic ties.

Targets of criticism

No Indian Prime Minister has escaped unscathed from vitriolic criticism that virtually always follows a Summit meeting with his Pakistani counterpart. If Jawaharlal Nehru was pilloried for the Indus Waters Treaty, Indira Gandhi was in the firing line for allegedly bartering away the fruits of military victory in Bangladesh, while at Shimla.

Narasimha Rao was criticised for “doing nothing” to improve ties with Pakistan (he had a healthy distaste for Benazir Bhutto’s raving and ranting). Vajpayee was labelled as naïve when the Kargil conflict followed his Lahore Summit with Nawaz Sharif and the attack on India’s Parliament soon followed, after his disastrous Agra Summit with General Musharraf. Manmohan Singh faced flak even from his own Party, after the Sharm el Sheikh Summit.

Modi has faced a similar criticism after the Ufa meeting with Nawaz Sharif. But, a close scrutiny of Joint Statement and the post-Summit remarks of Pakistan’s National Security Adviser Sartaj Aziz reveal that India largely got what it wanted from the Summit.

The most significant outcome of the UFA meeting was an agreement to focus attention predominantly on ending cross-border intrusions, infiltration and terrorism.

New Delhi thus succeeded in its aim of discarding the mindless Composite Dialogue process. Humanitarian issues like release of detained fishermen and promoting religious tourism -- Hindus from India visiting sites like Katas Raj and Sadhu Belo and Pakistani Sufis visiting Ajmer — also figured in the Ufa talks.

Sartaj Aziz made it clear that the meeting in Ufa was “not the formal start of any dialogue process.” He referred to setting the stage to “identify areas where the two countries could promote cooperation right away, in order to reduce tensions and hostility”.

It was agreed that the NSA’s of India and Pakistan would soon meet and to have early meetings of Heads of Paramilitary Border Personnel and DGMOs, to ensure peace and tranquillity along the LoC and International Border.

This enables India to stick to an agenda primarily designed to meet its concerns on terrorism. It is, however, clear that Sartaj Aziz will dwell substantively on Pakistan’s allegations about Indian actions, on this score.

While this issue will take time to address and may involve future contacts between the ISI and R&AW, one hopes that meetings between senior representatives of military and paramilitary forces will bring an end to infiltration.

But, a note of caution on this is required. There is nothing to suggest the hawkish General Raheel Shareef, will be in a hurry to rein in the likes of the Lashkar e Taiba.

Learn the right lesson

While the Modi government has made it clear that it will respond in more than ample measure to cross border intrusions and infiltration, this is not a new phenomenon.

It is often forgotten that the Indian response to infiltration, between 2000 and 2003, was so devastating, that is areas such as Neelum River Valley daily life was regularly brought to a standstill.

It was this policy that forced General Musharraf to ask for a cease fire in November 2003. But, rather than exult about this development, Vajpayee got pressure mounted by the Americans for Musharraf to pledge that “territory under Pakistan’s control” would not be used for terrorism against India. This is a lesson that those who loudly articulate a policy of “uninterrupted dialogue at all costs” would do well to understand and learn from.

The US and China are now playing an active, behind the scenes role in shaping the discourse between India and Pakistan.

They are also working together, in getting Pakistan to encourage its Taliban protégés to enter into a meaningful dialogue, with the all too willing and subservient regime of President Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai.

Both the US and China are engaged in boosting Pakistan’s military capabilities supplying submarines, attack helicopters, F16s and JF 17 fighters. It is no wonder General Raheel Shareef is confident that US protestations about Pakistan sponsored terrorism are not to be taken seriously.

Since the dialogue process agreed to in Ufa focuses exclusively on infiltration and terrorism, the proposed meetings between NSAs, DGMOs and the heads of paramilitary border forces should be held, while making it clear that there can be no discussions on other issues, till there is substantive movement forward on these concerns.

What needs to be done

At the same time, measures need to taken, which need not be spelt out explicitly, to raise the costs for the Pakistani establishment, within and beyond their country’s borders.

The message to powers such as the US and China should be that whatever their compulsions, we will take all necessary steps, to safeguard the sanctity of our borders.

Direct pressure on Pakistan needs to be supplemented by regional action.

India should ensure that other South Asian neighbours will make it clear to Islamabad that Saarc will become institutionally irrelevant, if Islamabad pursues its narrow objectives of undermining India, in the lead up to the Islamabad Saarc Summit, by advocating membership of Saarc for China, or resisting efforts to promote connectivity and economic integration.

