The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Mar 2011 21:56

I got an e-mail about an article by Uneven Cohen that India should buy US arms in order to improve the 'realtionship".

The email sender was arguing that India faces a threat from PRC and should buy this stuff even if US still supplies arms to TSP and keep them afloat. The threat is akin to Hitler in WWII.

I said India can handle PRC threat by itself and the only concern is a two front war and US keeping TSP afloat keeps that threat alive. And buying US arms only allows that threat to be kept alive. Further US and PRC are like economic twins and they both have special relationship with TSP. So situation is not like Nazi Germany. India should do nothing that allows both of them to prop up TSP.

When such purchase also prop up TSP then its better off to fight with what you have. PRC bogey shouldn't be used to siphon of hard earned money to buy weapons that come with restrictions. Recall the weapons that Karna got. None of them was useful to him.

And another thing is PRC needs to go non-conventional if it wants to keep Tibet and other regions to avoid defeat.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 02 Mar 2011 22:00

shiv wrote:
For a long time my thesis has been (it finds mention in my ebook and on BRF threads currently running) that it is easy for the Pakistani army with aid from the US (and/or China) to create Islamist militias of tens of thousands of men. But the one thing that these militias have not been able to achieve is defeat the Indian military. Over the years, they have not even been able to cross the border. Nowadays they get shot there and then and their bodies offered to Pakistan or to Agni. Note that if Pakistan creates these militias the naturalplace for these people to go is Cashmere. It is, after all, right next door.

Furthermore, it is my thesis that it was a fundamental inability of Pakistan to seriously push tens of thousands of armed militia into India that eventually caused them to "build up" in numbers in Pakistan and Afghanistan after which it became easier to ship them to Dagestan, doggie-stan Checehnstan wherever

Saar, just to balance all the love for the US, the LOC fence had a significant amount of help from the Israelis especially in sensor technology. That help would not have been possible without the US' blessing (as is the case with the Phalcons)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Mar 2011 22:07

VikramS wrote: Saar, just to balance all the love for the US, the LOC fence had a significant amount of help from the Israelis especially in sensor technology. That help would not have been possible without the US' blessing (as is the case with the Phalcons)

You mean the US paid for all that as aid to India? That is news to me. As an Indian I am ashamed that India Pakistanically accepted such aid from the US. I thought we had a lot of money to pay for all that.

But it is touching to note that the US gave a "blessing" to the Israelis to provide equipment that could be used to fight the Pakistanis.

I think you might have figured out my personal attitude to these feeble excuses. For India or against India. That decision has never been unambiguously made by the US whose primary tactic is to play one side against the other. The US must be forced to make that decision. And not have US apologists making excuses for the US.

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 02 Mar 2011 22:26

Shiv ji,

The nuclear liability bill and the apparent reluctance to sign American birds for MRCA(this is why so many american officials/diplomats are to ing and froing India) is India loudly and clearly wanting America to chose. India did not modify even under threat from US, on the issue of nuclear liability. The David Headley/Dawood Gilani testimony to Indian Investigators has been noted in top echelons of the Government. India's rise in the past 20 years will end "divide and rule", in the near future.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 02 Mar 2011 22:46

Though (as a client) TSP will most likely take advantage of an Indo-China war China and attack India, OTOH, it is highly unlikely that China will jeoperdise it's economy and attack India in case of an Indo-Pak war.

Wrt US, the odds of an Indo-US war are non existent, but in an Indo-Pak war not sure what role US will play.

I would prefer that US join the hunt for TSP nukes (and Afghans to just join the hunt).

But in reality besides military aid needs to be stopped and India can, by making rules about it's domestic industry, set some ground rules about it. US bases and operators need to be out of TSP beforehand because it would not expected to launch action against TSP from TSP! Major non NATO ally status needs to be revoked before US can join on the side of India. At a minimum need to ensure troop deployment is not given to TSP by US (as in Op Parakram)

So US support, irrespective of the noises is not a given but need to be cultivated in the meantime.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 02 Mar 2011 22:57

shiv wrote:
I think you might have figured out my personal attitude to these feeble excuses. For India or against India. That decision has never been unambiguously made by the US whose primary tactic is to play one side against the other. The US must be forced to make that decision. And not have US apologists making excuses for the US.

Perhaps I might have missed it, but that is a very nice articulation of your perspective. If that is the focus more power to you.

My POV, that historic =/= and playing one side against another from the US is gradually coming to an end. There are numerous signals. OTOH, the Chinese seem to be stepping in in doing the =/=. That aspect gets very little attention, in the focus on what the US has done in the past.

More importantly, that the US may be forced to cling to the =/= longer than it wants because the Chinese will be more than willing to do the =/= which changes nothing from the Indian perspective, but the US then loses whatever leverage it has.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Mar 2011 22:59

well... the indian mindset (as amply demonstrated on BRF) is
1. first the british did x,y,z to us
2. then the americans did m,n,o to us
3. now the chinese will do p,q,r to us

isnt it better to start talking about what india will do?

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 02 Mar 2011 23:01

Lalmohan wrote:well... the indian mindset (as amply demonstrated on BRF) is
1. first the british did x,y,z to us
2. then the americans did m,n,o to us
3. now the chinese will do p,q,r to us

isnt it better to start talking about what india will do?

Sir, anticipating the p,q,r is what we are trying to do. The focus is to makes sure that if we chose, p,q,r over m,n,o, then be sure that it is a better choice.

No point rooting for p,q,r not knowing whether it will help India or hurt her.

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 02 Mar 2011 23:45

Lalmohan wrote:well... the indian mindset (as amply demonstrated on BRF) is
1. first the british did x,y,z to us
2. then the americans did m,n,o to us
3. now the chinese will do p,q,r to us

isnt it better to start talking about what india will do?

Lalmohan ji,

Astute words. How do we educate a generation of people who have this subservient mindset, coutesy Macaulay Education. We have a prime minister who feels India BENEFITED FROM British Rule. We have Yuvraj licking dawood mulibund to show kalavathi in amethi..!

