Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24114
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2009 11:24

Shaharyar Khan's memoirs continue in TFT . . .

Excerpts
Beginning in 1966, I was back in Pakistan, posted at the Foreign Service Headquarters, serving as Deputy Secretary. During this time, I was in charge of the China Desk. In 1967, when the Karakoram Highway had not yet been built, I participated in border talks with the Chinese authorities in Sinkiang, concerning land trade, using a narrow route through the mountains, along which Sinkiang had traditionally traded goods with Pakistan. We went to Sinkiang to formally open this pathway for trade between the two countries. The actual volume of goods was not very large, mostly consisting of items such as lanterns, scissors and the like. But since this was a symbolic link with China, who we considered an ally, it was important.

In Sinkiang, we stayed at a palace which was once the home of the British resident. Our delegation consisted of myself, representing the Foreign Office, a representative of the Ministry of Commerce, a representative of the NWFP government and Habib-ur-Rehman, representing the administration of the Northern areas in Pakistan.

During the evenings we would stay indoors and talk, since there was not much we could do outside after dusk. It was during one of these conversations that Habib-ur-Rehman told us his version of the death of the famous Indian nationalist leader, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. As a Brigadier he had been an officer in the Indian National Army (INA), a large Japanese backed force led by Subhas Bose, whose aim was to liberate India from Britain with assistance from Imperial Japan. The INA was mostly recruited from the ranks of exiled Indian nationalists, volunteers and troops who had deserted the British Indian army.

In 1945, with the Japanese clearly losing the war and the Allies closing in on the Japanese home islands, the INA was falling apart. Bose tried to reach Japan to make another appeal for assistance. Habib-ur-Rehman was in an aircraft with Bose, which took off from Taipei in Formosa (now Taiwan). This aircraft crashed. Habib-ur-Rehman told me that while he himself survived the crash, and rushed to the side of his leader, Bose was close to death. According to him, Bose died because his clothing caught fire from the flames of the burning aircraft. He was taken to a nearby hospital but died from his burns. I have no reason to doubt Habib-ur-Rehman's story of Bose's death, and I believe it ought to put to rest many of the theories (and conspiracy theories) regarding the death of the charismatic Indian nationalist leader.

. . . . In 1966, the decision was taken to build the Karakoram Highway through the Khunjerab Pass, between northwestern Pakistan and the Sinkiang Autonomous Region in China. I was part of the negotiations and communication taking place to bring the plan to fruition.

We were members of a delegation led by General Faruqi, who was the head of the Engineering Corps of the Pakistani military. The Chinese delegation was led by his counterpart, a general from the PLA (People's Liberation Army). The idea was that the Pakistanis would build the highway through our side of the Khunjerab Pass, while the Chinese would build it from their side of the border.

When the time came to make a commitment on how long it would take each side to complete their part of the construction, General Faruqi estimated that it would take us twelve years. He explained that we could not work more than three or four months every year at that altitude, given the climate and other factors. We then asked the Chinese delegation how long it would take them. We were taken aback at their confident response: it would take them three years! The Chinese general said that his men would work throughout the year, despite the climate.

A shocked General Faruqi took us aside for a private conference. We decided that we too would match the Chinese, and build our part of the highway by working throughout the year, and complete it in four to five years. And that is just how we did it.

I was with the Pakistani diplomatic mission to the UN in Geneva when the East Pakistan crisis broke out. In 1971, with the situation in East Pakistan getting worse, I was sent to the Pakistani High Commission in London, as Counselor (the number three position there). Later, after Daulatana became the High Commissioner in London, I was made Deputy High Commissioner.

With Bangladesh having declared independence, Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman was released from incarceration by the Pakistani authorities, and he flew to London for a short while before returning to Bangladesh. Since he had been released by our government and no other Pakistani representative was going to receive him, I thought it appropriate to be present when he arrived at the airport.

In 1972, with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto at the helm in Pakistan, our foreign policy was such that we withdrew from the Commonwealth. This would have deprived Pakistani citizens of their special rights as members of the Commonwealth, and it would have especially affected the large Pakistani expatriate community in Britain. The British government wanted to extend the privileges enjoyed by Commonwealth citizens to the Pakistani expatriate community in Britain, so they decided to pass the Pakistan Act in Parliament, in order to legally fill the gap left by our departure from the Commonwealth.

This led to a problem, though. Many Pakistani expatriates in Britain were of Kashmiri origin. Their passports indicated that they were "citizens of Azad Kashmir" since the Pakistani government hoped that they would vote in an eventual plebiscite to decide the future of Kashmir. The Parliamentary sub-committee working on the Pakistan Act in London informed us that the privileges extended to Pakistani citizens under the Act could not legally apply to citizens of Azad Kashmir, due to the information on their passports. To get over this problem, I dug out a document from Parliamentary records which proved that in earlier cases, the British government had a precedent for considering Azad Kashmiris to be citizens of Pakistan. When I produced this document, the Parliamentary sub-committee agreed to extend the same rights to Azad Kashmiris as it did to other Pakistanis under the Pakistan Act. The British government, however, later reprimanded me for this effort, as they did not consider it appropriate for diplomatic staff to present Parliamentary records to the sub-committee.

In 1975, I returned to the Foreign Service Headquarters in Islamabad, and for the next two years I was in charge of the East Asia desk. I was part of two delegations led by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to China, once in 1976 and then again after Mao died and Hua Guofeng became the Chinese premier. During our visit to China in 1976, Mao Zedong was close to death. His mental faculties were no longer as sharp as I had once known them to be. During a meeting with Bhutto, he even thought for a moment that Bhutto was the leader of India, until a Chinese aide explained to him that this was not the case.

I recall that Mao came down to escort Zulfiqar and Nusrat Bhutto to their waiting car. As the tall Mrs. Bhutto got into the vehicle, I remember how Mao put his hand on the top of the door, so that her head would not hit it. I found this to be a very human side of the great revolutionary leader, even at a time when he was close to death. These remembrances of things past are such that one is filled with nostalgia when one recalls them today.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4227
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby KLNMurthy » 19 Jun 2009 11:56

shiv wrote:
Strength and inflexibility on core issues are long term strategies, not to be confused with short term tactics.

If you go back to what India has faced (physically) from Pakistan you find three broad categories of actions

1) Conventional war - (1947, 1965, 1971) - border troop strength was vital for these
2) Infiltration/terrorism in Kashmir/Kargil - here again it was the border troop strength that has been important
3) terrorism in other parts of India: For this border troop strength has not made a whit of a difference.

Pakistan's actions have been aimed at
1) trying to take Kashmir
2) trying to create a communal rift between Hindus and Muslims so that Hindus start killing Muslims, proving that the Pakistan idea is correct and that more parts of India should break off and become Pakistans

None of these have had much effect on India's "core principles".

One big complaint after Parakram was that India takes too long to mobilise, while Pakistan has its troops just across the border.