India has substantial and expanding cooperation, both bilaterally and sub-regionally, and common borders, with all its eastern Saarc neighbours. Pakistan has neither the resources, or connectivity, or capabilities, to match Indian influence in the region.

Its duplicity is legendary in its western Islamic neighbours. There are tensions on its borders with Iran and Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia has been less than pleased by Pakistan’s failure to fulfil assurances of support, on its actions in Yemen.

The writer is a former high commissioner to Pakistan

[Falijee]

M.Q.M Writes Complaint Letter Of Political Victimization To United Nations Sec. General - (around 6 hours ago)

And In retaliation

Sind Police Declare Supremo Altaf Hussein As Absconder (around 13 minutes ago !)

Seems that screws are slowly and surely tightening around Altaf and his party

[Falijee]

Wall Street Journal Reveals Taliban Succession Feud And 'Deep State' Shenigans


‘Split emerged over successor, as son disclosed Mullah Omar’s death’

WASHINGTON – Mohammad Yacoub, the son of the Taliban’s founder recently gathered a small group of commanders in a madrassa outside Quetta and made an astonishing revelation that his father Mullah Mohammad Omar was dead, the Wall Street Journal newspaper reported.

Until that day in late July, only a handful of top Taliban leaders and family members knew of his death, which the Afghan government said occurred in April 2013. But Mohammad Yacoub and others had maintained the secret to keep alive the legend of the commander, the US paper quoted three people familiar with the episode as saying.

But instead of rallying the group around a new leader, that threaten to fragment Afghanistan’s most formidable fighting force. At the meeting, splits immediately surfaced between Mullah Omar’s apparent successor, Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, and those who challenged his appointment – including the late leader’s son Yacoub, his brother Mullah Abdul Manan and Mullah Abdul Qayum Zakir – his longtime rival and a powerful former head of Taliban’s military commission.

Mullah Manan left the meeting in protest, said a member of the leadership council who was in the room. “He (Manan) stood up and said: This man cannot become my brother’s successor. My brother would not have appointed him as the leader.” Mullah Zakir also walked out. Others backed Mullah Mansoor – the acting chief of the group since 2010.

Some Taliban said the opposition to Mullah Mansoor is rallying behind Mullah Omar’s son Yacoub, who is in his mid-20s and has his own base of supporters. He has Mullah Zakir’s backing. But some don’t see him as a credible contender for the top role. The day after Yacoub announced his father’s death, senior Taliban gathered to pray for Mullah Omar and to offer condolences to family members. The news spread rapidly within the movement.

Last weekend, Afghan and US intelligence agencies picked up on chatter within the Taliban about Mullah Omar’s death. Until that point, the working assumption within the US government was that he was likely still alive, though sickly.

[deejay]

So, what's happened in Pakistan since Gurdaspur attack:
- Lashakar -e- Jhangavi is encountered. I mean the full first family of this lashkar is gone.
- Mullah Omar is dead. Oh! he died 02 years ago but there was the small point of announcing it and they did it now.
- Jallaluddin Haqqani is dead. Well, he died at least 01 year ago but there was the small point of announcing it and they did it now.


There is an attack on India, there is acceptance of key leadership change in Anti - Afghan govt forces (delayed) and there is some liquidation of key assets in anti-Shiite operations (is this for Iran?). All in quick time.

So what's happening in Pakistan and what is the PA's new insightful strategy?

[Shreeman]

The two things are playing out separately. The east is not tied to the west.

The west developments want appointment of good haqqanis to portions being ceded to talipaan.

The east is separate, unrelated, thumbing of the nose.

There is strategy, of encroachment, in the west. Usual treatment-e-kafir-bin-get-72 in the east. No strategy needed.

[shiv]

Difficult to tell who suicided the Lashkar e Jhangvi. Could be shias. Could be Pak army. Or have I missed something

[rsingh]

From the 'Such Gup' section of today's TFT:

url=http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/such-gup-96/]Splitting up[/url]

The buzz is that a famous Pakistani cricketer wedded to a famous tennis star from across the border, is trying his best to hide the fissures in his marriage. We hear they are close to splitting up and have been forced to keep the news from the press, on account of the recent Sri Lanka series. Apparently, the lady has made up her mind and will announce her decision soon.

What did she see in him to marry him in the first place?

It was her father sahab.

[kmkraoind]

There is an attack on India, there is acceptance of key leadership change in Anti - Afghan govt forces (delayed) and there is some liquidation of key assets in anti-Shiite operations (is this for Iran?). All in quick time.

So what's happening in Pakistan and what is the PA's new insightful strategy?