The general minset is, (there are exceptions), we are RECEIVERS, not GIVERS. Its even before the British... The Khil jis, Mughals,Ghauri ,Ghaznavi, Nadir Shah.. the list is endless. History of a 1000 years of subservience cannot be washed away in 60 years. I realise this painfully. Matter of fact, many times, I sound subservient(in my work, but I Digress). Its a transgenerational theme.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 02 Mar 2011 23:55

Lalmohan wrote:well... the indian mindset (as amply demonstrated on BRF) is
1. first the british did x,y,z to us
2. then the americans did m,n,o to us
3. now the chinese will do p,q,r to us

isnt it better to start talking about what india will do?

This is exactly what CRamS tries but he/she tries it in a crude way.

At the end of the day India has to make serious efforts to break out and we keep putting economy and poverty alleviation are reasons for the "alleged" compromises.

By the way a lot is written regarding compromises in the following link.

http://newsinsight.net/archivedebates/n ... recno=2111

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 03 Mar 2011 00:04

That mindset is true, but it is actually worse than that: We wake up late, when the harm is already done. When all our chickens are already cooked, our b@11s already on the anvil and squashed.

When did India really realize that it was the British that actually divided India and set up Jinnah? Now that that Khanate is a declining power, we seem to have wakon up to its 6 decades of pampering of TSP. When did India realize that PRC will attack us and take Aksai Chin and Tibet? Only after PLA had already descended into NEFA. WHen did we realize that TSP nukes will change the game? Well after it already has a bigger arsenal than us. When did India realize that MKG and JLN foiseted a scam? When did India realize that extending the hand of friendship to TSP is a waste?

We seem to have a habit of waking up too late.

Too little, too late.

There is a Hindi phrase for it: "Saanp chala gaya or laathi peettey rahe".

Curiously in India, anyone who wake up on time and tries to wake others is automatically called a war-monger, fear-spreader, alarmist.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Mar 2011 00:48

surinder wrote:We seem to have a habit of waking up too late.

Too little, too late.

There is a Hindi phrase for it: "Saanp chala gaya or laathi peettey rahe".

Curiously in India, anyone who wake up on time and tries to wake others is automatically called a war-monger, fear-spreader, alarmist.

surinder ji,

that is indeed the issue here.

"War-monger, fear-spreader, alarmist" have new avatars. These days such Indians are derided, as those who brown their pants, shiver in their dhotis, or moan Indian weaknesses!

Bwatt to do, saar ji?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Mar 2011 00:53

All will be well if Indians just keep working on making india strong. Past is done, Future is unknown but lets not waste the present. Enemies do what enemies do and friends in business do what is good for business and self interests and Nations dont have friends but alliances.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Mar 2011 01:26

Lalmohan wrote:well... the indian mindset (as amply demonstrated on BRF) is
1. first the british did x,y,z to us
2. then the americans did m,n,o to us
3. now the chinese will do p,q,r to us

isnt it better to start talking about what india will do?

Lalmohan ji,

Much of what we read on BRF is to analyze the developments in the world, and then to mask our impotency, lack of creative solutions, and a delayed-reactive GoI, we simply state that doing nothing is the best option and how our insight into the world developments and history would deliver us to safe shores of the future.

What is the use of insight, if doing nothing is the only decision we take? If we are uncertain of ourselves to mold the world to our designs and vision, perhaps it is best to suppress having a vision at all! Then we would not be forced to act!

So we do a lot of analysis, but no synthesis! Of course, it is not always possible for the individual to synthesize the future of our nation, though brihaspati garu, and others may disagree to this. But at least we should synthesize a vision of the future, if not the future itself. We should at least propose a road. We should at least propose our own game. Today India does not have an Indian Game. If one should google for Indian Game, one would probably land at various websites for Indian Game Reserves in USA.

That is it. India needs her own game! We need our own game, not to become just an influential pole in the world, but to become the dominant center of the world.

We look at Pakistan, as if it is a problem without solution, and so we do not try to solve it. Pakistan is nothing, but a small stone in our path, which we should kick away with the contempt it deserves. Instead we obsess with it in analyzing that piece of dog-shit! Solutions are there! But then such proposals are inconvenient, because they require, that we start playing our game, that we move our butts! So the best treatment given to these solutions, are to find out something or another that doesn't gel, and then divert attention to more analysis! We are all condemned to do only analysis!

BRF should be putting its minds together, like a think tank, and putting forth proposals to the Government of India, and trying to lobby it to play our game! With the sheer number of gurus, influential Indians, rich Indians, brilliant Indians, that make up the BRF Corpus, we should be contributing to Indian Policy in a much bigger way! So what use is even cursing our government when BRF itself cannot act decisively and as one voice! From our discussions and thinking and posting, at least some wisdom should have risen to the surface, that we can fashion into proposals for the Indian Game!

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 03 Mar 2011 03:16

RajeshA wrote: Much of what we read on BRF is to analyze the developments in the world, and then to mask our impotency, lack of creative solutions, and a delayed-reactive GoI, we simply state that doing nothing is the best option and how our insight into the world developments and history would deliver us to safe shores of the future.

What is the use of insight, if doing nothing is the only decision we take? If we are uncertain of ourselves to mold the world to our designs and vision, perhaps it is best to suppress having a vision at all! Then we would not be forced to act!
...

We look at Pakistan, as if it is a problem without solution, and so we do not try to solve it. Pakistan is nothing, but a small stone in our path, which we should kick away with the contempt it deserves. Instead we obsess with it in analyzing that piece of dog-shit! Solutions are there! But then such proposals are inconvenient, because they require, that we start playing our game, that we move our butts! So the best treatment given to these solutions, are to find out something or another that doesn't gel, and then divert attention to more analysis! We are all condemned to do only analysis!

Very well written Rajesh Ji. (By the way, can I get your book?)

We as a nation seem to have an obsession with solutions that involve little or no sacrifice accompanied by little or no action. If any action/sacrifice is needed, then it better be done by others, not by me or anyone close to me. Such a mindset can only beget one consequence: Others will act, their actions will often impinge on us, and we will only count what wrong other bad people did to us.