Now what if (by some magic) Pakistan had its troops fighting a battle far away from the Indian border? If this happens Pakistan's much vaunted "advantage" of having ready to fight troops at the border would be diluted.

Reports in the last year or so have indicated that Pakistan has actually had to move out some troops from the border with India, but they still retain significant forces there. Now supposing Pakistan was somehow compelled to move troops far away from the India border leaving them "weak - so to speak, How would that impact on India?

1) It would be great if India decided to attack and take over parts of Pakistan.
2) If India decided "We are not going to attack Pakistan" what would be the advantage of keeping Indian troops at the border in a situation of overwhelming advantage facing Pakistan?

India has been giving subtle signals for the past 6 months that I believe we must note. The Air Chief says "Pakistan is not the problem, China is". There is a flurry of activity building infrastructure in Arunachal Pradesh. Top notch air assets are moved to the North East.

These actions could mean one of two things
a) An increased threat from China
b) A decreased threat from Pakistan

Every BRF member is welcome to have his own interpretation of this, but if I combine the statements of the Air Chief and the government (regarding troop pullout) I think that there may be a definite reduction of Pakistani army assets across the border with India, and it may be prudent to "encourage" them to move away even more assets by appropriate adjustments.

An "inflexible posture" where we maintain enough troops to attack Pakistan at the border even as Pakistan pulls away it own troops to fight a civil war is a good posture if we are actually going to attack. I am certain that we have no intention of attacking Pakistan at this stage. If that is true, what is the purpose of overwhelming Indian troop strength at the Pakistan border (assuming that Pakistanis are pulling troops away and will pull away more - all to be backed up by credible intel inputs).

I believe that Pakistan must be allowed to fight its civil war without giving any of the protagonists of that war an excuse to unite using "India" as a threat. They must kill and hate each other more, and be even more angry with India for being "cowardly" and not responding to their bait. They desperately need the India threat to unite and create the "spirit of 1965". Why hand it to them by a dogged appearance of belligerence especially if we have no intention of attacking?

JMT


The logic above is hard to find fault with. The unstated premise seems to be that our strategic goal is to get Pakistan fighting within itself, not attacking India, while India has no intention of attacking Pakistan.

Another possible premise is to force Pakistan or whatever rump remains strong enough to be a threat to admit to themselves that they simply have not the capacity to control India's actions, except perhaps make it angry enough to counterattack and destroy Pakistan. Their aggression stems from a perception that it works; this may be delusional in the long-term strategic sense as you say, but "in the long run we are all dead" and in the meantime they are constantly being fed the hope that their aggression will get us to move in the direction they want.

Rational, peaceable adult players can be relied on to think and respond in terms of long-term goals; impudent and impulsive childish but overfed and overgrown hoodlums bent on mayhem only will only cease and desist when their short-term aggression yields no results whatsoever, and in fact invites credible and predictable punishment. Think of a two-year old child throwing a tantrum; the child is focussed on immediate rewards only, and will interpret any 'give' on the part of the adult as vindication of the tantrum approach. So, if for the first time you give the child what it wants following its tantrum because, well, it is no real loss for you and is in fact consistent with your values, then the child will only interpret your action as a signal that the tantrum works, and will increase its demands next time. It is eventually going to ask for something of real harm to you and will be furious at your refusal. It will be your fault as the adult who 'trained' the child to throw a tantrum. In Pakistan's case the child campaigns in a focused way to grow stronger and more dangerous vis-a-vis the adult to the extent that he ends up changing the strategic equation altogether.

This is the core behavioral psychology of a bully, and I suspect a lot of the Muslim conquests in India can be traced back to this dynamic of first giving them an inch, and then their fighting for an ell. Victory for an aggressor requires that they believe that victory is possible and in fact highly probable. By yielding on the small, apparently inconsequential thing, we are supplying them with that self-belief.

To go back to the two-year-old child analogy, once we show firmness in the first place, it is amazing how fast the child learns to ask reasonably for only reasonable things, and accept refusal gracefully. As most parents know, the tantrum behavior is intentionally disruptive and equilibrium-shattering, and represents the child's attempt to establish dominance in the household. A loving parent with the child's and family's best interests at heart will deal with it firmly. Otherwise the child will end up as an individual-level facsimile of Pakistan--a blustering and dangerous bully on one side and a cringing whining miserable beggar with no respect on the other side.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24114
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2009 12:51

"Bushwhacked by internal contradictions", Khaled Ahmed in TFT

Excerpts
Pakistan’s Budget 2009-10 is going to have a large deficit, equal to 4.5 percent of the GDP, but more trouble could come if the commitment made of nearly US$5.5 billion by the not-so-friendly Friends of Pakistan doesn’t come through. Finance adviser Shaukat Tarin says only US$2 billion might be realised and that he is making ready to go to the International Monetary Fund for another US$4 billion to save the economy from sinking. The Friends of Pakistan are put off by Pakistan, some because of “lack of closeness”, which is the case of Saudi Arabia, and some because of Pakistan’s clear lack of sincerity, which is the case of the ‘rich’ countries.

Responsible Pakistanis come on TV and say NATO forces in Afghanistan are a security risk for Pakistan. Anchors, if they could be translated, will make the Europeans run for cover and climb the nearest tree, because according to these gentlemen terrorism is being done by America and India. The ISI swears it is not spreading the sinister rumour, but no one believes it. Pakistan threatens before asking for money. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi says Pakistan needs more foreign aid to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That is not enough; he spells out the danger:

“They have a global agenda, they have a regional agenda, they are not confined to Pakistan. They could go into the Gulf, they could go into India, they can go anywhere. There is a collective interest and there has to be a collective realisation that this is not Pakistan’s problem alone. It’s a larger problem.”

Will the rich countries shell out? Not if everyone in Pakistan says Pakistan is not threatened by the Taliban and Al Qaeda but by America and India. The Pakistani ‘national consensus’ against Baitullah Mehsud has developed because he is an ‘agent of America’.

Should we assume that if the ‘Friends’ are not forthcoming we can keep going to the IMF for more money? Are the IMF coffers full these days? Do we think that people who sit in the IMF are not put off by our rhetoric against the West? If these rich countries are in some ways involved with the NATO forces, and their information says Pakistan is complicit in helping the Taliban kill their soldiers there, should they be taking out their pocket book and counting out money they severely lack at home for their own rapidly impoverishing populations?

Honest officers and politicians sit on the bills because of their belief that 80 percent of the aid coming from abroad “goes back”.

According to Shahid Javed Burki, Pakistan is notorious for neglecting the social sector in its economy. It can do big projects like motorways but cannot spend the meagre budgets set aside for education. He has already observed in his last book that this malady of not looking after education is shared with the rest of the Muslim world. Muslims just don’t want to be educated unless it is in madrassas.