My hunch is that Pakis are really scared of ISIS ideology, because it may create fissures in Sunni-Shias and 100% Sharia is not palatable to clean-shaved, song-dance lovers of Pakjabis.

ISIS needs some local leaders/faces, so Pak's deep state is culling any potential future ISIS faces. If ISIS becomes a credible force in Afpak lands, I bet people of Gilgit-Baltistan (Shia majority) will revolt against Pakis and China can kiss goodbye to Karakoram Highway.

I think Chinese are putting enormous pressure on Pak to bump off major Sunni leaders (who has private armies and has influence).

[johneeG]

^^^
If Mullah Omar is Baki puppet, then whose puppet is ISIS?

[arun]

Hypocritical nonsense by Wasim Akram. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan did mix Sports and Politics when they boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow.

Meanwhile the Sport of Cricket has a well established track record of Politics and Sports mixing. Recall apartheid era boycott of South Africa.

Good opportunity to revoke Wasim Akram’s visa and prevent his presence in India for Shahrukh Khan’s Kolkatta Knightriders. Shahrukh Khan’s star power should not subvert national need of keeping Pakistani’s out of India:

Akram: Politics should not stop Pakistan-India series

[A_Gupta]

A few words about the problem that Pakistan poses to India, via metaphor.

It may be that the disease is some bacterial infection that merely requires the right dosage of antibiotics to cure.

It however, could be like a cancer, where a cure is uncertain and rarely permanent, where effective treatments, e.g., radiation treatment, are damaging and bring the patient to the brink of death, and where there may be remission but then the cancer reappears. Moreover, often the cancer patient has to put up with well-meaning people who constantly scold the patient, that had he exercised more, or eaten less fat or more vegetables, or somehow done something different, the patient might not ever had cancer.

Exercise your judgment and reevaluate every now and then, which it might be.

[eklavya]

^^^^
Islamic extremism, which is what Pakistan represents, is an ideology that requires the annihilation of everyone and everything that isn't Islamic. They're coming after us, not to make friends, but to kill us. Response needs to be calibrated accordingly.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ and that solution is more in line with a "cancer" diagnosis.

[A_Gupta]

The US is not going to abandon Pakistan for two reasons that have nothing to do with India:
1. It will not easily yield Pakistan to the Chinese orbit.
2. It undoubtedly has some arrangement with Pakistan under which it keeps track of Pak's nukes.

However, the US has unintentionally caused something to be revealed - namely that Pakistan's jihadi groups cannot tolerate the Pakistani Army taking the side of a kafir country against Sunni fighters; and they are are quite violent in their disagreement.

Well, apart from the US, the other kafir ally of Pakistan that might get into a fight against Sunni fighters is China. Of course, there is the difficulty of making the Pakistani army have to take sides.

[eklavya]

^^^^
I don't understand why we talk about the US after acts of Pakistan Army sponsored terrorism that kill Indians. We know the enemy, we know where he lives, he is weaker than us and poorer than us, and we also know that the only language this enemy understands is violence.

Like some Americans say, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what needs to be done.

The enemy has nukes. So what? We have nukes as well. Kargil proved once and for all that nuclear armed states can engage in conventional conflict without crossing the nuclear threshold.

An economic price will need to be paid for retaliation; and the democratic leadership of India will need to figure out if it is worth it.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ We talk about Pakistan's 3.5 friends because part of statecraft is to try to peel away one's adversary's allies. India can do little with China, with the US for the reasons mentioned above, and with Saudi Arabia. Japan will largely follow the US' lead.

We also mention Pakistan's friends because while it may be satisfying for Indians to blow up Pakistanis, it is even more satisfying for Pakistanis to do the job for Indians, blowing each other up. Therefore, we mention the canonical example of how to get Pakistanis to blow each other up. Admittedly, a situation which is unlikely to recur; but who knows where the Chinese embrace of Pakistan will lead? and so it is worth mentioning.

And radiation therapy can be nearly fatal for the patient, even as it is quite effective against cancer. I'm quite certain there is no democratic leadership of India that will ever risk that. Kargil was a risk forced on India, not one that India voluntarily chose. So you see, it will take genius to figure out what else to do.

PS: One must consider the changed strategic situation since Kargil. E.g., China of 2015 is quite a different creature from the China of 1999, its economy has grown by a factor of 10 in this interval (from USD $1 trillion to >$10 trillion). Will this change its behavior w.r.t. its Munna now compared to 1999?