As Caroline Hax wrote, I paraphrase: "Since we cannot change our circumstances and are paralyzed in the field of action, we settle for being right". Righteous indignation is our currency---railing against the bad people who did bad things to us which are so unfair and immoral. After this round of indignation is over, we are back to square one inviting the next round of immoral unprincipled atrocities on us, again followed by impotent bouts of righteous indignation.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Mar 2011 04:22

surinder wrote:Very well written Rajesh Ji. (By the way, can I get your book?)

surinder ji,
Just let me know of your email address in the OT Thread.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Mar 2011 06:40

VikramS wrote:
shiv wrote:
I think you might have figured out my personal attitude to these feeble excuses. For India or against India. That decision has never been unambiguously made by the US whose primary tactic is to play one side against the other. The US must be forced to make that decision. And not have US apologists making excuses for the US.
Perhaps I might have missed it, but that is a very nice articulation of your perspective. If that is the focus more power to you.

It is in the long term interests of the US to do just that. It's about time the US figured that out. Perhaps all the things that people say about the US are true - I don't know. Perhaps it is true that they are racist WASPs who have contempt for coloured non Abrahamic people. I don't know. But the most ridiculous mantra I have heard sung about the US too many times is that the US does things in its own interest. It does not. The US is made to do things in the interest of the President in power of the day and the party in power. The US also does things in the interest of some powerful interests within the US to the exclusion of many people in the US.

The US's Pakistan policy was a policy of backing one dysfunctional horse against the USSR with a possible cynical and contemptuous attitude towards the vast mass of Pakistanis themselves. The Pakistani elite themselves did not give a flying fog for their own people - so why should the US do that. But it was an error the US could have predicted. For a nation that talks so much about democracy, the US was behind the curve in understanding the meaning of power of the people. This is not a one off. The US does it too often suggesting a fundamental problem in US attitudes about the world and power structures. But I am going OT.

It the long term the only workable solution for Pakistan is to compel the Pakistanis to set aside their hatred for India and re integrate with the South Asian economy. Six decades of trying to fight India have failed despite help from the US and China, and a few other fatwallet friends. But as long as some entity in Pakistan feels that it is strong enough to fight war and make military/geopolitical games in the neighborhood it will be impossible to convince Pakistan to take a different course. The entity in Pakistan that feels that it has the strength to achieve geopolitical gains is the Pakistani army. The army has received so much unreasonable support for so many decades that they are no longer normal in their thinking or actions.

The first step would be to reduce the support the Pakistan army receives from its friends - one at a time if necessary. Choosing between China and the US, I see the US as a more reasonable entity which has the internal political mechanisms to recognise mistakes and change course. To its credit - some members of the US establishment are beginning to smell the coffee. They need to be empowered by discrediting and pulling the rug from underneath the feet of those in the US who are still blind. The US is a behemoth in which some people are unable to cope with changes in world power structures. They are able to enjoy it when the US looks like its winning, but are unable to think coherently when the US is not winning. Perhaps some old cold warriors remain - but these people will not be won over by reason or love. They have to be pulled down to make way for others. India must not give this group even the slightest feeling that they can continue to get away with what they have been doing so long

Chins is a different issue. We (India) cannot afford to waffle saying that China will take over if the US leaves. That could possibly be an American cold warrior's nightmares, or the fears of a an American anxious about waning American influence. But from an Indian viewpoint it does not make sense. To me that sounds like a man who will not shoo away flies on his plate because he says that shooing away one fly only makes place for another. They all have to be shooed away individually or collectively - no other go, no matter how slow or painful the process may be.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Mar 2011 06:50

Lalmohan wrote:well... the indian mindset (as amply demonstrated on BRF) is
1. first the british did x,y,z to us
2. then the americans did m,n,o to us
3. now the chinese will do p,q,r to us

isnt it better to start talking about what india will do?

I have followed this discussion with great interest...And this, LAmohan-ji sums up a lot of what has been said...

But implicit in your question is the assumption that India hasnt done anything at all to secure its own place in the sun...

But look around you - we have shifted the narrative...Do a small exercise if you can...Go to the HT office in Delhi (or any other city)..Pick up from its archives a paper from the 1980s, or 1970s...What do the headlines say? And what do the "foreign affairs" sections say? Compare them to what you see today..

India does not have "singular" interests..Actually, large powerful nation states almost never have singular interests..They have multiple interests, many of them evidently conflicting ones..LArge states learn to manage these interests and balance the repercussions..

India's interests is not limited to Pak, its not limited to the US, its not limited to China...We therefore cannot take a unitary view of what is "good"...

If we define, as an example, our geostrategic interests as lying between the Straits of Malacca to the Gulf of Hormuz, cooperation with the US is not an option, it is an imperative...No wonder you see the Indian Navy effort on Libya being seemingly coordinated with NATO...If preserving the protection levels for our farmers in WTO negotiations is a matter of supreme interests, cooperation with China is but a natural corollary of that.......Either of the two, on the other hand, on the other hand, does not desist us from maintaining close links with Iran or selling naval equipment to Vietnam...

The shift in the narrative is at the level where we are inacreasingly sitting on the table where the agenda is being decided..And the agenda is wide, diverse and far reaching...It includes the Pak problem, but that isnt the only thing on the agenda...

A small point about US weapons supplies to Pak...If anything, in moments of truth, those were the very pieces that came to little (or limited use) to them...In 1965 and in 1998, US sanctions meant that a Pak Army equipped with US weapons could not use those to their optimum levels - its incidentally a pet gripe of many Paki commentators..If we are truly Chankyan, instead of opposing US weapons supplies to Pak, we would perhaps encourage (limited) supplies...And use our leverage with the US to impose sanctions before a confliect!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Mar 2011 06:58

somnath wrote:If we are truly Chankyan, instead of opposing US weapons supplies to Pak, we would perhaps encourage (limited) supplies...And use our leverage with the US to impose sanctions before a confliect!