Sindh is on the brink of a sectarian-ethnic war with no one faction completely united. Balochistan has already announced that its demand for autonomy is not negotiable and that any deal with Iran on gas will fall through because the Baloch rebel has become too good at blowing up gas pipelines. In Punjab the final battle will have to fought with the terrorists of South Punjab.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24114
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2009 13:06

KV Rao, that was a good post, well written.

You have argued how Pakistan presents two faces, one as a tantrum-throwing-child and the other as a beggar.

I extend this to say that Pakistan is a hydra with multiple faces. It is at the same time a bully, a beggar, a prostitute, a pimp, a terrorist, an ally against terror for some etc. It needs to be fought the same way that Heracles fought it in the Greek mythology.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby RajeshA » 19 Jun 2009 13:10

SELF-DELETED
Last edited by RajeshA on 19 Jun 2009 13:17, edited 2 times in total.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24114
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2009 13:14

Challenging Martial Histories, A book review of "Flight of the Falcon" by PAF Air Commodore (retired) Sajad Haider.

"During the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, which I participated in as a commander leading the No 19 Squadron of the Pakistan Air Force, and as head of the fighter tactical wing respectively, I was a witness to history in the making.” During the 1965 war, Haider had collected the best fighter pilots and put them under the “warriors” training regime. The results achieved by his squadron were spectacular: an unmatchable six Sitara-e-Jurats were bestowed on the pilots, including the fighter-author. The 19th Squadron carried out the most difficult missions of the 1965 war and these have been documented by British, Indian and Pakistani experts. Whilst most accounts recall the operational episodes narrated by second-hand sources, Flight of the Falcon attempts to provide a candid account of these two controversial wars from the cockpit of a fighter air craft. Interestingly the book challenges the conventional mantra of victory trumpeted by state histories: in both the wars, there was no clear winner, and the book chronicles that honestly.

Haider holds that after four decades, the truth about what happened must come out without any embarrassment. “We owe it to our future generations, particularly today’s young commanders and students of military history, to set the record straight,” he adds. Not surprisingly, reticence to carry out an honest analysis of the lessons of the wars against India is rooted in the effort to protect the incompetent and short-sighted leaders whose mistakes cost the lives of many gallant men, not to mention the tragic break up of Pakistan in 1971.

Flight of the Falcon is not just a dry historical account. It is an eminently readable autobiography as well. Sometimes, the episodes appear stranger than fiction, especially when Haider’s air chief framed him in a conspiracy to overthrow the government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and charged him with treason and with inciting mutiny. We also learn how the Shahinshah of Iran, Raza Pahlavi, told Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to punish Haider for denigrating him. The sensational bits make the book impossible to put down. There is the incident where Zia ul Haq lectured the armed forces, trying to explain the reasons why he had carried out a military coup, and why the nation was not fit for democracy. The author retorted, “The pride with which I have worn this uniform and defended my country with my life has been denigrated to the point where I see contempt in the eyes of Pakistanis who had once adored the sight of this very uniform. As part of your constituency we are now the conquerors of Pakistan rather than its defenders.” Of course, Haider lost his career and Zia was reported to have said that he wanted to see Haider with a begging bowl in his hand!

The story gets more inspiring as Haider, instead of acting as a depressed careerist, does not look back, and rebuilds his life as a successful businessman. The message is clear: “never cave into coercion, nor surrender to the self-righteous.” These are words that are most relevant as we wage war against the forces of darkness in twenty-first century Pakistan.

We also read interesting anecdotes about Haider’s personal life. His father emerges as a role model, held in high respect by the Baloch Sardars; and his mother is revealed as a woman who emphasised education for all her children. From a ‘mama’s boy’, the author landed into the rough terrain of life and achieved success on merit, and through sheer dedication and hard work. The role of Air Marshal Asghar Khan in upgrading the PAF also gets illuminated through the text. But the sad events following Ayub Khan’s coup in 1958 get a detailed treatment. Indeed the author, many would say for the right reasons, is unsparing towards the 1958 coup – a “ midnight coup supported by second rate generals of the army,” to use Haider’s words. The only person to challenge Ayub was Asghar Khan. The Pakistan army since the 1960s has followed “a course of nepotism, corruption and cronyism that has been hard to rectify in all these years”, laments Haider.

Pakistan’s client status is also discussed at length when the author narrates how the Americans pushed Ayub Khan into creating a spy base at Badaber near Peshawar. Haider laments how this tradition was carried on by Ayub’s successors, especially Yahya Khan, who kept waiting for the 6th fleet in 1971, which was checkmated by the Soviets.

The false sense of importance that we have nurtured and polished as the core to our foreign policy continues unabated.

Haider tells us how Ayub feared his own shadow and constantly suffered the trepidation of coups and assassination attempts which was more of a phantom. Purges from within the ranks led to a situation where the army was starved of young captain and major level officers. In Haider’s words, the “not so obvious young Turks managed to survive.” Ayub pushed Pakistan into the 1965 war, which turned out to be a tactical debacle leading to the dismemberment of Pakistan. As we find out from Flight of the Falcon , the PAF was kept completely in the dark about the plan to annex Kashmir through guerrilla warfare, and Asghar Khan was deliberately kept out of the loop until the Indian air force rattled the rafters of Musa and Ayub’s bunkers. Tragically, the leadership thought that India would not react violently against Pakistan. The gallant men who infiltrated into Indian- held Kashmir were ill-trained. Some youths from the streets of Azad Kashmir towns were given as little as three weeks training to fight a guerrilla war of attrition. “There was no plan of exfiltration, and the secrecy of this plan met its Waterloo when two Muslim Kashmiris reported the presence of Pakistani Mujahid forces to the Indian police as well as to the local army headquarters. A tragic massacre of our valiant men followed,” says Haider. We have been bleeding due to the Kashmir conflict for decades, and brave men have shed their blood without knowing the power-games and megalomania of our leaders.

Truthful accounts of the military and its various operations have been a rarity in Pakistan. Haider’s book brings out many an uncomfortable truth, and gives us a view of what was happening within the corridors of GHQ during 1965 and 1971. It is for this reason that those who are interested in Pakistan’s past and its future must read this book.

When Haider bid farewell to the PAF, he had Rs.17,000 as his total earnings. No plots and other assets that we are now familiar with. In his own words, he started from ground zero. But his lesson for the men in uniform is: “If you serve with total dedication, without running after plots and money-making ventures, nature rewards you for your pride in the profession and your courage to fight greed for collecting assets”.

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 720
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby milindc » 19 Jun 2009 13:16

RajeshA wrote:Indra Nooyi pitches for India-Pakistan dialogue: PTI

WASHINGTON: Indra K. Nooyi, India-born head of PepsiCo, on Thursday favoured talks between India and Pakistan, which she said were vital for the region’s economic growth.