[eklavya]

^^^^
First, we need to drop 6 LGBs on the XXX Corp HQ during working hours, and then the geniuses can figure out what comes next.

[A_Gupta]

Moderators, what is the correct thread to discuss the following?

I think PM Modi's economic plans include a huge foreign investment component - in infrastructure - roads, ports, railways, power plants; and in manufacturing - "Make in India". India also wants to continue to be perceived to be a "responsible nuclear power", because there are half-a-dozen nuclear power plants included in the overall plan.

Therefore, I think there needs to be an assessment of the effect on foreign investment of two scenarios (or more) with Pakistan.
1. A Kargil-like war, forced on India, in which India takes casualties rather than escalate.
2. A war, proactively sought by India, in retaliation for Pakistani terrorist attacks of (a) Gurdaspur scale (as it turned out, it certainly was intended to be much larger) (b) 26/11 scale.

I assume that chota-mota retaliation, like firing over the LoC or border, will not bother the world. But also that India is held to a much higher standard of plausible deniability that Pakistan ever will be.

Is such an assessment possible? or is it too difficult to do?

[johneeG]

^^^These sorts of excuses are dime a dozen. The simple fact is no one stops anyone from anything. Yes, they may put a little pressure here and there but thats about it. If India is not finishing off Pakistan, then the only entity to blame is: India. Everytime some new excuse is brought forth to argue that it can't be done or its shouldn't be done. And none of these excuses actually make any sense.

Pakistan is neither a bacteria nor a cancer nor an abnormal country. Its a perfectly normal but simply powerless country pitted against much larger and powerful country. What does a powerless country do when pitted against a powerful neighbour? Covert operations. What is so amazing or evil about this? This is what chanakya proposes in his Artha-shaashtra. This is what any country would do when pitted against much larger and powerful foe.

And what should the bigger and powerful country do in such situations? Not waste time and finish off the opponent. Of course, other countries would like to prop up Pakistan for their own interests and prick Bhaarath. Thats given. Perhaps, they will even pay lip service.

But, its finally, Bhaarath's decision. If Bhaarath could break Pakistan in 1971, then in 2015, Bhaarath can finish off Pakistan. No doubt. Why doesn't it do it? Lack of will.

Infact, I say it is actually far far easier to defeat Pakistan. Bhaarath has to occupy Lahore. Lahore is centre of gavity of Pakjab. Pakjab is centre of gravity of Pakistan. If Lahore is occupied and Pakjab is in disarray. Sindh, Balochistan & Pakhtoons will secede on the very next day.

Covert action can only do so much. The knock out punch has to be overt action. And Pakistan is now only waiting for its misery to end. Its just waiting for the knock out punch. If the knock out punch is not delivered, then its the fault of Bhaarath.

As for nukes or missiles:
Let me give an analogy: If a teenager were to get a shiny new bike, will he waste any opportunity to show it off to his peers? No. He will certainly show off his bike at first given chance. Similarly, if Pakistanis had nukes or even missiles, they would fired them off during Kargil. If for no other reason, just to show off. Did they do it? No. Why not? Because they don't have it.

About Pakistan is not a normal state:
Actually, as I said there is nothing abnormal Pakistan. Anyway, why should it matter whether Pakistan is normal or abnormal? What should matter to us is that Pakistan is an enemy. If its normal, then its more dangerous. It would be better if it were abnormal.

Pakistan seems to be getting its act together by cleaning up non-state terrorists with its zerb-e-azb. That means only the state terrorists who target only Bhaarath will be left. So, earlier Pakistan was abnormal(after the Musharraf rule). Now, its returning to normalcy. Is this a good thing?

The only thing that matters to us is that Pakistan state is an enemy. And hence it must be conquered.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ "Similarly, if Pakistanis had nukes or even missiles, they would fired them off during Kargil."

With respect, I disagree; and assuming that Pakistan is nuke-nude from what happened at Kargil is dangerous. Certainly at that time, the Americans, specifically Clinton, thought that Pakistan was preparing to use nukes.

PS: I admit that there is a certain appeal to "just do it and the consequences be damned". But I'm also aware, of e.g., what C.C. Fair and others at RAND wrote about Kargil:

"Kargil stands as yet another symbol of the failure of Pakistan’s grand strategy and illustrates Islamabad’s inability to anticipate the international opprobrium and isolation that ensued from its actions in Kargil."

[ramana]

A_Gupta:

Future Strategic scenarios thread is good.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1&start=80

[johneeG]

^^^ "Similarly, if Pakistanis had nukes or even missiles, they would fired them off during Kargil."

With respect, I disagree; and assuming that Pakistan is nuke-nude from what happened at Kargil is dangerous. Certainly at that time, the Americans, specifically Clinton, thought that Pakistan was preparing to use nukes.

If Pakistanis have nukes and missiles and they are willing to use them at the drop of a hat, then all overt possibilities are off the plate. Because no leader(political or military) would be mad enough to go to a war knowing that large parts of his country would be made unlivable. And we are assuming that Elite Pakistanis are mad who are willing to suicide.

And covert possibilities can only do so much. And Pakistan can retaliate equally in covert operations. That means Pakistan and Bhaarath can continue playing covert games in each other territories for a long time.

Pakistan has following advantages in covert games:
- it is direct and brazen. It does not mind getting exposed.
- it gets to use its religion card. It can also regional and caste cards.
- it gets the support of major powers who find it cheap and easy to prop up Pakistan.

Pakistan has following dis-advantages in covert games:
- cash-strapped.

Bhaarath has following advantages in covert games:
- it can use more money.
- it can use region card i.e. divide pakistan on regional basis.

Bhaarath has following dis-advantages in covert games:
- it can't be brazen and direct. If it is exposed directly in even a single covert operation, then all the case that it has built against Pakistan will be nought. That single exposure will be used by everyone to do equal equal.
- it can't use the religion card.

Given all the pro and cons, these covert games can go on for a long time without doing any major change. They will just be pin-pricks for either side and mostly masses will die.

So, if we assume that Pakistan has even missiles(leave alone nukes), then already there is no solution unless we are willing to destroy a part of country to kill Pakistan. And I don't think any leader in Bhaarath would do that. Who would want to be remembered as a leader who presided over the destruction of his own country?

----
Ramana Gaaru,
just one reply.

[Peregrine]

109 killed in flash floods across Pakistan: NDMA

At least 109 people have been killed and 46 others have been injured as floods continue to ravage different parts of the country, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) said on Saturday.

Cheers

[RamaY]

JohneeG Garu,

The if-you-have-your-head-in-fire-n-feet-in-ice-on-average-you-are-comfy secular intellectuals are trying to bring the India-can't-kill-Pakistan-without-hurting-economy argument back, this time using Modi's Make In India.

I posted this discussion in Future scenarios thread in GDF

[Falijee]

Associated Press Unable To Verify Identity Of Man Purporting To Mullah Omar's Successor

New Afghanistan Taliban leader promises to continue insurgency

KABUL, Afghanistan – The new leader of the Afghan Taliban vowed to continue his group's bloody, nearly 14-year insurgency in an audio message released Saturday, urging his fighters to remain unified after the death of their longtime leader.

The audio message purportedly from Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansoor also included comments about the Taliban's nascent peace talks with the Afghan government, though it wasn't immediately clear whether he supported them or not.

The new leader of the Taliban is seen as close to Pakistan, which is believed to have sheltered and supported the insurgents through the war. He is believed to support the peace process initiated by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and which Pakistan has taken the lead on sponsoring.

The future of the peace talks -- postponed indefinitely by Pakistan after the Taliban pulled out of a second round scheduled for Friday -- is now in the balance as the Taliban leadership appears to be fracturing amid disagreement over who should inherit Mullah Omar's mantle.

The new Taliban leader's call for unity comes a day after one of Mullah Omar's sons, Yacoob, said he opposed Mansoor's election, which was held in the Pakistani city of Quetta. He said the vote took place among a small clique of Mansoor's supporters and demanded a re-election that includes all Taliban commanders, including those fighting in Afghanistan.

[SSridhar]

Moreover, often the cancer patient has to put up with well-meaning people who constantly scold the patient, that had he exercised more, or eaten less fat or more vegetables, or somehow done something different, the patient might not ever had cancer.

A_Gupta, that was nice. However, a recent study seems to have revealed that in about 80% cancer cases, somebody is plainly unlucky to have contracted it. Only a few, like lung cancer, are due to causes the well-meaning people refer to.

The solution is very clear with our current levels of knowledge. Aggressive treatment. Chemo, surgery or radiation. But, what is the cause?

The question therefore is "Are we unlucky to have the Pakistani cancer or did we do something?"

IMO, we were careless and let it in.

[SSridhar]

India, Pakistan NSAs to meet on Aug. 23 & 24 - The Hindu

Even as India and Pakistan are embroiled in a fresh war of words over the Gurdaspur terror attack, decks are being cleared for a meeting of the National Security Advisers in New Delhi on August 23 and 24.

According to sources, Pakistan is likely to accept the dates for the meeting proposed by India.

The July 27 terror attack and the recent ceasefire violations had cast a shadow on the meeting, but sources in the government said the two sides were inclined to take forward the peace process, which includes the NSA-level talks, that were agreed at the meeting of the two Prime Ministers at Ufa in July.

This past week, New Delhi said it had proof that Pakistani nationals were involved in the Gurdaspur attack.

Pakistan retaliated on Friday, announcing it would raise the issue of the alleged involvement of India’s RAW in its territory at the United Nations.

NSAs likely to discuss Punjab terror attack - The Hindu

At their meeting scheduled in New Delhi for August 23 and 24, the National Security Advisers of India and Pakistan are expected to raise the issue of Punjab terror attack, bail for 26/11 mastermind Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, and the Samjhauta blasts case, which Pakistan has been raising.

[A_Gupta]

If we go by MJ Akbar's talk at Manthan, the Pakistan problem was building up since 1739. In 1739, Nadir Shah sacked Delhi, marking a huge strategic failure of the ruling Muslim power in India. After that, Shah Waliullah of the Delhi madrassa promulgated the idea of "Islam in danger", and since then the politics of fear has dominated Muslim politics in India. It led to separate electorates in 1906, Lahore Resolution in 1940, and so on to Partition, and continues in the 21st century. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmWYyLiOd6s for those who haven't listened to him, starting around minute 13:50 for the roots of Pakistan, for about 10 minutes).

Pakistan is a civilizational problem that has been building up over centuries, there is no easy way to assign blame. It is metaphorically a cancer, not easy to solve. Perhaps India can break Pakistan up into parts that are must less effective at hitting at India; but the 200 million people from whom a fraction arise, however small percentage-wise, but large enough to be a threat, that hate India intensely enough to commit suicide attacks will still be there.

[johneeG]

^^^ "Similarly, if Pakistanis had nukes or even missiles, they would fired them off during Kargil."

With respect, I disagree; and assuming that Pakistan is nuke-nude from what happened at Kargil is dangerous. Certainly at that time, the Americans, specifically Clinton, thought that Pakistan was preparing to use nukes.

PS: I admit that there is a certain appeal to "just do it and the consequences be damned". But I'm also aware, of e.g., what C.C. Fair and others at RAND wrote about Kargil:

"Kargil stands as yet another symbol of the failure of Pakistan’s grand strategy and illustrates Islamabad’s inability to anticipate the international opprobrium and isolation that ensued from its actions in Kargil."

But, Pakistanis are supposed to be mad and evil waving nukes at the drop of a hat and willing to use it. Why not use it when the opportunity presents itself? Infact, Musharraf's plan makes sense and only and only if nukes/missiles were the back up. If Musharraf did not want to use nukes/missiles, then why did he move in?

Actually, here is a simple question: Pakistan(elite pakistanis) are supposed to be suicidal, evil and mad. They have acquired a nuke/missile. They are supposed to not care for their own country or countrymen if they can hurt us even a little. Then, what stop them? Why not just fire the nukes and missiles right now? What are they waiting for?

My whole point is: if they had the nukes or missiles, they would have definitely used it before losing a war.

And this is especially important in countries like Pakistan or North Korea. They cannot afford to lose a war. Because of internal and external image projection of their armed forces.

Birather Bokisatan at help

S. Arabia calls in off-the-shelf nuke option with Pakistan – report

Saudi Arabia is widely believed to have bankrolled the Pakistani nuclear weapons program. In exchange, Riyadh reportedly expects Islamabad to provide missiles in times of trouble to defend the kingdom.

“For the Saudis the moment has come,” a former American defense official told the newspaper. “There has been a longstanding agreement in place with the Pakistanis, and the House of Saud has now made the strategic decision to move forward.”

According to the report, no actual transfer of weapons has taken place yet, but “the Saudis mean what they say and they will do what they say,” the source reportedly said.

So, nukes are just code word for missiles? And saudis want to use paki missiles? So, paki missiles actually work?

Link to post

So, pakistani missiles don't work thats why KSA is buying from USA(probably manned by USA):

Saudi Arabia to buy 600 Patriot missiles for $5.4 bn

Did KSA (again) fell victim to successful mijjiles salesman or stockpiling is ahead of fireworks over per-she-ya? In that case, the aimless extracurricular activities in Yeh-man, are they a practice run??

Link to post

About covert action:
One of the biggest problems with covert actions in Indo-Pak scenario is that Pakistan has much less to lose than Bhaarath. This is an argument that people generally bring out during a war scenario. But, in a one stroke war(which generally last for not more 3 months), this issue is of little value specially in Indo-Pak wars where the theater is very limited and localized.

