India's Retaliation Options to significant terrorist strikes

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 23 Sep 2016 17:40

Singha wrote:F-solah as a special place in the psyche of all islamic nations.

Operation Opera may be?

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 23 Sep 2016 17:53

this is very interesting...

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 23 Sep 2016 17:56

http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/mns- ... p_internal

Even MNS idiots have their uses.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Sep 2016 18:08

MIG-31s offer is history.S-400s for ABM cover available now. Yes,the window is opening with the UNGA session coming to an end.I would expect something after Sushma 's speech.On the other hand if there is fireworks during the weekend,she'll have a houseful audience unlike the sherrif of Pak!

Hard diplomatic slaps are a must.When Bangladesh and Afghanistan have given us the green light to boycott the SAARC meet,we must be seen to take the leadership of SAARC and force Pak out or start a new organisation as I suggested SAFE (S.A.Forum Economic). Sending Pak into diplomatic coventry ,sending their envoy packing,suspending/cancelling the Indus Water treaty until terror stops,etc.,all sporting,eco and visitation ties,will show the world that we mean business.Otherwise we will forever be seen a=s a soft state of 1 billion + people who will forever be servants to a foreign power.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2016 19:47

SAARC should be allowed to die a natural death.

I am still somewhat depressed at the lack of an overt visible response despite my proven ability to post a thousand excuses for inaction on BRF. Spllt personality - but I am clutching at reasons to make myself feel better. It makes it easier that this must be the 8th or 9th time this kind of discussion has followed a terrorist atrocity.

In a perverse way Pakis claiming that India cannot hit back and so they are winning and Pakistaniyat is ascendant is a difficult if painful boast to agree with. I was mildly consoled by Anurag Thakur ruling out any near term resumption of cricket and his actual mention of terrorism and Indian deaths. That is one small step forward.

But there are a thousand areas of cooperation with Pakistan that need to be withdrawn. SAARC, IWT, Paki actors, MFN to Pak. Allowing a Baluchi government in exile. Expediting Chahbahar. We seem to take an agonizingly long time to take the minutest step towards treating Pakistan like the terrorist nation that it is.

The latest excuse that I have personally been shouting from BRF rooftops is that Modi does not want to appear like the mindless hawk he was expected to be - leading us headlong into war. I stand by that "excuse" - I do believe it is valid. Funnily enough our 2002 mobilization and demob did nothing to stop terrorism - in fact terrorism against civilian targets peaked in 2008 - but tapered a bit after 2010-11 especially after international opprobrium. But now we have armed forces targets being it and it hurts to note that an entity than can hit back does not have the permission to do that - at least overtly.

I have to accept that Pakistan the nation is not going to be easy to take down in one swift military action without creating the overall environment that will help the nation slide. But clearly mere war alone does not seem to be accepted (by the powers that be) as the best step. India has been criticized by a lot of sympathizers for its soft approach. Other nations will not harden their approach while we sit back an act soft on visas, trade, people exchange etc. And even after we harden our approach we must wean the US away. I see this as crucial. I admit China is an issue - but the US is a critical partner of Pakistan - and has literally supported Pakistan since our last episode of major BRF rona-dhona in 2001-02. I clearly recall back then that Pakistans US Dola reserves were about $11 bn. It has hovered around that level for 15 years now - and I think it is around 15 bn. In the meantime the US has pumped in untold billions and Pakistan has now enhanced its F-16 fleet, got AMRAAMs, NVGs, better equipped men, new AEW, Russian helos etc. So the US remains totally crucial.

We have to get the US weaned away from them. I would also like to see a land grab in PoK but that does not seem likely

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 23 Sep 2016 20:00

There is a realignment taking place.

The Russians conducting exercises w/ Pakistan means that they have sided w/ the Chinese overall.

Shourie predicted this 8-9 years ago w/ SCO formation.

It's a containment light strategy against India for opening up to the US.

At such a sensitive time like this they could have easily dropped the exercises altogether.

Iran and the US also seem to be moving closer together while the Saudis are moving closer to the SCO.