From wikipedia:
In June, 2005, she apologized for controversial remarks made at Columbia Business School, comparing America to a sort of global middle finger. "I have come to realize that my words and examples about America unintentionally depicted our country negatively and hurt people....I love America unshakably," Nooyi said.

Another Indian forced to see the world from American eyes! :(


She is not an Indian, she is an American Citizen and is bidding for US interests.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24114
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2009 13:20

milindc wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Another Indian forced to see the world from American eyes!

She is not an Indian, she is an American Citizen and is bidding for US interests.


The US is bringing out all blazing guns to put pressure on India.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby Sanku » 19 Jun 2009 13:24

ramana wrote: When these two meet the Army types will get religious and join the others.


I strongly suspect that this dog and pony show in TSP is the current evolution of the Jehad factory. Having reached the logical conclusion of the Zia years and strategy, TSPA is now putting its uranium (Jehadi's) in the FBR that is Pakistan leading to more Jehadi's all around.

Seems like internal preparation before the next stage to me.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24114
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2009 14:47

Baitullah cannot escape because we have F-16s: PA

"We are looking for him... Once we know where he is, then we will not miss him because we have the F-16s. They are very precise, they have laser-guided bombs and they can work better than a drone," he claimed.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby Sanku » 19 Jun 2009 15:07

SSridhar wrote:It needs to be fought the same way that Heracles fought it in the Greek mythology.


Perhaps a Kalia Mardan would be more appropriate in Indian context? (And I dont suggest that metaphor for only "lets use Indic" reason)

bart
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 04 Jan 2008 21:33

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby bart » 19 Jun 2009 16:12

Gerard wrote:Zardari opts out of another meeting with Manmohan Singh
In a sudden development, President Asif Ali Zardari has decided not to attend the NAM Summit in Egypt next month, apparently to avoid another meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh whose blunt public comments appear to have annoyed Pakistan.



LOL...Typical Paki, sulking at the attack on his imaginary H&D. :D

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24114
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2009 16:19

The terrorist Pakistani mindset

The problem in Pakistan is so bad that it is not only Islamist terrorism but somehow the mindset is the same among everyone.
. . . perhaps at some point in history there were some genuine ‘benefits’ derived from our non-state actors vis-à-vis India and Afghanistan. We live in a rough neighbourhood and for all our sins it’s difficult to realistically paint us as the perennial devils and our neighbours as angelic do-gooders. We saw an opportunity — the use of sub-conventional military methods to pursue certain security aims — we took it, as would anyone else, and we made good use of it.
. . .the lesson in this for the other key players, the US, India and Afghanistan, is, for purposes of policy, to treat it as a mixture of both: their regional security interests are fuelling the instability here
The obvious question is, why should others do something to help us out when there is no guarantee we will abandon our good Taliban/bad Taliban strategy? What’s in it for them?

It’s a tough question, no doubt. But think of it this way: if our security establishment is wrong it’s because it is stuck in a siege mentality. Reduce the threats it perceives, and it may begin to see the light. Besides, it’s not like anything else has worked the past eight years.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby arun » 19 Jun 2009 16:29

pgbhat wrote:L'attentat de Karachi de 2002 est une "affaire d'Etats", selon les victimes
IOW
The attack in Karachi in 2002 was a "state affair", according to the victims


From google translate I got this....... may be some rakshak may do a better job at translation.

The investigation into the attack in Karachi in 2002 against the employees of state arsenals DCN is moving towards a "state affair" and not to Al Qaeda, said Thursday June 18 counsel for September families of victims after seeing the judges terrorism.

"The track Al Qaeda is completely abandoned. The motive for the attack appears linked to a cessation of payments of commissions" of France in Pakistan in connection with the sale of Agosta submarines, "said Olivier Morice, to Following a meeting of anti-terrorist judges Trévidic Marc and Yves Jannier with families of victims to Cherbourg.


Better than a translation. Reuters' version of the same story.

Reuters reports that French investigators suspect that DCN engineers were killed in Karachi because bribes promised for the purchase of Agosta submarines were not paid by the French.

Not an implausible scenario given the rogue nature of Pakistan’s armed forces:

French probe alleged Pakistani role in bombing

Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:49pm IST

By Thierry Leveque

PARIS, June 19 (Reuters) - French magistrates investigating an attack in Pakistan blamed on Islamist militants that killed 11 French nationals in 2002 are looking into allegations it was linked to corrupt deals, lawyers for the victims' families said……….................

French investigating magistrates Marc Trevidic and Yves Jannier informed the families of the victims on Thursday that they no longer believed the scenario of an Islamist attack was credible, lawyers for the families told reporters.

The lawyers said Trevidic and Jannier had told them they were looking into allegations that the attack was a retaliation against France from unnamed Pakistani officials over bribes linked to a defence contract that were promised but never paid......................

The investigating magistrates obtained a top secret internal memo in October 2008 from a state-owned military shipbuilder which contains the allegations, Morice said.

The memo, copies of which were shown on French media on Friday, says French and Pakistani officials connived to take bribes as part of the sale of French Agosta submarines to Pakistan in the mid-1990s. ………………........

The secret memo says France stopped paying the bribes after the 1995 election, won by Chirac, and that Pakistani officials kept asking for them for several years.

The allegation is that they eventually lost patience and organised in retaliation the attack on the bus full of French engineers, who were working on the Agosta submarine project. (Additional reporting by Estelle Shirbon; editing by Philippa Fletcher)

Reuters

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby brihaspati » 19 Jun 2009 18:31

Why should India NOT reduce aggressive posture towards TSP? In fact there are solid reasons to rachet up the pressure on TSP.

The main logic being provided for reducing show of aggression (if any) towards TSP is that this will unite all the various factions and entities fighting inside TSP and who otherwise would tear TSP apart on their own. I have myself maintained by assessment that all the various subnationalist conflicts being highlighted are not sufficient to overrule common hatred against India seen as a Qufr country ripe for Ghazwa-e-Hind. We have had evidence of Balochi youth being recruited to fight Jihad in Kashmir.

The point is that unification on the basis of constructing a common foreign devil, does not need to depend on actual aggression by the supposed foreign "devil". In history this has happened many times. The best known example in the last century is that of the "Juden" by the Nazis and others of same ilk in Europe (Nazis were neither the first nor the only one in Europe or the Anglo-Saxon world to construct so - although after their military defeat, all else were quick to shed that connection and blame it all on the Nazis). In the TSP psyche, the Qufr Hindu of India is an uncanny parallel to the abject, "feminine" "Juden" of the Nazi. Whether the "Hindu" becomes aggressive or not, the TSP elite and its uneducated, Madrassaized, Ulema controlled rural labour under semi-feudal landowning elite, will always see the "Hindu" as similar to the "Nazi" Juden. The Hindu can remain completely passive, without ever retaliating, the TSP power elite will still continue to see India as the devil. In fact the more passive and non-retaliatory the Indian reaction is, the greater will be the need to construct India as the "foreign devil". Any foreign "devil" that shows the possible capacity to turn TSP to dust and desert, is immediately converted into "god" - a hostile one may be, but still a "god" to be carefully pleased and kept in good humour. This is the status of USA or PRC. The key should have been obvious in the way the "God/Yahweh/Allah" has been constructed in the Abrahamic, but on this forum looking at that obvious is not possible because it will appear "religious". USA and PRC have obtained this status in TSP eyes by being militarily aggressive in other areas than TSP. India was aggressive in '71 in BD but did not continue to occupy like PRC in AP. In fact TSP and the Jihadis could restore a lot of their original influence and power and India was shown to have retreated considerably in BD. In TSP eyes, this failure to grab and hold on to territories previously owned by "others", is a weakness - and goes against the fundamental thrust behind the theory of Jihad.