The catch phrase "Chankyan" in this sentence appear to be necessary to flatter the reader an make him feel like the much admired Chanakya if he encourages the US to supply arms to Pakistan which will get cut off in case of war.

However Pakistan is as clever as Chanakya. They take the arms and do not make war. They fight a sub-war of terrorism and subvesrion, refuge to criminals, support proxies, and print Indian currency in official printing presses while using those arms as a deterrent to stop India from making war. So the sanctions do not kick in making the idea irrelevant and counter productive.

The idea is a bad one. Strongly disagree. Not Chankyan at all but serious self goal.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Mar 2011 07:01

shiv wrote:But the most ridiculous mantra I have heard sung about the US too many times is that the US does things in its own interest. It does not. The US is made to do things in the interest of the President in power of the day and the party in power. The US also does things in the interest of some powerful interests within the US to the exclusion of many people in the US.

That is not just true of the US, it is true for all countries..."Interest" of the country is nothing but the interest of the ruling elite..However, more evolved the democracy is, more aligned the interests are of the ruling elite to those of the hoi polloi...

shiv wrote:It the long term the only workable solution for Pakistan is to compel the Pakistanis to set aside their hatred for India and re integrate with the South Asian economy

That is a "peacenik" dream!

Blasphemy (in BR)! Seriously however, that is going to happen only in the very long term, if ever...And in the long run, we are all dead...The narrative of the creation of Pakistan precludes such a scenario - as MJ Akbar puts it, Pakistan is the culmination of the Mughal empire...the Paki elites have a vested interest in Pakistan, and one that remains as "distinct" from India as possible...Any talk of "integration" causes real damage to their positions...

The only workable solution would be to make Pakistan as irrelevant as possible...That too is a geogrpahic challenge, but that is something where India can play a more decisive role...The hearts and minds of Pakis are not going to change if the US turned off the arms tap - in the '90s the Pakis got precious little thanks to Pressler, but their capacity and intent to harm India didnt go down...They would simply turn to other suppliers in the arms bazaar, and fund the purchases through its geographic access (or nuke tech) to the principles - if not US, then China..If not China, then Saudi Arabia, if not SA, then Turkey maybe......The list of people who might have use for Pak's goegprahy and nukes is long, very long....

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Mar 2011 07:03

shiv wrote:using those arms as a deterrent to stop India from making war

This has been repeated ad nauseam by you...Which war, precisely which war (or military action) was "prevented" because India felt that Paki conventional weapons were too much of a challenge?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Mar 2011 07:13

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote:using those arms as a deterrent to stop India from making war
This has been repeated ad nauseam by you...Which war, precisely which war (or military action) was "prevented" because India felt that Paki conventional weapons were too much of a challenge?

Speaking of nausea, your idea remains a bad one sir. Having stressed that, let me repeat your question:

.Which war, precisely which war (or military action) was "prevented" because India felt that Paki conventional weapons were too much of a challenge?

How on earth can I name a war that did not occur and say it was prevented? You must be joking sir. You are an expert at wording questions to make the answer wrong no matter what the answer may be. You need to do better than that - this is the second time I am pointing this out.

Surely sir if war did not occur between India and Pakistan in any given period despite grave provocation from Pakistan it is because India has been deterred from fighting that war by Pakistani strength. And Pakistan has deterred India, not faced sanctions, and continues to provoke. If you want this to continue we are going to remain in serious disagreement. You want peace on Pakistan's terms. And I am the peacenik remember?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Mar 2011 07:34

shiv wrote:How on earth can I name a war that did not occur and say it was prevented?
---------

Surely sir if war did not occur between India and Pakistan at any given period despite grave provocation from Pakistan it is because India has been deterred from fighting that war by Pakistani strength

Shiv-ji, that is sophistry, if I may...Let me rephrase - on which "occasion" do you think India should have gone to war with Pak, and was deterred by Paki conventional power?

No "war" has happened since 1971...Though there have been enough flashpoints - 1990, 1998, 2001, 2008......Each of them has been widely documented, many by some of the principals themsleves...Can you point out which of these cases of "deterrence" could be attributed to Pakistan's conventional capability?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Mar 2011 08:00

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote:How on earth can I name a war that did not occur and say it was prevented?
---------

Surely sir if war did not occur between India and Pakistan at any given period despite grave provocation from Pakistan it is because India has been deterred from fighting that war by Pakistani strength
Shiv-ji, that is sophistry, if I may...Let me rephrase - on which "occasion" do you think India should have gone to war with Pak, and was deterred by Paki conventional power?

No "war" has happened since 1971...Though there have been enough flashpoints - 1990, 1998, 2001, 2008......Each of them has been widely documented, many by some of the principals themsleves...Can you point out which of these cases of "deterrence" could be attributed to Pakistan's conventional capability?

Can you point out which of these cases of "deterrence" could be attributed to Pakistan's conventional capability?

Sir, you accuse me of sophistry but could I ask you where I have stated that Pakistan's conventional capability was the sole deterrent to India?

The sophistry is yours in claiming that a Pakistan with a powerful conventional force and a nuclear force can safely be given more conventional arms only for some people to have the Chankyan satisfaction of seeing sanctions on Pakistan in case of war. Why on earth do you want to see a powerful Pakistan army getting more arms and try and justify your extremely porous argument by using various excuses like
1) They don't make a big difference
2) which military action was prevented
3) We could get Chankyan by seeing those arms embargoed in case of war.

I believe you are trying to push a bad idea for reasons that I am unable to agree with. My agreement is not important. Please state your case and leave it at that. I continue to disagree. Don't let your thoughts be restricted by my disagreement. I simply do not agree with any of your contentions in this regard. Perhaps others agree with you - so please do not make any further attempts at throwing what I see as egregious arguments at gaining acceptance from me.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Mar 2011 08:07

shiv wrote:so please do not make any further attempts at throwing what I see as egregious arguments at gaining acceptance from me.

?? You sure take yourself far too seriously (or as far too important)! Why should anyone on an internet blog need acceptance from a particular individual?

Of course, the fundamental point is different...Which is that an over-obsession with Pakistan, and as a derivative an obsession with every F16 sold to them fits in very badly with India's objectives today...Not least because they take away our attention from the larger, more substantive issues...Thankfully the real policy-makers (unlike armchair enthusiasts like us) have gotten over it, largely, unlike the past - which even old realpolitik practitioners like Kissinger used to be surprised by...

In our scheme of things, the key point is what sort of Pakistan do we want? Adjectives like weak, strong are irrelevant..From our perspective, if Pakistan didnt exist, if there was a black hole between us and Iran (and Afghanistan), it would be good enough...So we need to ensure that the state of Pak achieves a "black hole" status as much as possible...Irrelevant, incapable of pushing extremists into India, being nothing more than a pesky nuisance of a neighbour...

India doesnt really care if Pak has a few F16s, what is important is that Pak should have enough internal distractions of its own to have less time to think of 26/11s...Today that distraction is TTP, can an American-sponsored "soft" Durand line be the next one? I think its an eminently plausible scenario...Its already been discussed, and it would suit an American end-game as well, of maintaining a permanent presence in the region without getting into a fight..

A soft border between Pak-Af (the brder there is already quite soft!), allowing Pashtuns on both sides to operate legally without passports and visas, underwritten by an American presence in the area - its a Paki geopolitical nightmare..If the Pakis want a couple of more F16s as a quid pro quo, so be it...they will need to park those planes and a some more near the Durand Line all the time, just to watch over the folks there....Then get the TAPI pipeline to pass through the region, and get an international force to guard the same, even NATO...Again not implausible...Suddenly the place is teeming with foreigners of various colours...

Once the above loses steam, or degenrates so much that the compact breaks off, we need to escalate - maybe Iranian interests in Balochistan........But keep Pak resigned into a vortex of irrelevance resembling a black hole....

PrasadZ · Post by **PrasadZ** » 03 Mar 2011 14:15

Lalmohan wrote:well... the indian mindset (as amply demonstrated on BRF) is
1. first the british did x,y,z to us
2. then the americans did m,n,o to us
3. now the chinese will do p,q,r to us

isnt it better to start talking about what india will do?

Well put !

ManuT wrote:Though (as a client) TSP will most likely take advantage of an Indo-China war China and attack India, OTOH, it is highly unlikely that China will jeoperdise it's economy and attack India in case of an Indo-Pak war.

Wrt US, the odds of an Indo-US war are non existent, but in an Indo-Pak war not sure what role US will play.

+1. The US role worries me more also because we have many more levers against China than against US. We also have more willingness to use anti china levers than even develop anti american ones.

I followed RajeshA's excellent posts in the "Managing China" thread about nuclearizing east asia and/or boxing china into east asia. In the event of an Indo-China war, some of those options will be pursued by India. We could do more - the Shan already create border troubles between burma and china and can be encouraged, malays have more trouble with their chinese population than with hindraf, the philippines and japan contest china's pacific domination and both have made overtures to india. China is not invulnerable to Indian counters, but America is.

In a way, we have grokked that China's logical geo political goal is to box India into IOR; our logical aim has to be to box china into east asia. Just as many here wish GOI would do more to counter PRC, a chinese I met wished PRC would take a more hardline stance with GOI. Both of us quickly realised how this fight risks playing into american hands - no surprise to BRFites - the same risk has been voiced on BRF as well.

India has allied with China on shared goals in the past just as it has allied with US on other goals, is it not? I, like others, see the reluctance to discuss US the way we discuss china as strange

Why do we

about our ability to modify the world to our taste when we refuse to even discuss tackling the world's 800 pound gorilla?!

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 03 Mar 2011 14:17

somnath wrote: Of course, the fundamental point is different...Which is that an over-obsession with Pakistan, and as a derivative an obsession with every F16 sold to them fits in very badly with India's objectives today...Not least because they take away our attention from the larger, more substantive issues...Thankfully the real policy-makers (unlike armchair enthusiasts like us) have gotten over it, largely, unlike the past - which even old realpolitik practitioners like Kissinger used to be surprised by...

Somnath: if you think of F-16 and associated weaponry as a nuclear delivery platform and not as just another conventional weapon, then it'll become apparent that it's contributed to the Pak's deterrrence quite a bit.

Ofcourse Kissinger &co. would downplay and be suprpised at our "obsession". We shouldn't pay heed to their patronizing attitude and instead keep trying to seed suspicion of Pak amongst US policiymakers.

Note that we can also call US's various bickering on Cuba or Iran too an "obsession" and unrealpolitik and taking "attention away from larger, more substantive issues". But of-course the anglo-saxon has much more acute survival instincts and doesen't look at foreign approval of his selfish policies.

I think we should be just as selfish and not seek US approval.

All your points on making Pak a vortex of instability are spot-on.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Mar 2011 14:55

personally, i feel the list of what every single 'hostile' power through history has done to us is very very long and although it needs to be understood and internalised, it does not need to be a cover for inaction. (i think we should ask for reparations from hungary for the huns sacking north india personally... but hey...)

anyway - what is is that we need to do? want to do?

some starters for discussion

1. absolute control over the Indian Ocean Region - to guarantee our trade and that of our friends
2. restore GDP share to its 'rightful place'
3. make irrelevant irritants truly irrelevant - this may require a more robust and hostile posture (yes, i am thinking of pakistan)
4. create a cooperative/competitive dynamic between ourselves and the other poles of power - US, EU, Russia, China, Brazil
5. draft a benign integrative policy towards africa
6. back all this up with a powerful military capability (and use it)

let the games begin! (/pratibha hand signal)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Mar 2011 16:56

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote:so please do not make any further attempts at throwing what I see as egregious arguments at gaining acceptance from me.
?? You sure take yourself far too seriously (or as far too important)! Why should anyone on an internet blog need acceptance from a particular individual?

Fine. I think you get the picture. I am happy to remain in complete disagreement with the views you have expressed in the ways I have stated.

somnath wrote:India doesnt really care if Pak has a few F16s, .

You speak for all of India? But I am the one who takes myself too seriously? I suppose you wouldn't be too upset if I pointed out that it is complete rubbish for you to express an opinion on behalf of India. Speak for yourself sir.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Mar 2011 18:02

One of the scenarios I was looking at was a hypothetical one in which a PML-N led Islamist party group "democratically" takes over Pakistan and invites the Americans to get out as Nawaz Sharif returns triumphantly to Pakistan.

One "kabab mein haddi" I can think of here are the relationship the PML-N has with the army, but let me assume they somehow mend relations for the purpose of kicking the Americans out. Let me further assume that the army and parties have done their homework well and have been in secret parleys with China beforehand for the requisite diplomatic and financial support. As a final assumption here let me say that the US turns tail and runs out of Pakistan - drastically winding down its deep involvement - perhaps in shame and ignominy at their inability to settle Afghanistan before leaving.

The idea is to ask what China would do or could do.

Military aid to replace the Americans is a given. It is the easiest of the things that China can give. So also diplomatic support.

The nature of other aid, including financial aid is what tickles my fancy.

Taking a cue from the posts of the Chicom rep on BRF I asked my unkal Googal who tells me that Greek debt is US$ 400 million. China has given the Greek aid to the tune of US$ 5billion as far a I could figure out and I am no economist. China is also buying ships worth US$ 100 million from Greece. My unkal also tells me that Pakistan's total internal and external debt is nearly US$ 1 trillion, although external debt is only a tenth or so of that.

IMO China is hardly likely to buy up all of Pakistan's debt. In my view Pakistan is a bad bet compared with Greece. The external creditors who are owed money by Pakistan stand to lose money if Pakistan defaults. But if China pays them off they stand to gain. So by buying Pakistan debt China would be making at least some western creditors happy, apart from the Pakis themselves.

I would guess that China would not invest in Pakistan as a direct and immediate profit making investment, but as a long term bet into which some money must be pumped in early for big returns later.

But what would the money do? Pakistan is currently in the middle of an internal security crisis. I am certain that Pakistanis would like to see that reduced. i am certain the dominant Pakjabis and the army would like to see the Baluchistan insurgency crushed. But it is also likely that the Pakistan army will not want to fight its own proxies who are sitting in the NWFP. They would, in a trice be ready to crush the "bad Taliban" leaving the LeT and Haqqani factions intact - to later exert influence over Afghanistan, to once again fill the void left by the Americans.

The Pakistan army would rapidly scale down any token presence they maintain to please the US and redeploy to enter Afghanistan, with funding, arms and the blessings of the Chinese and exert hegemony over both sides of the Durand line. They would also declare victory over the infidel Americans and call for peace talks with assorted groups. But I just wonder if the tehrik e taliban would somehow excuse the Pakistan army at this stage for changing allegiance from the US to China. Somewhere down the line the Pakistan army would have to
1) make amends for deaths caused and soothe any thoughts of revenge
2) ruthlessly hit those who do not comply
3) Not oppose continuing Islamization of society
All this could be done with Chinese help.

Overall the exit of the US and entry of the Chinese would in my view, ease pressure on the Pakistan army.

But would that create a rosy picture for investment in Pakistan leading to a rapid mutation of Pakistan into a forward looking society that rapidly industrialises and gets a rip roaring economy? I am less sure of that because I see Pakistan's current problems as a consequence of decades of social mismanagement that urgent funding from any source, be it the US or China cannot cure.

For India it might not make that much of a difference. A Pakistan that is continuously tottering on the brink is what we have seen for years and I can foresee no major change in that otehr than an easing of pressure on the Pakistani army and perhaps allowing them to put more pressure on India. However putting more pressure on blows back on China in different ways.

If India is busy on the Pakistan border, the Chines could put more pressure on other borders. but on the other hand an India that is putting Pakistan on edge with an economy and society readying fro war would be less beneficial to a peaceful trade route. Roads and railways that need to be taken over by the army for mobilization or military action are not conducive to peacetime transport. Apart from the fact that unfettered Islamist access to Afghanistan too could blow back on Xinjiang.

I see it as a mixed bag for china. Not an outright victory. And I must point out that I have not even thought about what the US could do or would be capable of doing if faced with the hypothetical situation above, and I have also not thought about the time scale in years for all this to happen.

Just some random thoughts.

PrasadZ · Post by **PrasadZ** » 03 Mar 2011 19:27

There is a sports adage "get your retribution in first". I can wish india did that but i seriously doubt my wishes r horses

But lets try work out a step by step retribution
China builds a rail line to pakistan >> we develop haiphong
China threatens troops on north east >> we raise a tibetan strike force purely to help monks making pilgrimages

China provides j10s >> we provide anti ship radar to indonesia
China provides aid >> we set up relief centers for chinese refugees along the cambodia border with china (who can argue with a relief effort?

)

Trouble is, both can hurt each other in myriad ways. We go down this path with understandable reluctance imo but i do wish some demonstrations of intent were made as well

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Mar 2011 20:13

Lalmohan wrote: some starters for discussion

1. absolute control over the Indian Ocean Region - to guarantee our trade and that of our friends
2. restore GDP share to its 'rightful place'
3. make irrelevant irritants truly irrelevant - this may require a more robust and hostile posture (yes, i am thinking of pakistan)
4. create a cooperative/competitive dynamic between ourselves and the other poles of power - US, EU, Russia, China, Brazil
5. draft a benign integrative policy towards africa
6. back all this up with a powerful military capability (and use it)

Well, pretty much all of it (barring #3, where the PoVs seem to differ) is being pursued in some form by us!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Mar 2011 21:52

allmost all could be more aggressively pursued
but to do so requires some political, administrative and cultural reform
but this thread is about pakistan, lets move it someplace else
or lets discuss what action we will take w.r.t. pakistan /us/ china...

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 03 Mar 2011 22:46

shiv wrote: I see it as a mixed bag for china. Not an outright victory. And I must point out that I have not even thought about what the US could do or would be capable of doing if faced with the hypothetical situation above, and I have also not thought about the time scale in years for all this to happen.

Shivji,
If there was ever an oxymoron players on the ground, who mean exact of opposite of what they claim, this situation has to be that.

The "peas-full rise of china", "peas-full decline of unkil", in a land manned by "purveyors of peas" is a heady concoction that is bound to yield "peas-full results overall". What is one thing common among these three entities is peas. So peas it shall be. Mirror mirror on the wall who is the most peas-full among the three. That will be decided by who controls the peas on the ground.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 04 Mar 2011 02:50

shiv ji:

Thanks for articulating your view. Here is my take:

TSP's Vision
TSP sees it self as the gate-keeper of the routes all the goodies from Central Asia/Afghanistan/Iran. And plan to collect a lot of haftas for ensuring the security. They look up to their gateway to Central Asia role with tongues hanging out, and see their economic salvation linked to that. Without the US, the TSPA will not be under any kind of pressure to force a brother to fight a brother. That itself will help release a lot of tensions.

TTP and the TSPA

Once free from any anti-Islamist constraints, the TSPA will go all out to embrace all the different Talebans. It will not have to struggle with the Good Taleban/Bad Taleban non-sense; will not have to figure out whom to sacrifice etc. The likes of Ahmed Rashid will be welcoming the TTP leaders with open arms with special camps where they can enjoy the joys of a jagirdar, under the benevolent gaze of Kiyani & Pasha as OBL hails the ghaziz on a closed circuit broadcast from his dialysis machine.

The TTP too knows that when the TSPA is welcoming them with open arms, there is no reason to fight; they of course are going to get a share of the loot and TSP will becoming more Islamic and purer. I can imagine the other Doctor, tom-tomming the victory over the US, and calling for the Jehadis of the world to unite to destroy the two other YYs.

And once the Good Taleban is free to operate without impunity, they can also get the bad Taleban in line. At the end it is the TSPA we are talking about; they might end up changing the nasl of the TTP, but within their borders, they are not going to let them spoil the party. If TTP is truly a purer Islamist, victory over a Y, should hold more value than some taqiya by their uniformed brethen. And if there are something else (as the TSPians claim), then they are going to wither away anyway.

IMHO TTP, is going to be nothing but a minor irritant. If the TSPA can manage Uncle for a decade with completely opposite goals, they can certainly handle a fued with a fellow brotherly ghazis, especially the more purer kinds.

Chinese approach towards the TSP
China will have a lot of leverage with the TSPA, and they are very likely going to use the "show me" approach. The TSPA will have to dance strictly to the Chinese tunes (until the TSPA find another friend to improve the negotiating position with China). However, their interests are so closely aligned, that I do not see a reason why the TSPA will not do the Chinese Dance.

While the TSPA is cleaning up, the Chinese will keep TSP on life-support. Their might be a few quarters as the TSPA earns it stripes, and the Chinese fine-tune the art of being the responsible party. But purely from an ideological point of view, this is a relationship made in jannat.

There is the issue of Xianxing. But as far as I know, the protests in XIanxing are controlled from DC, and not Pindi. With the YYs offering much more juicy targets, the TSPA should not have any significant problems in shielding the Chinese. The geography of the region also helps.

I know you have reservations about the notion of the Chinese investing in the TSP. But the the TSP elite has generational expertise in making sure that the interests of their masters are served. They will figure this one out too; after all it is a question of the survival of the TSP.

PS: Talking about jannat, the well-to-do in TSP will get their 72s without blowing themselves up ; the massage parlors are experts at happy endings. This will also help solve the extremely unbalanced sex-ratio issue in China (too many men).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Mar 2011 06:44

VikramS wrote:
While the TSPA is cleaning up, the Chinese will keep TSP on life-support. Their might be a few quarters as the TSPA earns it stripes, and the Chinese fine-tune the art of being the responsible party. But purely from an ideological point of view, this is a relationship made in jannat.

There is the issue of Xianxing. But as far as I know, the protests in XIanxing are controlled from DC, and not Pindi. With the YYs offering much more juicy targets, the TSPA should not have any significant problems in shielding the Chinese. The geography of the region also helps.

I think one sobering fact that is becoming more and more certain is a permanent Chinese take-over of parts of Pakistan occupied Kashmir. This is a land that India has not reclaimed by force but has historically depended on the "United Nations" do do something about.

Cross post

A_Gupta wrote:Restiveness in Gilgit-Baltistan
http://criticalppp.com/archives/41698

Splitting hairs - one gets to see that what we call as "PoK" has been divided up into parts by Pakistan. The part that abuts Pakjab is "Azad Kashmir" while the "Northern Areas" were the Gilgit-Baltistan regions which were essentially governed from Islamabad as a separate political entity. After the landslide that blocked the outflow of Hunza lake Pakistan could not provide relief to the people on the Chinese side of the Karakoram highway and asked the Chinese do do that. Looking at the decrepit condition of the Pakistani state now - it seems certain that those outlying areas will be taken over by China.

Of course places like Gitgit, Skardu and Muzaffarabad have been manned by Pakis and are full of Pakis and the Chinese may not be able to occupy those areas easily in the near term as far as I can tell. But areas of PoK other than what was ceded to China are noe essentially gone from Pakistani hands to Chinese hands.

Will put up maps when I can - my current computer configuration is not conducive to that.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 04 Mar 2011 07:33

Yes shiv, the salami slicing of PoK has been going on and continues. Ceding strategically important areas is essentially acceptance of Chinese suzerainty over that region. The sharing of ownership effectively rules out any effort by the Indian Armed Forces to reclaim that land. By controlling that area, the Chinese ensure that the Jehadis stay on the right side of the Karakoram.

One thing I have learnt about the TSP Elite is that if someone is ready with the butter, they will make sure the toast is just the right shade of brown. It might take some time to stabilize the system but it is not an unsurmountable problem. All the differences between the Ganja Brothers, the TSPA, and the Jehadis will be forgotten. The TSP Elite also know that once the Chinese commit, the TSP's leverage vis a vis the Chinese will also increase. So there will be a period of pax-Chipanda to rope in the Chinese and get them to commit.

It is also likely that the Chinese will have a much more hands-on role compared to Uncle. Though this means that the siphoning of funds is going to be less lucrative, it also means that the collapse of the system can be contained and reversed. Once the money has been spent (which will be a major boon to TSP economy), and the flow of goods start, then of course the serpent will rise again and the transit charges will go up to ensure security.

The Chinese may be value-for-money champs, but the TSP Elite have a lot of experience in managing mega-powers. And unlike the Americans, whose use for TSP was objective driven, the geographical proximity means that the Chinese interests in the TSP will be a lot more permanent. That can also lead to longer term social engineering projects to rescue the system.

When it comes to India, the Chinese will obviously be interested in containing her strategic reach. Whether there will be escalation of hostilities is a question mark. But India will have to be conscious of the fact the Chinese can use the TSP to up the ante whenever they want. The encirclement of India would be complete.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 04 Mar 2011 10:03

Already asked but no answer - what would be the effect on the J&K separatism of a Chinese takeover of parts of Gilgit-Baltistan, etc.?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Mar 2011 10:15

The Chinese already have taken over parts of Gilgit-Baltistan and not a peep from the Kashmiri separatists. They dont care for G-B. Only detach Kashmir from India. Dar ul Islam ideas

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 04 Mar 2011 12:00

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote:so please do not make any further attempts at throwing what I see as egregious arguments at gaining acceptance from me.
?? You sure take yourself far too seriously (or as far too important)! Why should anyone on an internet blog need acceptance from a particular individual?

Of course, the fundamental point is different...Which is that an over-obsession with Pakistan, and as a derivative an obsession with every F16 sold to them fits in very badly with India's objectives today...Not least because they take away our attention from the larger, more substantive issues...Thankfully the real policy-makers (unlike armchair enthusiasts like us) have gotten over it, largely, unlike the past - which even old realpolitik practitioners like Kissinger used to be surprised by...

In our scheme of things, the key point is what sort of Pakistan do we want? Adjectives like weak, strong are irrelevant..From our perspective, if Pakistan didnt exist, if there was a black hole between us and Iran (and Afghanistan), it would be good enough...So we need to ensure that the state of Pak achieves a "black hole" status as much as possible...Irrelevant, incapable of pushing extremists into India, being nothing more than a pesky nuisance of a neighbour...

India doesnt really care if Pak has a few F16s, what is important is that Pak should have enough internal distractions of its own to have less time to think of 26/11s...Today that distraction is TTP, can an American-sponsored "soft" Durand line be the next one? I think its an eminently plausible scenario...Its already been discussed, and it would suit an American end-game as well, of maintaining a permanent presence in the region without getting into a fight..

A soft border between Pak-Af (the brder there is already quite soft!), allowing Pashtuns on both sides to operate legally without passports and visas, underwritten by an American presence in the area - its a Paki geopolitical nightmare..If the Pakis want a couple of more F16s as a quid pro quo, so be it...they will need to park those planes and a some more near the Durand Line all the time, just to watch over the folks there....Then get the TAPI pipeline to pass through the region, and get an international force to guard the same, even NATO...Again not implausible...Suddenly the place is teeming with foreigners of various colours...

Once the above loses steam, or degenrates so much that the compact breaks off, we need to escalate - maybe Iranian interests in Balochistan........But keep Pak resigned into a vortex of irrelevance resembling a black hole....

If I can sum up what I see in this debate:
1. the side represented by shiv wants to reduce or eliminate US aid to Pak, because Pak is an enemy, enemies should be made as weak as possible, and loss of US aid weakens Pak.

2. the side represented by somnath doesn't think the supply of war machinery to Pak by US has much significance; instead it wants to construct various [fiendishly baroque and clever] schemes that seem to involve a kind of multi-layered ju-jitsu: Pak getting more and more weapons, but somehow, due to sheer cleverness on our part, eventually Pak becomes the victim of subtle sociopolitical forces and is ultimately reduced to becoming irrelevant and incapable of causing harm. They don't really specify how such schemes are to be put in place, or what is the actual probability of said scheme producing said outcome. I get the feeling that there is more emphasis on showing off of cleverness than in actually recognizing the danger and driving towards a solution.

I like the simplicity of 1. The problem with 2 is that it is an offense against Occam, and first-order rationality and logic. It's hard for my brain to make sense of. I might say it exhibits a passive approach, having summarily rejected any active approach out of hand. But not uniformly passive--it (as with some of the other posters) berates India for being too passive in accepting Manmohan Singh et al, but also dismisses Indians' arguments when they say America should be actively discouraged from helping Pakistan. Confusing, to put it mildly. In any case, all our fiendish schemes will work all the better when Pak has less, not more, US mil hardware, yes?

I am bothered by how somnath's views come across to me, in content as well as in tone. On the one hand, he says that (a) Pak won't change until possibly the very long term and (b) making Pak irrelevant is the answer. Fine so far, I'm with him. A reasonable person might conclude that in light of (a), the way to achieve (b) is to diligently defang Pak. But then, somnath says, with somewhat of a sneer it seems to me, ("obsessed with F-16s", "Indian doesn't care" etc.) that US aid to Pak is of no importance. So, when you add up the outputs on both hands, I am left just left with the sneer and nothing else.

The sneer that I see is worth a closer look. Language like "obsessed with F-16s", "India doesn't care about Pakistan's [destructive capabilities]" etc., is imprecise (to say the least; it is in fact content-free), and is emotionally loaded--it suggests that, if you are diligently focused on Pakistan's acquisition of machinery of destruction, then there is something wrong with you (not, mind you, that you are wrong in a logically demonstrable way)--obviously obsession is not exactly a healthy thing.

As far as I am concerned: this debate is over. Both sides have made their points to the best of their ability, and nothing new is emerging. To me, shiv's case wins hands down.