The Iranians don't want Afghanistan to fall to the Taliban. They need a buffer state to the East.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 23 Sep 2016 20:01

Chandra linked with Beas ? The expenses needed to cut through the mountain will run in to 100s of crores and I dont think it will be worth the effoet. Beas cant handle so much water anyway, downstream towns will be washed away when the snow melts every year. Linking rivers in plains is one thing, but doing it in fragile mountains of that area is a sure shot recipe of disaster.

shravanp · Post by **shravanp** » 23 Sep 2016 20:02

Yagnasri wrote:http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/mns- ... p_internal

Even MNS idiots have their uses.

I never really understood the argument "Lets not mix politics and Art/Music" . This statement is such a sham!

Pretty much every single Paki artist has bad mouthed India once they head back to Pak. Every single of them voice a unanimous undertone - robbing a kaafir of money and doing taqqiya is totally legit!

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 23 Sep 2016 20:02

Deleted.

ramana

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 23 Sep 2016 21:27

Kakarat wrote:I think TSP wants a war and recent activities are confirming that. But a war now could derail the BRICS and BIMSTEC meetings planned in October and leaders of the participating nations coming to India, the meetings would strengthener India's position in the region. I feel even china wants the war to happen for the same reason. There is a call for boycott of the SAARC summit but instead we should suspend Pakistan from SAARC with support of Afghan & Bangladesh move the summit to Kabul or may be Dhaka. We should also move a resolution supporting Baluchistan at SAARC.

BRICS meeting will definitely get derailed with commencement of hostilities. It is reasonable to assume GOI would not want an escalation now.

November (whatever date RAaa Sherif is retiring) will be another date to consider. Any breakout of hostilities will boost the current Bak army chief's play for keeping his post. I don't know that the GOI's prefers the next (unknown) over the current on. Another possibility for uri. Force hostilities and hold on to the post citing *dushman*.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2016 21:42

shravanp wrote:
I never really understood the argument "Lets not mix politics and Art/Music" . This statement is such a sham!

Pretty much every single Paki artist has bad mouthed India once they head back to Pak. Every single of them voice a unanimous undertone - robbing a kaafir of money and doing taqqiya is totally legit!

It's called "projection bias" where Indians supporters of Pak artistes think that the Pakis are just like them and not infected by hate. Pakis are being paid to be nice in India and they do a psy-ops job of making Indians think that all Pakis are nice.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 24 Sep 2016 00:17

IMO we find excuses to not do the obvious and allow them to get away with it. As things cool down, no one wants to escalate as we are busy with other things that have priority and no wants to tip over the apple cart.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Sep 2016 00:21

darshann, Don't do that. No personal attacks.
Am deleting. Next time will lead to a ban.

ramana

Amoghvarsha · Post by **Amoghvarsha** » 24 Sep 2016 00:29

The rhetoric is down.Expect nothing but the next terror attack.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Sep 2016 00:45

Pak Air Force on high alert...

https://twitter.com/Chopsyturvey/status ... 6186791936

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 24 Sep 2016 00:50

RoyG wrote:There is a realignment taking place.

The Russians conducting exercises w/ Pakistan means that they have sided w/ the Chinese overall.

It's wayyyyy too premature to derive that conclusion, IMHO. No "realignment", but increased fluidity... with everyone simultaneously exercising multiple options, I would say. Every geopolitical circumstance suggests that fluidity, rather than fresh alignments, will be the order of the next few years if not decades. Too much is changing too quickly for anybody to put everything in one basket, as it seemed prudent to do 60-70 years ago. For most nations, the old paradigms themselves are becoming less and less useful as a basis for predicting future behaviour. Only Pakistan, because of a lack of any other options, remains essentially welded to China as an annexe of that country.

Shourie predicted this 8-9 years ago w/ SCO formation.

It's a containment light strategy against India for opening up to the US.

When the Russians put hard currency or subsidized oil or military aid into Pakistan's hands, it can be interpreted as containment, even of a light degree. Not before. Now, at the very most, it is an assertion that Russia is allowed to flirt as much as India is, because we have an "open relationship" suitable to the modern age

At such a sensitive time like this they could have easily dropped the exercises altogether.

Rabba! Why?

When the US was sanctioning Russia over Crimea and interfering in Ukraine, when the US and Russian militaries are deployed virtually eyeball-to-skyball in Syria, when a NATO ally actually shot down a Russian aircraft, did we stop exercising with US armed forces or dealing with the US strategic establishment out of sensitivity for Moscow's concerns? No, we went right ahead making LEMOA-ade!