So what is the way out?

Yes, a blunt posturing of military aggression will be used by the TSP leadership to try and unify. But on the other hand, if India uses a more subtle approach for aggression, then the internal conflicts and TSP's need to construct the foreign devil can be used against TSP. India can posture military aggression, but declare its targets openly to be the Pakjabis only. Select the top landowners and military elite and their supporting semifeudal clans only as targets. Pledge support for all proper subnationalist aspirations within TSP directed against Pakjabis. Simultaneously, India should also put on psychological warfare on the agenda by openly preparing at least Northern Indian populations in civilian and military drills to face the consequences of nuclear war by TSP and PRC. This is to construct TSP and PRC image as nuclear aggressors, and also send a message that India does not mind facing and making TSP face also the consequences of a nuclear fallout.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2009 18:59

In fact there are solid reasons to rachet up the pressure on TSP.


No two ways about it, that India has an opportunity and "should" be more aggressive. After all, when India was not prepared the Pakistanis never hesitated to take a swipe and then fight like a women (Kargil and Mumbai).

However, when a Super power steps in, the equation does change.

It seems that India has set some lines it will not cross. Clearly there is a difference of opinion between India and the US (who is batting for Pakistan). However, this time around GoI has made it very evident what is India's criteria to evaluate the situation.

What is missing (to me at least) is what will India do IF Pakistan does not deliver.

It is also clear to me that Pakistan will not deliver to the US. This Pakistani Army "offensive" is the biggest charade to date. IF Obama is willing to get fooled - so be it. From all reports the US will remain in Afghanistan for another 5-10 years, I am not sure Pakistan has the means to survive that long (as we know her today).

But, since the internet does play a role (and hopefully BR plays a bigger role) it is important for messages to get across.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby shiv » 19 Jun 2009 20:12

Frankly, I personally see no role for any overt ratcheting up of pressure against Pakistan especially if people are referring to ratcheting up military pressure. Unless we are actually going to do something concrete to Pakistan "ratcheting up pressure" means zilch. It will be like Op Parakram, which was prophesized in a Bilayati children's rhyme
The Grand old duke of York
He had ten thousand men
He marched them up to the top of the hill
and he marched them down again


I have previously related the story of a personal experience of mine which showed me why they say that you must never ever unsheath your sword if you are not going to use it. In an altercation with an illegal street vendor - the guy pulled knife out on me. No bravery from my side - I could see he was scared of me and I chased him off despite the show and later had him removed from the area. That taught me that a weapon is no use unless you put it to use.

Never put military pressure on Pakistan (or anyone else) unless you actually hit them. That is because you get only one chance. If you let them off - they will know that you are not serious - or worse - they will know that you are actually a coward. Parakram was a shame. The post 26/11 scenario was actually less shameful. An attack was never directly threatened, and none was conducted.

Pakistan should be dealt with by private pressure and threats and public posturing that make India look good and Pakistan look stupid. There is no need to worry if Pakistan thinks we are cowards. They know damn well that they are posturing and that they will get bitch slapped militarily.

If Pakistan is complaining to its lover the US that they cannot move troops from the Indian border because of Indian troop presence, and the US adds "pressure" on India to "reduce tension". Who benefits if India complies?

The US of course, and Pakistan secondarily. But if India does not comply, both the US and Pakistan find it convenient to lay the blame on India. India could tell both Pakistan and the US to bugger off. But a better game would be to make a big charade of complying while deceitfully not doing anything much.

India's behavior would then be comparable to the way the US and Pakistan behave towards us - i.e. tokenism and deceit. Both those nations should be treated with tokenism and deceit - which is a language they both understand. Every time the US has armed Pakistan, they have said "It won't be used against India". This time India says "We are reducing troop levels" - has a publicised charade and does nothing. Let the US and Pakistan whine. Both can be dismissed off hand as unfair pressure on India. There is nothing that these nations can do that they have not already done.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6845
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby CRamS » 19 Jun 2009 20:14

milindc wrote:Indra Nooyi pitches for India-Pakistan dialogue: PTI

WASHINGTON: Indra K. Nooyi, India-born head of PepsiCo, on Thursday favoured talks between India and Pakistan, which she said were vital for the region’s economic growth.

She is not an Indian, she is an American Citizen and is bidding for US interests.


See when she raises a little finger against her white masters, she will be spanked hard on her a@s. Only DDM will take her to 5th heavens; I have seen her once in person several years back at Arsha Vidya Gurukulam annual event in Saylorburg, PA. The oragnizers, naive that they are go and beg one of these 'successcful' India elites to bless the occasioan. They show up with a colonial, condescending arrgoance; as one who has left the uncivilized behind. And you can get this from the deracinated tone of their speech; (Sabeer Bhatia is another such elite, a folk hero to Indian IT wallahs, who was begged, cajoled to bless another one of those events). Indra Nooyi, like Fareed Zakariah, is an another useful idiot in the psy-ops arsenal og white elites to put India in its place.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24114
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2009 20:14

LeT has trained the Maoists in PoK

"He (Madni) revealed that LeT was acting
in coordination with CPI (Maoists) in Jharkhand. He has acted as conduit for LeT and provided training to recruits in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and sent them to India to carry out terror strikes," the public prosecutor told the court

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2009 20:23

SSridhar wrote:LeT has trained the Maoists in PoK

"He (Madni) revealed that LeT was acting
in coordination with CPI (Maoists) in Jharkhand. He has acted as conduit for LeT and provided training to recruits in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and sent them to India to carry out terror strikes," the public prosecutor told the court


Seems to afraid of something out there:

"I have committed some mistakes and I want to remain in jail," Madni told the court in Hindi with folded hands.


:)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2009 20:28

Whatever anyone else does - they do.

Whatever India does only India can do. There is this one more opportunity to clean house - D-Company and all. India now has some time to clean up.

Improve where it counts. Place cricket and bollywood on the very last burner - they are at best worthless distractions.