On the other hand, proxy-war(covert operations) have a much bigger theater and last all over the year. Hence, it can effect the economy in much more profound manner. And in that scenario, Bhaarath has more to lose than Pakistan.

----
A_Gupta saar,
if you say that political islam is the problem, then that can also be solved. The solution was shown during Mughals time itself.

Broadly, there are three solutions:
- Hindhu Islam -> Dara Shikoh and Akbar(Deen-e-Ilahi)
- Islamic Hindhuism -> Sikhism & Kabir.
- Hindhuism -> Vidyaranya, Vedhantha Dheshika & Chaithanya Mahaprabhu.

[SSridhar]

If we go by MJ Akbar's talk at Manthan, the Pakistan problem was building up since 1739. In 1739, Nadir Shah sacked Delhi, marking a huge strategic failure of the ruling Muslim power in India. After that, Shah Waliullah of the Delhi madrassa promulgated the idea of "Islam in danger", and since then the politics of fear has dominated Muslim politics in India.

A_Gupta, I haven't yet seen that highly-rated MJ Akbar talk. However, I differ slightly in that I want to go a little more back than c. 1739, not much though.

The story actually starts in the 17th century which has an important bearing on Islamism. The Islamist fervor has been alternating between periods of intense expansionism followed by defeats and periods of deep introspection and consolidation. The latter period always led to the decision that solutions to problems can be had only with more intense Islamism and thus the cycle repeated. The 17th century was on such ‘low period’ for Islamist morale. The Ottoman caliphate had been defeated in Cheshma and Kagul leading to loss of territory in Europe. In India, Aurangazeb’s death and people’s hatred for his extremist rule led to the decline of the Mughal empire. In Saudi Arabia too, Sufism, considerd as deviant Islam by the orthodox adherents of the religion, was taking root. Two important Islamist thinkers emerged in this scenario and by a coincidence, they were both born in the same year and educated in Saudi Arabia and developed friendhip that influenced the thinking of each other mutually. One of them was Sheikh Waliullah from Delhi, India and the other was Ibn Abd al Wahhab from Saudi Arabia. Both of them felt strongly that Islam can regain its glory only by reforming itself by going back to the fundamentals and shunning other cross-fertilized influences. Waliullah felt that Indian Islam must be divested of Hindu influences. He thus laid the foundation for the Sunni orthodoxy in India just as Wahhab did the same in Arabia.

[deejay]

If we go by MJ Akbar's talk at Manthan, the Pakistan problem was building up since 1739. In 1739, Nadir Shah sacked Delhi, marking a huge strategic failure of the ruling Muslim power in India. After that, Shah Waliullah of the Delhi madrassa promulgated the idea of "Islam in danger", and since then the politics of fear has dominated Muslim politics in India.

A_Gupta, I haven't yet seen that highly-rated MJ Akbar talk. However, I differ slightly in that I want to go a little more back than c. 1739, not much though.

The story actually starts in the 17th century which has an important bearing on Islamism. The Islamist fervor has been alternating between periods of intense expansionism followed by defeats and periods of deep introspection and consolidation. The latter period always led to the decision that solutions to problems can be had only with more intense Islamism and thus the cycle repeated. The 17th century was on such ‘low period’ for Islamist morale. The Ottoman caliphate had been defeated in Cheshma and Kagul leading to loss of territory in Europe. In India, Aurangazeb’s death and people’s hatred for his extremist rule led to the decline of the Mughal empire. In Saudi Arabia too, Sufism, considerd as deviant Islam by the orthodox adherents of the religion, was taking root. Two important Islamist thinkers emerged in this scenario and by a coincidence, they were both born in the same year and educated in Saudi Arabia and developed friendhip that influenced the thinking of each other mutually. One of them was Sheikh Waliullah from Delhi, India and the other was Ibn Abd al Wahhab from Saudi Arabia. Both of them felt strongly that Islam can regain its glory only by reforming itself by going back to the fundamentals and shunning other cross-fertilized influences. Waliullah felt that Indian Islam must be divested of Hindu influences. He thus laid the foundation for the Sunni orthodoxy in India just as Wahhab did the same in Arabia.

I am not sure but I think it was M J Akbar at another talk who explained (or may be it was you Sridhar ji) how both Ibn al Wahhab and Sheikh Waliullah were born in 1705 (coincidentally) and later met at Mecca in 1730 and decided to promote Islamic politics for National causes based on the Prophets ideology. One founded Wahabism in his native Arabia and the other founded the Deobandi school in his native India.

[SSridhar]

^deejay, Ajit Doval had also alluded to this in his speech at SASTRA University, Thanjavur. There was a clip posted here.

[Kashi]

If we go by MJ Akbar's talk at Manthan, the Pakistan problem was building up since 1739. In 1739, Nadir Shah sacked Delhi, marking a huge strategic failure of the ruling Muslim power in India. After that, Shah Waliullah of the Delhi madrassa promulgated the idea of "Islam in danger.

So a muslim sacks a city where the ruling entity were muslims and that marked a huge strategic failure of Muslim power in India and suddenly Islam was in danger?

Am I the only one who feels that this befuddling logic barely computes and that too if you consider that Nadir shah was most likely a Shia and the most of the Muslim rulers in India Sunni (Bahamans and Deccan sulatanate chiefs were Shia if I recall correctly).

It's like the Pakis finding "raisin-da-eeter" for their founding with bin Qasim in 712.

I am surprised he did not say that the genesis of the Pakistan movement dates back to the sacking of Baghdad by Mongols at least that would have made sense since Mongols at that time were non-muslims. I do recall that he mentioned the loss of Spain as another manufactured grievance amongst muslims.

[abhijitm]

On 25th July Taliban took control of badakhshan military base in north east afghanistan. Proposed New Silk Road goes through that region. On 27th July afghan authorities claimed MO dead, promptly confirmed by US.

Aftermath of Iran america reconciliation is new struggle to control afghanistan between iran and the sauds. Meanwhile afghanistan has shot its own foot by openly supporting saudi's campaign in Yemen. Since Ghani assumed power reationship between afghanistan and Iran is going downward. Although it may not be as bad as it seems.

Taliban is saudi's child and pakistan is its nany. I dont think pakistan can issue direct orders to taliban without Saudi permission. Yemen has complicated relation between saudis and pakis. There were reports in Iran saying saudis have hired hikmatyar to bump off some pakis who were againsts sending troops.

Saudis and Iranians will play their game in afghanistan. Afghanistan going to boil soon, and so will pakistan.

[deejay]

^deejay, Ajit Doval had also alluded to this in his speech at SASTRA University, Thanjavur. There was a clip posted here.

Yes, it was Shri Doval's speech. I stand corrected.

[Peregrine]

^deejay, Ajit Doval had also alluded to this in his speech at SASTRA University, Thanjavur. There was a clip posted here.

SSridhar Ji :

I have been trying to "locate" the FULL SPEECH by SHRI AJIT DOVAL at SASTRA University without success. Should you have the Full Presentation of Shri Ajit Doval kindly post it here or E-Mail the Link to me.

Many thanks in advance.

Cheers

[partha]

http://www.dawn.com/news/1197881/the-old-dream

MULLAH Omar is dead. Osama is gone. It has the end-of-an-era ring to it. Which means, soon enough we’ll be, or possibly already are, in the next phase. So, what’s Pakistan’s place in it?

Part of it suggests good news. We’ve taken on the militants internally, nudged the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table, aren’t spoiling for a war with India and a second successive set of assemblies are on track to complete their terms. It really isn’t the mid-1990s anymore.

Damn, we have really set a low bar. A Gurdaspur type major attack by Pakistan does not qualify for "spoiling for a war with India". When we didn't put the fear of war into Pakistan post a 26/11 type of attack why will Pakistan fear for retaliation when planning Gurdaspur type attacks? This needs to change.

[SSridhar]

I have been trying to "locate" the FULL SPEECH by SHRI AJIT DOVAL at SASTRA University without success.

Peregrine ji, I had seen it posted here in BRf. I had not saved it. Apparently, that video has been now removed from You Tube, possibly under protest? If anybody had saved it, kindly upload to You Tube once again.

[JE Menon]

From the 'Such Gup' section of today's TFT:

url=http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/such-gup-96/]Splitting up[/url]

The buzz is that a famous Pakistani cricketer wedded to a famous tennis star from across the border, is trying his best to hide the fissures in his marriage. We hear they are close to splitting up and have been forced to keep the news from the press, on account of the recent Sri Lanka series. Apparently, the lady has made up her mind and will announce her decision soon.

What did she see in him to marry him in the first place?

Richard potential... After a bit even a donkey (I mean the animal) will look fine as a partner. Plus sports match ... Very auspicious. Now probably reality has set in. Options are there. Martyrdom for the out of containment pachy imminent