Nothing wrong with that in either our case or the Russians'. But I would not conclude that Pak-Russia exercises mean Russia has "thrown in its lot" decisively with China-Pakistan axis, anymore than our actions in a climate of overt US-Russian hostility mean that we have become America's Munna.

Iran and the US also seem to be moving closer together while the Saudis are moving closer to the SCO.

Again, wayyyyy to early to predict. Nuclear deal notwithstanding, the deep-state US foreign policy establishment still harbors deep resentments against, and suspicions of Iran. And very, very intimate links to the Saudis (which will be revitalized if Clinton becomes POTUS, as seems likely, in November).

The Iranians don't want Afghanistan to fall to the Taliban. They need a buffer state to the East.

That is what both a Taliban-free Afghanistan and an independent Baluchistan will provide. I entirely agree with you that Iran's compulsions may provide a window for India to scuttle a Russia-China-Iran-Pak SCO from consolidating against us.

Iran's interests to its east are at direct odds with China's and Pakistan's interests. Russia's interests, in Syria and the wider ME, are more in tune with Iran's than China's or Pakistan's (still embroiled with Saudi) interests.

I hold that getting an India-Russia-Iran alliance going is our best bet, geostrategically. It expands things outwards from the Bipolar (US vs. SCO) paradigm whereby we either become a subsidiary ally of the West or capitulate to an implacably hostile China-Pak axis. There are no direct points of substantial competition between India, Russia and Iran... plenty of territories buffer the three nations from one another. Yet our interests converge with Russia and Iran more frequently than they do with either the West or with China.

The I-R-I alliance could also play both the existing superpower and its numero uno competitor against each other for maximum gains if the three of us work together. Individually, Russia, Iran, and India would be either recruited and consigned to a subsidiary level or simply overwhelmed by the implacable hostility of one of the two competing "superpowers".

Let's take this to another thread before the Admins yell at us.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 24 Sep 2016 06:26

Water weapon cuts both ways - China factor in Indus card

Sept. 23: China is quietly signalling India that any abrogation of the Indus Waters Treaty to punish its all-weather friend Pakistan will have consequences for this country as well.

Beijing's view is that once the treaty is abrogated, it will be under no obligation to allow water from the Indus or Sutlej rivers to flow into India.

Since China is not a party to the Indus Water Treaty - of which the World Bank is the guardian in a manner of speaking - Beijing has not initiated any formal diplomatic moves in response to the ongoing debate in India, including comments by the external affairs ministry raising question marks about the treaty's continued implementation.

No demarches, no note verbale, no formal discussions backed up by any aide memoire.

Instead a subtle message is being transmitted through Indian visitors to China who have access to decision-makers there, comments at think-tanks which are sworn to confidentiality, cocktail conversations by Chinese diplomats in capitals like New Delhi and Washington in addition to the UN in New York during the ongoing General Assembly season.

Such a modus operandi, now practised by both India and China, has become commonplace since relations with China nosedived in the second year of Narendra Modi's prime ministership. Both sides now invoke third parties to convey messages to each other in the absence of mutual trust between official interlocutors.

This writer was at two separate events recently where a top-level Indian official, at one programme, and a high-level Chinese official, at another, conveyed messages to each other through third parties.

Sworn to secrecy, the participants, including this writer, are handicapped from discussing in public details of these important interactions.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 24 Sep 2016 06:51

Peehold: The next generation of NASR missile called NASL - human guided missile built around the baki DNA. Let there be one in every baki garage.

Rakesh wrote:
https://twitter.com/Chopsyturvey/status ... 6186791936

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 24 Sep 2016 06:59

Here is a balanced, realistic options against napaki cancer from a MEA guru, the way forward is military response :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M5n-1BsG1s

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 24 Sep 2016 07:08

Delhi in bind over Bugti

New Delhi, Sept. 23: The Indian foreign policy establishment is keen to continue to flirt with Balochistan's separatist movement in a bid to pressure Pakistan over its support to cross-border terrorism but remains cautious about turning that dalliance into a formal marriage of interests.

Baloch Republican Party leader Brahumdagh Bugti, currently in exile in Geneva, has formally applied for asylum to India and his application is with the ministry of home affairs.

But while India remains willing to support Bugti's call for an end to human rights violations by Pakistan in Balochistan, senior foreign ministry officials told The Telegraph the Narendra Modi government is aware of the challenges that will come with granting him formal asylum.

Bugti's party is listed by Pakistan as a terrorist entity for alleged attacks in Balochistan. And while India is convinced the charges against the party and its leaders are trumped up, it remains wary about a move that could weaken New Delhi's argument against Islamabad that it hosts terrorists.

Pakistan's defence minister Khwaja Asif indicated the posture Pakistan will adopt if India accepts Bugti's plea for asylum.

"India granting asylum to Bugti will amount to harbouring a terrorist by a state... thus (India) becoming official sponsor of terrorism," Asif posted on micro-blogging site Twitter.

Officials said the government may not take a decision - or at least announce one - on Bugti's application any time soon. This will allow India to remind Pakistan of the option New Delhi has to play at a game Islamabad has mastered, without risking any equivalence.

India's decision is also complicated by Bugti's announcement earlier this week that thousands of Baloch refugees in Afghanistan, and other Baloch victims of human rights abuses in Pakistan will also seek asylum in India.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 24 Sep 2016 07:26

Russia clears air on Pak drill

New Delhi/Islamabad, Sept. 23 (PTI): Russia tonight denied reports that its troops would hold joint military exercises with Pakistani forces in Gilgit-Baltistan, which is a part of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and said the anti-terror drills would take place in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region.

Russian troops arrived in Islamabad today for their first-ever joint exercises with Pakistani forces, starting tomorrow and named "Friendship 2016", which reflects the growing military ties between the two countries.

"Contrary to some reports appearing in a section of the press, the Russia-Pakistan anti-terror exercise is not being held and will not be held in any point of so-called 'Azad Kashmir' or in any other sensitive or problematic areas like Gilgit and Baltistan," a statement from the Russian embassy in New Delhi said.

"The only venue of the exercise is Cherat," the statement added, referring to a place in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Cherat is 34 miles (about 55km) southeast of Peshawar.

"All reports alleging the drills taking place at the High Altitude Military School in Rattu are erroneous and mischievous," the Russian embassy said.

Media reports from Islamabad had said the exercises would take place at the military school in Rattu, which is in Gilgit-Baltistan.

Ananth · Post by **Ananth** » 24 Sep 2016 08:10

Kakkaji wrote:Water weapon cuts both ways - China factor in Indus card

This is a far cry from the 1990s when a Chinese ambassador would drop by and have a frank, unrecorded talk with the joint secretary in the external affairs ministry in charge of China, in this instance Shiv Shankar Menon, whose feel for China as someone who grew up there is legendary.

I always used to wonder who in MEA fed K.P. Nayar. At least one of the source is quiet clear.

The above article is a contrary opinion held by a section of MEA. Regular readers of IWT thread will be able to quickly identify the holes in the argument eg: hydrology, catchement areas, lack of holding capacity at China, utilization of waters in China etc. Will China stick with TSP and loose Tibet?

Both the articles by K.P. Nayyar posted by Kakkaji advocate status-quo approach. The attempt right now is to explore the space beyond the status-quo. It also gives us opportunity to increase uncertainty of various vectors facing TSP. Why should they get the benefit of "Good School Boy" behavior by India. As for China, India unfortunately cannot be expected to guarantee safety of their investments in TSP at risk of its own existence.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 24 Sep 2016 08:14

Rudradev wrote:It's wayyyyy too premature to derive that conclusion, IMHO. No "realignment", but increased fluidity... with everyone simultaneously exercising multiple options, I would say. Every geopolitical circumstance suggests that fluidity, rather than fresh alignments, will be the order of the next few years if not decades. Too much is changing too quickly for anybody to put everything in one basket, as it seemed prudent to do 60-70 years ago. For most nations, the old paradigms themselves are becoming less and less useful as a basis for predicting future behaviour. Only Pakistan, because of a lack of any other options, remains essentially welded to China as an annexe of that country.

W/ the United States at the footsteps of China and increased NATO presence in East Europe, fluidity is turning into a waterfall. Maintaining China to absorb the punches from the South and SE is their #1 priority b/c it allows them to shift the bulk of their forces to East Europe and the Caucasus. They've also taken a junior role to China in the SCO and are coordinating their economic moves w/ them. It's naive to think that we are a significant factor in their strategic calculus given that we simply lack the economic and military strength to contribute in any meaningful way to safeguarding their national interests.

Rudradev wrote:When the Russians put hard currency or subsidized oil or military aid into Pakistan's hands, it can be interpreted as containment, even of a light degree. Not before. Now, at the very most, it is an assertion that Russia is allowed to flirt as much as India is, because we have an "open relationship" suitable to the modern age

To accomplish what exactly? Would military exercises w/ the Ukrainians or w/ the Georgians after escalation be seen in the same light?

Rudradev wrote:Rabba! Why?

When the US was sanctioning Russia over Crimea and interfering in Ukraine, when the US and Russian militaries are deployed virtually eyeball-to-skyball in Syria, when a NATO ally actually shot down a Russian aircraft, did we stop exercising with US armed forces or dealing with the US strategic establishment out of sensitivity for Moscow's concerns? No, we went right ahead making LEMOA-ade!

Nothing wrong with that in either our case or the Russians'. But I would not conclude that Pak-Russia exercises mean Russia has "thrown in its lot" decisively with China-Pakistan axis, anymore than our actions in a climate of overt US-Russian hostility mean that we have become America's Munna.

Again what's the intent? We don't share any borders w/ them. Our priorities are dealing w/ Pakistan and keeping the Chinese at more than arm's length at the border. Start exercising w/ the Estonians and watch how much much they fume. All I'm saying is that given their concerns about encirclement they will grudgingly back the Chinese even at the cost of our relationship. Apart from importing their arms, what else do we provide them?

Rudradev wrote:Again, wayyyyy to early to predict. Nuclear deal notwithstanding, the deep-state US foreign policy establishment still harbors deep resentments against, and suspicions of Iran. And very, very intimate links to the Saudis (which will be revitalized if Clinton becomes POTUS, as seems likely, in November).

W/ the nuclear deal w/ Iran over, the US is more concerned about Saudi moves w/ the Russians. Iran simply doesn't have the market share that they have to cause major fluctuations in the commodity exchanges at the current time. Iran has already indirectly taken half of Iraq and they have enough strategic depth to sit back and relax for a bit.

Rudradev wrote:That is what both a Taliban-free Afghanistan and an independent Baluchistan will provide. I entirely agree with you that Iran's compulsions may provide a window for India to scuttle a Russia-China-Iran-Pak SCO from consolidating against us.

Iran's interests to its east are at direct odds with China's and Pakistan's interests. Russia's interests, in Syria and the wider ME, are more in tune with Iran's than China's or Pakistan's (still embroiled with Saudi) interests.

I hold that getting an India-Russia-Iran alliance going is our best bet, geostrategically. It expands things outwards from the Bipolar (US vs. SCO) paradigm whereby we either become a subsidiary ally of the West or capitulate to an implacably hostile China-Pak axis. There are no direct points of substantial competition between India, Russia and Iran... plenty of territories buffer the three nations from one another. Yet our interests converge with Russia and Iran more frequently than they do with either the West or with China.

The I-R-I alliance could also play both the existing superpower and its numero uno competitor against each other for maximum gains if the three of us work together. Individually, Russia, Iran, and India would be either recruited and consigned to a subsidiary level or simply overwhelmed by the implacable hostility of one of the two competing "superpowers".

Let's take this to another thread before the Admins yell at us.

Iran want's to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and growing IS presence their but an independent Baluchistan isn't in their interests. I doubt they want the independence movement spilling over onto their side. They know that once Pakistan splinters we aren't going to by all buddy buddy w/ them anymore. We'll simply build direct routes to Sindh, Balochistan, and Afghanistan.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Sep 2016 09:18

>> Water weapon cuts both ways - China factor in Indus card

Sanjay Dixit ‏@Sanjay_Dixit Sep 22
Sanjay Dixit Retweeted Shekhar Gupta
Sutlej gets 90%!of its waters from within India. In Tibet, it flows like a small drain. Sir, pl talk facts. China is irrelevant for IWT

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 24 Sep 2016 09:35

Kakkaji wrote:Water weapon cuts both ways - China factor in Indus card

Sept. 23: China is quietly signalling India that any abrogation of the Indus Waters Treaty to punish its all-weather friend Pakistan will have consequences for this country as well.

Beijing's view is that once the treaty is abrogated, it will be under no obligation to allow water from the Indus or Sutlej rivers to flow into India.

Since China is not a party to the Indus Water Treaty - of which the World Bank is the guardian in a manner of speaking - Beijing has not initiated any formal diplomatic moves in response to the ongoing debate in India, including comments by the external affairs ministry raising question marks about the treaty's continued implementation.

This is just bullshit, an argument of the Pakistan sympathizers. China will not be able to stop neither Indus or Sutlej, you cannot just stop a river. They will also not be able to divert the flow of the river due to the altitude and both the rivers get most of its water from the mountains in India. Even if the Chinese stop the flow of Indus its the Pakistanis who are going to suffer, they will not be able to bypass India and send water to Pakistan

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 24 Sep 2016 09:42

Absolutely. Every bilateral relations have their own dynamics and linking both will only serve the self goal of paki sympathisers. IWT has nothing to do with china. India can do whatever we want.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 24 Sep 2016 10:05

The Pakistan sympathizers have started using China as deterrent since the Nuclear deterrent has started loosing its shine

ssundar · Post by **ssundar** » 24 Sep 2016 10:13

Kakarat wrote: This is just bullshit, an argument of the Pakistan sympathizers. China will not be able to stop neither Indus or Sutlej, you cannot just stop a river. They will also not be able to divert the flow of the river due to the altitude and both the rivers get most of its water from the mountains in India. Even if the Chinese stop the flow of Indus its the Pakistanis who are going to suffer, they will not be able to bypass India and send water to Pakistan

Serious question... what if the threat was that China would block/divert the Brahmaputra if India withdraws from IWT?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2016 10:19

ssundar wrote:
Kakarat wrote: This is just bullshit, an argument of the Pakistan sympathizers. China will not be able to stop neither Indus or Sutlej, you cannot just stop a river. They will also not be able to divert the flow of the river due to the altitude and both the rivers get most of its water from the mountains in India. Even if the Chinese stop the flow of Indus its the Pakistanis who are going to suffer, they will not be able to bypass India and send water to Pakistan
Serious question... what if the threat was that China would block/divert the Brahmaputra if India withdraws from IWT?

Look at it this way. What is the guarantee that China will not use that same threat every time it wants to force India in one direction on a host of different issues, knowing we are shit scared of what might happen?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 24 Sep 2016 10:22

Kakarat wrote:The Pakistan sympathizers have started using China as deterrent since the Nuclear deterrent has started loosing its shine

True! In every argument they bring in the big gun China. Every thing end with "if India hits Bakis China will hit us". Why will China be dragged into Indo-Pak conflict?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Sep 2016 10:24

The PRC has already built dams on the Brahmaputra. After indian complaints india was told that it is not indias problem what the PRC is doing in Tibet. This was in 2012..

ssundar · Post by **ssundar** » 24 Sep 2016 10:26

shiv wrote: Look at it this way. What is the guarantee that China will not use that same threat every time it wants to force India in one direction on a host of different issues, knowing we are shit scared of what might happen?

Not dhoti-shivering here. I would seriously like to understand.

IIRC, they have already done this in the past - leak news that they will divert the Brahmaputra using nuclear explosions. My question is focused on what India's response will/should be. How did India handle this threat in the past? What options do we have now for an "in your face" response?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 24 Sep 2016 10:31

The answer is in your response ..... when you state "They ..... leak news that they will divert the Brahmaputra using nuclear explosions"

Did they do that in response of India talking of walking out of IWT? If not then it means that both issues are independent and we are linking them as a rational by some (Mostly p1ss @ any cost, some dhoti-shiver) not to hit bakis.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2016 10:40

ssundar wrote:
shiv wrote: Look at it this way. What is the guarantee that China will not use that same threat every time it wants to force India in one direction on a host of different issues, knowing we are shit scared of what might happen?
Not dhoti-shivering here. I would seriously like to understand.

IIRC, they have already done this in the past - leak news that they will divert the Brahmaputra using nuclear explosions. My question is focused on what India's response will/should be. How did India handle this threat in the past? What options do we have now for an "in your face" response?

No. It's not about dhoti shivering at all. The problem is that blocking the Brahmaputra is a separate problem that we may have to face anyway whether or not we do anything with the IWT. It may suit the Chinese to support their whore by making such statements but it would be silly for us to link that with what we are going to do in the West. The Brahmaputra issue is separate and should be IMO discussed in a China (or other river water sharing) thread and not linked with IWT.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Sep 2016 11:35

IWT or not, China will divert water from Tibet when it can do it easily enough from civil engineering perspective or when it gets really desperate. If we think IWT is leverage against that then we are big fools. We need to develop other counter cards for that. In long term the only thing that will guarantee water from Tibet is Free-Tibet. So we need to develop the leverage on China in Tibet itself. Dragon's underbelly is soft. It will take decades to develop the game fully, but we need to start NOW. Chinese care ziltch for Pakis dying in the want of water. And India can do ziltch to stop China in current Scenario. We need to start decoupling China from Pakis and deal with them separately. I think we have enough cards if we play our game properly to make China understand that their meddling in Indo-Pak affairs will not be tolerated. We Indians don't seem to understand fully what comprehensive national Security is, and how we need to work on all fronts right from Military to as innocuous as Arts/Sports to secure the nation. And most importantly we lack the killer instinct.

Regarding this Baloch people applying for asylum, I hope they are not shooting in their own feet by putting India in a tight spot. If the details are worked out behind the curtain beforehand and our guys agreed to host them, the we should not lose time on this and act immediately. But if this is not the case and we are not fully prepared for this, given our glacial pace for acting on important matters, too much time will go between the asylum application and final decision. This will be detrimental and will send mixed signals on our intent on Balochistan issue. IMO there shouldn't be any public theatrics from both sides before working out all the details beforehand. Indecision shows weakness.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 24 Sep 2016 11:53

ssundar wrote:
Kakarat wrote: This is just bullshit, an argument of the Pakistan sympathizers. China will not be able to stop neither Indus or Sutlej, you cannot just stop a river. They will also not be able to divert the flow of the river due to the altitude and both the rivers get most of its water from the mountains in India. Even if the Chinese stop the flow of Indus its the Pakistanis who are going to suffer, they will not be able to bypass India and send water to Pakistan
Serious question... what if the threat was that China would block/divert the Brahmaputra if India withdraws from IWT?

China has been constructing multiple dams and working on diverting Brahmaputra for a long time, its not that they will do it only if we walk out of IWT they are doing it already

What Chinese dam on Brahmaputra means to India

This is a article from 2014 on China activating one of those dams

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Sep 2016 11:54

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> Water weapon cuts both ways - China factor in Indus card

Sanjay Dixit ‏@Sanjay_Dixit Sep 22
Sanjay Dixit Retweeted Shekhar Gupta
Sutlej gets 90%!of its waters from within India. In Tibet, it flows like a small drain. Sir, pl talk facts. China is irrelevant for IWT

Even Indus has major tributaries within India - Shyok, Nubra, Zanskar. We are letting all this go. Indus is big or gets bigger as tributaries join. Most major tributaures other than Ravi, Chenab, Jhelum, Sutlej, Beas and Kabul join in Indus in Pakistan. China can control maybe 01 or 02 tributaries partially.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Sep 2016 11:59

ssundar wrote:...
Serious question... what if the threat was that China would block/divert the Brahmaputra if India withdraws from IWT?

Again Branhaputra is not one river and has many major tributaries. A look at the map of Arunachal, Bhutan, Sikkim, and Assam will be instructive. The water quantity on that river so large that (IOW and a layman wondering) it might be beneficial for us if some water is tapped outside. NE also has descent rain so we are not critical like Indus is to Pakistan.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Sep 2016 12:09

divert water from Indus and restart saraswati river I say !

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Sep 2016 12:32

But I guess this is the time we need to focus more on our retaliation. A week or so after bravado from Pakis.