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby Rahul Shukla » 19 Jun 2009 20:36

Army offensive threatens Pakistan itself: Imran Khan (AFP)

On a visit to Washington, Khan said the Pakistani military faced a crisis of morale...
"Pakistan is at risk," Khan said at the Middle East Institute, a Washington think-tank. "How long will the government soldiers keep fighting their own people?"
"The US must think of an exit strategy in Afghanistan. As long as there is chaos in Afghanistan, or there is fighting going on, there will be no peace in Pakistan's tribal area," Khan said.
"When the true horrors of the collateral damage are known ... the Taliban will have won" through new recruits, Khan said.
"Terrorism is an idea and to fight it as if you're fighting an army is fundamentally flawed," Khan said. "The real enemy was always Al-Qaeda and the eye has been taken off the ball."

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby Rahul Shukla » 19 Jun 2009 20:52

Pakistani offensive 'nears end' (BBC)

The military offensive against Taliban militants entrenched in north-western Pakistan is nearly over, the defence minister has said. Ahmed Mukhtar says people displaced by the fighting in the Swat valley can start returning home from Saturday.
The minister said the army would now set its sights on South Waziristan, the stronghold of Pakistan's Taliban chief.
It is said to be the hiding place of Baitullah Mehsud who is at the helm of Tehreek-e-Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban group blamed for a string of deadly attacks across Pakistan. "As soon as Baitullah [Mehsud] is spotted, he will be killed," Mr Mukhtar said in an interview on Pakistan's Dawn News television channel.
The BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Islamabad says Mr Mukhtar's remarks about the operation in Swat nearing completion must be taken with a pinch of salt. Pakistan has conducted operations in several parts of the north-west since 2004 - and has declared victory on a number of occasions - but this has never prevented militants from staging a comeback.

The army has also failed to eliminate the militant leadership in Swat, our correspondent says. There have been many questions about the true success of the operation with the fate of top Swat militant leaders still unknown.

The BBC map below implies that Sharia law is in effect a mere 60 km away from Islamabad.


Image

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby RajeshA » 19 Jun 2009 21:06

"When the true horrors of the collateral damage are known ... the Taliban will have won" through new recruits, Khan said.

This is something I have been saying for some time now.

Pakistan keeps going through cycles. Anti-Pakiban operations accompanied by much collateral damage, followed by peace treaties with them accompanied by 'compensation', giving the Pakiban time to get more recruits and consolidate their hold over areas, each time the Pakiban returning as an even sturdier fighting force.

This time, there will be 2.5 million more IDPs which could go through the Taliban recruitment factory. And many thousand Armymen who would have deserted the TSPA. The Pakiban will return even more glorious than previously.

@Shiv ji
IMHO, a smaller military force, as is deployed at the moment against the Pakiban, is more likely to commit genocide, than a larger force, the current supplemented by more troops from the Indo-Pak border, as the larger force can put more boots on the ground and overwhelm the enemy thus, but a smaller military force has to rely on aerial bombings, bombardment from a distance, because of which there is far less 'surgicality' to it and far more collateral damage.
India should not allow the Pakistani troops to disengage from the border, by lessening our own troop strength there. However as you say, nothing wrong in toning down the anti-Pak rhetoric in India.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby RamaY » 19 Jun 2009 21:15

^^^

Pakistani offensive 'nears end' (BBC)

It served the purpose, get more aid from unkil.

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby a_kumar » 19 Jun 2009 21:25



Donars have been milked to the last drop (mission accomplished). So the war has met its objective!!

Next phase : IDPs are the new golden goose

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby sunilUpa » 19 Jun 2009 21:28

small IED Mubarak onlee

DERA MURAD JAMALI, Balochsitan, June 19 (APP): Some 22 people including two women were injured in an explosion in Dera Murad Jamali on Friday, police said. According to the police and local administration an explosive device was detonated by remote control at the main bus stand of the town.

Six of the injured were hurt critically, police said, adding that the explosive material was in a bag left at the bus stand.

svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby svenkat » 19 Jun 2009 21:30

The army desertions and the imran statement are happy auguries.A few days back I was worried that Pakjabis might turn the corner.Psaggudin shared my worries.But the Pakjabis have been Tactically Brilliant.Trust them to continue with their TB.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10086
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby sum » 19 Jun 2009 22:04

IG for getting Sikkim into Indian fold, but she bungled up in Simla Agreement. yes 90,000 prisoner well fed those days were indeed a burden.

What we forget is that a huge number of all our assets in Pak till the 90s (maybe even till today) were these PoWs who had been secretly turned in our custody and let loose into their old positions in Pak from where they provided vital intel.

Of course, releasing all of them without anything in return was a blunder.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10086
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby sum » 19 Jun 2009 22:08

Just when you wonder as to where ll our WKKs vanished, they start crawling out realising that we are in the usual "forgive and forget" mode:

Link

Road to reconciliation
By Kuldip Nayar
Friday, June 19, 2009

The Congress did not want to go against the public opinion which tended to take an anti-Pakistan stand after the Mumbai attack.


Diplomatic jargon is anything but precise. Its vagueness covers up different strands and injured sensitivities. Yet the purpose is served. There was an overall demand for India and Pakistan to resume their dialogue. But how to make it possible was the problem. New Delhi’s contention was that it could not begin the talks when the terrorists responsible for the Mumbai carnage had not been brought to justice and when the training camps in Pakistan had not been dismantled.

The visit by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Asif Ali Zardari to a Russian City, Yekaterinburg, came in handy. The two were attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit. The organisation, with Brazil, Russia, Indonesia and China as members and India and Pakistan as observers, reflects big power rivalry in Asia.

True, the Pakistan High Commission at Delhi had made an official request for Asif Ali Zardari’s appointment with Manmohan Singh at the time of the Shanghai summit. But India was reluctant to be seen holding talks when the conditions for the dialogue had not been fulfiled. Yet it was important for the two to meet to break the ice because of increasing antagonism between the countries who share border hundreds of miles long.

It is apparent that the ruling Congress did not want to go against the public opinion which tended to take an anti-Pakistan stand after the attack on Mumbai. Parliament too had taken a hard line in its first session this month and had given a sort of mandate to Manmohan Singh. That was the reason why he told Zardari within the hearing of the media that he (Manmohan Singh) had a limited mandate which was to ask Pakistan to give assurance that it would not allow the terrorist attacking India to operate from its territory.

I personally think India should have initiated the talks earlier. It would have served as pressure on Islamabad. Had there been a dialogue going on between the two, Pakistan would have filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the release by Lahore High Court of Lakshar-e-Toiba leader Hafiz Sayeed. Islamabad would not have risked the break down by not acting against him.
:roll: :rotfl:

America’s relentless pressure on both the governments was also there. I believe Washington was in constant touch with the representatives of the two governments to know about the progress of talks.

Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmud Qureshi is quite right in describing the meeting as ‘a positive step’. At last the deadlock has been broken. Some commentators in India have reacted adversely. They have argued that New Delhi had once again frittered away the advantage without getting anything concrete. Their plea is that the international pressure on Pakistan was so heavy that it would have agreed to India’s two conditions in due course.

My feeling is that the international pressure was beginning to be on New Delhi to start the dialogue. Most of the critics in India are hawks. If it had been up to them, they would have driven India to war against Pakistan long ago. Some India TV channels are all the time talking as if there is no option to hostilities.

It is obvious that foreign secretaries would not be discussing only the terrorist using the Pakistan soil to attack India. The talk looks like meandering to the gamut of terrorism which is posing threat to the very entity of Pakistan.

South Asian approach

Manmohan Singh has said that India would go more than half way if Pakistan were seen to cover some distance. The latter can give evidence of that by dismantling the training camps straightway. It is difficult for the Indian people to be convinced about the Pakistan’s bonafides if the training centres stay intact.


Zardari is said to have been embarrassed by the reportedly tough talk by Manmohan Singh. The Pakistan President would be still more embarrassed by the talk in which most people in India indulge. They are exasperated. They suspect Pakistan. Yet, however, different politically, we are emotionally and mentally the same. Let there be more and wider people-to-people contact. This would help.

The meeting between Manmohan Singh and Asif Ali Zardari should not be taken as a compromise with the forces which are bent upon substituting liberal thinking by fanaticism. The meeting was a long awaited step which might even give heart to opponents and hawks. But it was worth taking.

WKKs and the loony world they live in :-? ...The man doesn't mention a single sane reason as to why we should "reconcile" when Pak has not let go of a single chance to show the finger to India.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby harbans » 19 Jun 2009 22:47

Why should India NOT reduce aggressive posture towards TSP? In fact there are solid reasons to rachet up the pressure on TSP.

The main logic being provided for reducing show of aggression (if any) towards TSP is that this will unite all the various factions and entities fighting inside TSP and who otherwise would tear TSP apart on their own. I have myself maintained by assessment that all the various subnationalist conflicts being highlighted are not sufficient to overrule common hatred against India seen as a Qufr country ripe for Ghazwa-e-Hind. We have had evidence of Balochi youth being recruited to fight Jihad in Kashmir.

The point is that unification on the basis of constructing a common foreign devil, does not need to depend on actual aggression by the supposed foreign "devil". In history this has happened many times. The best known example in the last century is that of the "Juden" by the Nazis and others of same ilk in Europe (Nazis were neither the first nor the only one in Europe or the Anglo-Saxon world to construct so - although after their military defeat, all else were quick to shed that connection and blame it all on the Nazis). In the TSP psyche, the Qufr Hindu of India is an uncanny parallel to the abject, "feminine" "Juden" of the Nazi. Whether the "Hindu" becomes aggressive or not, the TSP elite and its uneducated, Madrassaized, Ulema controlled rural labour under semi-feudal landowning elite, will always see the "Hindu" as similar to the "Nazi" Juden. The Hindu can remain completely passive, without ever retaliating, the TSP power elite will still continue to see India as the devil. In fact the more passive and non-retaliatory the Indian reaction is, the greater will be the need to construct India as the "foreign devil". Any foreign "devil" that shows the possible capacity to turn TSP to dust and desert, is immediately converted into "god" - a hostile one may be, but still a "god" to be carefully pleased and kept in good humour.


Must say brilliant indeed. This is the crux. The later people understand, wakarimasu, comprhend this basic India is in trouble. Hassle is: the drawing room chat type people who lament India's woe's are responsible for this utter idiotic confusion about Bakistan and it's ideals. They are the very illiteratii that they curse. Vir Sanghvi, Karan Thapar, examples. you talk to MMS/ KT. VS/ KN about Ghazawa e Hind..they'll give you a blank stare. C Ramji..don't get frustrated..i had these people in drawing room chats. I bluntly and openly explained what Islam means to India. It means DEATH to it. Proof? They asked, i had it ready. I have seen shocked reactions amongst many. Point ot point rationality answers is par old times. Islamists have mastered that. Not that the points they raise aka Zakir Naik cannot or have not been answered. It's that the ones answering and the ones reading don't have RIGHTLY much time to delve in such issues.

Yet now it is imperative, the drawing room chat wallas will have to be got into line. About Islams doctrines and it's influence on Pakistani aggression towards Kufr India. We go downhill otherwise. We don't need BJP's HIndutva folks, we need a party that will bring India forward..without the mandatory enforcing of Sanskrit Sloka in the morning, but more importantly tell openl that Islam is not a part of original India, it is alien and it's doctrine holds no goodwill to us monkey, rat, snake worshippers. Tell the TRUTH.

WTF is SATAMEVA JAYETE FOR?? COWARDICE?

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4227
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby KLNMurthy » 19 Jun 2009 23:12

brihaspati wrote:

...
So what is the way out?

Yes, a blunt posturing of military aggression will be used by the TSP leadership to try and unify. But on the other hand, if India uses a more subtle approach for aggression, then the internal conflicts and TSP's need to construct the foreign devil can be used against TSP. India can posture military aggression, but declare its targets openly to be the Pakjabis only. Select the top landowners and military elite and their supporting semifeudal clans only as targets. Pledge support for all proper subnationalist aspirations within TSP directed against Pakjabis. Simultaneously, India should also put on psychological warfare on the agenda by openly preparing at least Northern Indian populations in civilian and military drills to face the consequences of nuclear war by TSP and PRC. This is to construct TSP and PRC image as nuclear aggressors, and also send a message that India does not mind facing and making TSP face also the consequences of a nuclear fallout.


IMO here's what we should do. We need to announce that an attack will result in specific and proportionate negative consequences that cannot be reversed until we receive an acknowledgment, apology and cash compensation for the victims. When the attack does happen (as it surely will), actually carry out those consequences and stick to the decision. It doesn't even have to be war; something non-violent like downgrading diplomatic relations from High Commission to charge d' affairs.

There is precedent for this--when Pak attacked Rann of Kutch in 1965, PM Shastri told them we will retaliate at a time and place of our choosing, and then, when we got a further provocation with infiltrators in Kashmir, he crossed the international border. The Pak leadership panicked and lost a war that they might well have come out ahead on. Now with nukes, military option is not so viable, but we can still get the b**rds where it hurts most-- H&D.

We as a nation seem too obsessed with finding overly subtle and clever ways of influencing the adversary, perhaps it is a consequence of centuries of subjugation, when straightforward confrontation (violent or verbal) was not a viable option, and we had to resort to clever subversion and double-talk. What Shastri's example tells me is that we work best when we are aware of this psychological limitation and make the effort to get over it and take action. We have to mean what we say; if they think we don't mean it, then they have no reason to change their behavior.

We also need to accept the reality (as you have said) that there is no significant additional risk of their uniting against India if we are blunt and tough. For all practical purposes (barring a few inconsequential doves) there is no difference of opinion in Pakistan about hatred for India and the desirability of doing India harm. Some of them are more shy than others about expressing their belief, that's all.

The thing we need to guard against internally is that the toughness against Pakistan should not translate into a corresponding attitude towards our own Muslim citizens. Aside from just being wrong, it is also Pakistan's dream come true.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8287
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby anupmisra » 20 Jun 2009 00:29

From one of the greatest bands of our times comes this prophecy which fits the pookies and their situation well:

The lunatic is on the grass.
The lunatic is on the grass.


The lunatic is in the hall.
The lunatics are in my hall.


And if the dam breaks open many years too soon
And if there is no room upon the hill


The lunatic is in my head.
The lunatic is in my head
You raise the blade, you make the change
You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane.
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby Rudradev » 20 Jun 2009 01:24

brihaspati wrote:
So what is the way out?



Brihaspatiji and others...

One way out is that Amirkhan must not be allowed to pack up his bat-ball and go home.

We must work towards two goals simultaneously.

One is to influence events in ways that close off as many alternative avenues and strategic options to Amirkhan as possible... so that he no longer has the option to "declare victory" and withdraw while handing off the problem to proxies like TSPA. Amirkhan must be made to stay in Fak-Ap a long, long time and take his waterboarding like a man.

The second goal should be to increase the cost to Amirkhan of remaining in Fak-Ap... relentlessly, continuously and very visibly. The liability of having to support the TSPA/RAPE combine as "allies" must be made very painfully obvious to Amirkhan, even as the option to wash his hands and leave is denied to him.

See, a lot of posters here have said (correctly) that Amirkhan along with UK and PRC are "never going to change their policy towards Pakistan" in a way that destroys or weakens their TSPA proxy. I'd like to add a caveat... they are "never going to change their policy towards Pakistan" as long as their political classes have a choice.

They aren't going to stop supporting TSPA out of goodwill towards the "natural ally" India, and they aren't going to do it for dharmic reasons, and they aren't going to do it out of sympathy for India's victimhood to Paki terrorism. The only way Amirkhan will ever adopt a policy towards Pakistan that suits Indian goals, is if Amirkhan is compelled to do so.

So how can we compel him? We don't have the muscle to do it directly, on so many levels. The technique of "Parakram-giri" (threatening Pakistan militarily) doesn't work either... because ultimately it amounts to showing a blade we're unwilling to use, and also relieves the internal conflicts within Pakistan (even if temporarily) by presenting a common menace. Both of which are counter productive.

The only way to compel Amirkhan, therefore, is in the most indirect manner of manipulating circumstances. We must arrange things in such a manner that he is deprived of the capacity to retreat, and yet unable to bear the inexorably rising costs of staying.

There is one thing we have to give Amirkhan. We must recognize (with admiration) that his society is sufficiently open and democratic that, when a large enough section of the polity insist on change, then change IS actually brought about. This has happened quite a few times... after the McCarthy era, after Vietnam, after the energy crisis of the 1970s, after the rise of tobacco-related disease deaths in the 1980s and '90s, and most recently after the Bush administration's failure to manage the economy.

The trick is getting a large enough section of the Amirkhan polity to insist on change, even at the cost of the status quo. Most often such insistence focuses on domestic issues, which are after all near and dear to the Amirkhans. There is an inherent threshold of ignorance, indifference and intellectual laziness to be overcome with regard to foreign policy issues (where the popular preference favors either quick, decisive victory or disengagement).

However, if both those options are consistently denied to the Amirkhans... if the pain of remaining in Fak-Ap and paying off the TSPA (as per current UK-prescribed policy) becomes intense enough, and remains intense for long enough, and is felt widely enough... I'm confident that Amirkhan janta will insist on a solution which is in tune with what India would like to see.

Yes it is a long shot, but given the nature of the situation and the hand we've been dealt, it may well be the only shot we have. I don't have any solutions myself, but I suggest that this is a line of strategizing that it would be wise to pursue. Any thoughts?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby svinayak » 20 Jun 2009 01:28

Rudradev wrote: We must arrange things in such a manner that he is deprived of the capacity to retreat, and yet unable to bear the inexorably rising costs of staying.

THey will have other options. THey will make other countries come into the playing field including India. It is very easy. Few blasts everywhere will get the attention of those countries.

See the Charlie Rose interview of Brezinski and Kissinger where they discuss various option. One of the option is changing the US public opinion towards Pakistan. They are working on it.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby Rudradev » 20 Jun 2009 01:31

Acharya wrote:
Rudradev wrote: We must arrange things in such a manner that he is deprived of the capacity to retreat, and yet unable to bear the inexorably rising costs of staying.

THey will have other options. THey will make other countries come into the playing field including India. It is very easy. Few blasts everywhere will get the attention of those countries.


No one said it was going to be easy. But few blasts... in fact many blasts everywhere is something we have been living with for a long time. This will not stop regardless of whether we pursue that course or not. So might as well pursue it.

Also... being called INTO the playing field will be an improvement over the present circumstances, where we are told "get out of Afghanistan and give up Kashmir" (let alone having our interest in Pakistan itself recognized). When we are called into the playing field we get more influence over the price that we must be paid for our cooperation.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby svinayak » 20 Jun 2009 01:36

Rudradev wrote:
Also... being called INTO the playing field will be an improvement over the present circumstances, where we are told "get out of Afghanistan and give up Kashmir" (let alone having our interest in Pakistan itself recognized). When we are called into the playing field we get more influence over the price that we must be paid for our cooperation.

THey will withdraw after calling others to play the game in the region

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby Rudradev » 20 Jun 2009 01:41

Acharya wrote:THey will withdraw after calling others to play the game in the region


That is what they cannot be allowed to do. How to achieve that, I don't know right now. But "impossible" is not a Prakrit word. :mrgreen:

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby svinayak » 20 Jun 2009 01:42

Rudradev wrote:
Acharya wrote:THey will withdraw after calling others to play the game in the region


That is what they cannot be allowed to do. How to achieve that, I don't know right now. But "impossible" is not a Prakrit word. :mrgreen:

I cant tell it here in the open :mrgreen:

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

Postby John Snow » 20 Jun 2009 02:12

You are absolutely right on dot about Indiara N. I heard talk at the Aaradhana Thygaraja festival in Cleveland OH. She was exactly what you describe. By GOD they act like demi Gods. (only among desi crowds and humility personified in white masters courts)

Yes there is no brandishing of sword unless you intended to cut atleast a nosse and ear like Lamana did. Brandishing works with enemy who has something at stake, A bikari begging TSP is not worth pi$$ing unless we surely want to inundate them for good into Arabian sea.


Oh by the way as Pesi head and the company has interests in PAki market would obviously advice India to talk, everybody can advise India and get away with out every getting their back side whipped.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests