Managing Pakistan's failure

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 22 Mar 2011 13:07

chaanakya wrote:Why not create our own version of Blackwater

This is first original idea I have read in a long time. We need our mercenary forces (both overground and underground) to give us deniability for a lot of hard decisions that need to be taken and implemented.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Mar 2011 13:28

brihaspati wrote:Paki soldiers to defend the Saudi monarch?!! Two immediate wonderful outcomes likely - first LeT and Taliban Saudi Arabia branch rapidly expands, and second, facing real attacks with serious likelihood of destruction - Pakis surrender enmasse. Which war have the Pakjabis won on foreign soldiers or against foreign armies outside the land they currently occupy?

I think you are on the wrong lines here.

From what I know of the racist attitudes and general assessment of Pakis in Saudi decision making circles, no large scale reliance on Paki contingents in crucial security sectors likely. In fact the KSA monarchy may find the idea of non-Muslim Indian army contingents as security - much better - because they will at least rest assured that such non-Muslim Indian army-personnel will not be easily coopted into their own domestic opposition and militancy that seeks to topple the monarchy. In essence they cannot have a contingent that can ideologically or culturally grow "roots" in their backyard. [Kind of same fear that drives the Congress in India to encourage Islamism or EJ-ism as much as possible].

Reliance on Pakistan is a question of fact. Fact is that they are deployed there and the Bah & KSA are reliant on Pak. Pak soldiers are kept in locked "cages" (bases). They aren't allowed to leave their bases. They don't care if the people are extremist etc, as long as they are sunni. They had US soldiers there, but that didn't go down well, so they have a very small number of US troops there now and everything is kept under a shroud of secrecy. But if you use muslim soldiers, the extremists can't complain. So thats why using Paki troops makes sense for them.

Pakistani nukes [if they really exist!] falling into the overt Jihadi hands [handed over by the covert Jihadis - the PA and the ISI] will not be used first on India, but on Israel.

I don't think TSP care about Israel, once all of this is over you need to have all these fundoos focus on an enemy, so they will just push these nutcases towards India in a war. To create a war with India, its gonna take a lot more than 26.11, so nukes is the only option. I don't think the TSPA generals who control all this care about the bigger picture (Israel), they are more worried and focused on India.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Mar 2011 15:59

chaanakya wrote:
RajeshA wrote: Now how about India making the KSA less dependent on Pakistan for its security?! If we want to chip away Pakistan 3.5 friends away from Pakistan, then one way is for India to make an offer to the KSA, that India would be willing to provide security to KSA and the Saudi Royal Family, thereby "taking over much of the burden" that America carries, as well substituting Pakistan, as Pakistan becomes a failure and less reliable due to its own Qadriization trend!

Why not create our own version of Blackwater from SSC folks and other JCO, NCO ranks and then underwrite them for deployment for such duties. They can work in tandem with our raa and eyebee. They are trained and disciplined. More training could be given.

They want only sunni mercenaries.

The pakis fit the bill perfectly with a genetic predisposition for the highest bidder.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Mar 2011 16:20

chetak wrote:They want only sunni mercenaries.

The pakis fit the bill perfectly with a genetic predisposition for the highest bidder.

It is difficult to get a mercenary with just the right amount of Sunni in him. A bit too little, and he considers Shi'a his brethren, a bit too much and he could consider his employers munafiqeen.

That is why, a disciplined force of Sunnis is better than a bunch of Sunni mercenaries. However Paki Army cannot really be considered a disciplined force in this regard, simply because the soldiers to some extent see their own commanders as munafiqeen.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Mar 2011 16:27

RajeshA wrote:It is difficult to get a mercenary with just the right amount of Sunni in him. A bit too little, and he considers Shi'a his brethren, a bit too much and he could consider his employers munafiqeen.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Mar 2011 17:15

RajeshA, the chaps in KSA & Bah have dealt with them for a very long time. They are considered quite reliable and they are serving now as we speak. They are not concerned at the moment as its like a contract. Any messing about and Kayani's balls get squeezed.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Mar 2011 18:19

shyamd ji,
I pointed to "if the nukes are handed over to Talebs" situation. If the nukes, if any at all, really fall into radical hands - their primary target will be to use it against Israel if possible. TSPA or ISI may not care about the big picture in their single minded focus on India, but the militants have a wider perspective based on their perception of where ME Islamism should lead to. For me that means that nukes if taken over by Taleb types will be reserved first for use on the primary enemy in their own backyard, and only then they will go for India. For India they simply need to needle continuously with 26/11 types and can leave the rest to the media and Marxist or centre-Left sympathizers.

To retain control over the nukes the TSPA needs to be in control. Any transfer of nukes will happen as and when TSPA top echelon formally loses control over junior officers and rank and file, or the TSPA splits into pro-Talebaniziation and Talebanization-not-yet- factions engaged in a low level civil-war. Unless USA or KSA massively backs up the "not-yet" faction growing trends within Pak indicate that this faction will lose out.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Mar 2011 18:25

It would actually be good if Pakis really, seriously wanted war with India. I don't think so. They do not want an outright conflict now, the outcome of which in long rune will be pretty straightforward, even if nukes are used by both sides - Pakistan will cease to exist. It is much better strategy for them to maintain an anticipation of war rather than go into actual war itself. If India called the Pak bluff, then we will see back-pedalling by TSPA and appeal to its backers in the international community.

Moreover a protracted war, even with nukes, may turn the Paki populations under leadership of militants rather quickly against the army, if results do not come in. Would the top jarnails risk this? they are scarred heroes of art of survival at any cost, even of pride and dignity!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Mar 2011 20:26

Can intellectual debate, mumbo jumbo solve the dirty job of removing the Islamist curse on civilized world? Did Gangu Jamuni syncretic culture make any moderating difference ? No. UP Pandists went to the extent of stopping Marathas to do their rightful duty yet Poak movement came out of the very same Islamist whom they protected from being sent to last journey toward Bahraich. Kashmiri Pandists did something similar and now paying for their Maha paap of protecting the paap in their past.There is onlee one solution and whenever Indians applied it in true spirit, it had earned few centuries of peace and prosperity for the public.6th century problem cant be solve with 21st Century tools.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Mar 2011 21:44

Prem ji,
there are three major problems with managing Pakistan failure from the Yindian side: all to do with absolutely scared of and absolutely do not want failure of Pakistan:

(a) if Pak fails India may be called upon to absorb ex-Pakees, and the more secular you boast yourself to be, greater is the internal fear and hatred of the Muslim [not Islam]. In fact all non-muslim Indians who intensely show "tolerance/love" for Muslims while never choosing to live in societies where Islam rules supreme in all aspects of rashtryia life - are actually most likely driven by an intense dislike of Muslims as people, and the overt declarations come from that awareness of internal hatred. So Pak must be preserved at all costs to keep out more Muslims coming into their home turf.

(b) If Pak fails, India may have to face multiple Islamist extremist countries or small rashtras. This may derail the search for prosperity of an as yet small section of the total Indian population, since war or increased conflict may mean more expenditure in defense and not necessarily into economic sectors from which this prosperity-seeking section hope to profit - and hence they get scared and use whatever political clout they manage against Pak failure. [This may hold a clue in that if militarily useful R&D and production systems are encouraged in public-private partnerships - the ambitions of this section might just come into harness]

(c) if Pak fails there is nothing to raise fear in the heart of the "non-Muslim". How would centre-left of Indian politics survive? Survival of pak is absolutely necessary for the survival of centre-left. They can raise the spectre of the Hindu/Sikh anger at past and continuing Islamist atrocities to Pakees and their sympathizers on one hand and on the other hand, threaten leaning over to Pakee/Islamist side to keep the Sikh/Hindu political consolidation down.

All these sometimes are passed off under the excuse that Pak has powerful international friends. But if the targets are not set, excuses have no meaning. There is absolutely no clarity in any aspect of rashtryia thinking about this. It appears that since IG, all successors have been extra scared of the fatal apparent lesson taught to IG for daring to clip the wings of Pak. Such a fear would not have been there, if our leaders took the majority - and the non-Muslim into confidence. They are permanently shaky because they reject the roots of India.

Single individual leader on whom the entire rashtra pivots - will always lead to such weakness. Unless we make it a group leadership, where targeting and eliminating a single individual does not destroy policy initiatives - the situation will not change. [Well and self-policing of such groups - so no unnamed "he" or "she" appears in future wikipee extracts as having promptly ran to the local US viceroy or the latter's minions with the detailed intentions of the group].

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Mar 2011 23:44

brihaspati wrote:shyamd ji,
I pointed to "if the nukes are handed over to Talebs" situation. If the nukes, if any at all, really fall into radical hands - their primary target will be to use it against Israel if possible. TSPA or ISI may not care about the big picture in their single minded focus on India, but the militants have a wider perspective based on their perception of where ME Islamism should lead to. For me that means that nukes if taken over by Taleb types will be reserved first for use on the primary enemy in their own backyard, and only then they will go for India. For India they simply need to needle continuously with 26/11 types and can leave the rest to the media and Marxist or centre-Left sympathizers.

To retain control over the nukes the TSPA needs to be in control. Any transfer of nukes will happen as and when TSPA top echelon formally loses control over junior officers and rank and file, or the TSPA splits into pro-Talebaniziation and Talebanization-not-yet- factions engaged in a low level civil-war. Unless USA or KSA massively backs up the "not-yet" faction growing trends within Pak indicate that this faction will lose out.

Brihaspatiji, I disagree... Simply because I don't see how gulf wiLL play baLL on this.
Also the point is, you have a Lot of islamlists who want to use their guns on isLoo being re-directed at kashmir.
That's my point. I don't see how these guys are going to turn toward israel without others pLayin baLL.

Let's just agree to disagree. And aLso the Jihadi N theory bein used on india is very reaL - see arun_s latest comments.

He says 2 years, I say 4 due to geopolitical scenario. They have to pull off somethin big post US puLlout and iran war.

This is why I suggest opening a front using tajiks and keep iran on boil.l
Or take advantage of west asian situation.

When Iran war kicks off, GCC are gonna offer us a lot of good deaLs to grow our economy. Do we have the capablillity to nuke nude TSP and should we take advantage of situation?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2011 00:11

shyamd wrote:And aLso the Jihadi N theory bein used on india is very reaL - see arun_s latest comments.

He says 2 years, I say 4 due to geopolitical scenario. They have to pull off somethin big post US puLlout and iran war.

This is why I suggest opening a front using tajiks and keep iran on boil.l
Or take advantage of west asian situation.

When Iran war kicks off, GCC are gonna offer us a lot of good deaLs to grow our economy. Do we have the capablillity to nuke nude TSP and should we take advantage of situation?

I agree, we have a limited timespan to rearrange our whole security and geopolitical paradigm, because by remaining on this course of benign neglect we will be landing ourselves in radiation soup! Incremental changes and positioning on international issues would not be enough!

I however don't see Tajiks as really offering India a direct solution to India. I think one of the solutions lie in steering the Pushtuns to hammer the Pakjabis to pulp and I think an investment of 10-12 billion USD should do the trick. There are other solutions, but those seem to be a bit too ambitious for conservative circles in India as well as on BRF.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Mar 2011 00:46

The reason why I say help the tajiks is because,

1) it is going to descend into civil war as the tajik dominated army start fighting the Pakhtun taleban.
2) Pakhtun's being amenable is an even better idea, but it needs an internal split or anger against ISI to occur.

WhoLe point of using the ANA or tajiks is that kayani wants his back yard and its the most obvious battle that is going to take place.
so u want jihadi"s engaged against tajiks in a major war rather than have them re-directed to Isloo or Kashmir.
Once the back yard is won, he will divert to Kashmir. If jihadi's focus on isloo then they'll go for something big to start a war and re-direct energies.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2011 00:54

ANA should build a solid wall in the Tajik dominated regions of Afghanistan, so that Pushtuns have no possibility of expanding into their areas. If expansion to the North becomes impossible, the Pushtuns could be encouraged to consolidate their hold over the Pushtun majority areas of Pakistan, and there they come into direct conflict with Pakjabis and TSPA.

Some sort of formalization of a boundary between Northern Afghanistan and Pushtun Afghanistan by the international community, perhaps using the Blackwill Plan would go a long way in pushing the Pushtun southwards, and changing the color of the issue from Talibanism to Pushtun Nationalism.

Irrespective of that however, India has the money to buy or rather promote Afghan/Pushtun wrath onto ISI who have misused them and abused them. We should go for the "Supari Plantation Option"!

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 23 Mar 2011 06:14

x-post from J&K thread:

SSridhar wrote:I had an opportunity (thanks to Avarachan, a BRfite) to attend a national seminar titled, "Conflict in Kashmir - Challenges Ahead' sponsored by HQ - ATNK&K and Deptt. of Defence & Strategic Studies, University of Madras yesterday. The seminar was well attended by armed forces personnel (a bus-load of officers, both men and women) as well as students from the Defence Studies deptt and others like me.

<snip>

All the officers who spoke warned that Indians must not delude themselves of the Pakistani problem going away any time soon, nor Pakistan withdrawing its support to terrorism. Nobody wanted a war or dismemberment of Pakistan for fear of leading to worse problems than now.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Mar 2011 06:45

@Shiv ^^^

"This is one idea I have a lot of questions about.

KSA may want Muslims, which we can provide. But are we going to have a special Muslim only unit to serve in KSA? Will this be a special caste of soldiers who get paid KSA rates or will it be some parallel Indian army unit. How large will the unit have to be? I suspect anywhere from 2000 to 10,000. That is almost a separate "Sunni Muslim" division being created by secular India (**** the Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists) solely to curry favor with the Saudis to keep Pakistan at bay"

Well, think of it this way: We've already agreed to posting only muslim Ambassadors to KSA for XXX years. What's the difference? The distance between the mons and the fundament is just a hairsbreadth away no?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 06:53

Cosmo_R wrote:
Well, think of it this way: We've already agreed to posting only muslim Ambassadors to KSA for XXX years. What's the difference? The distance between the mons and the fundament is just a hairsbreadth away no?

Cosmo ji are you asking me the difference between posting a single unarmed individual Muslim Ambassador in a civilian role with diplomatic immunity and perks who takes order from the MEA of India and 5000 Muslim Indian soldiers who are trained by the Indian Army but will take orders from the KSA Royal family to kill or control people whom they want to kill and face personal danger while doing that ? The difference is hardly a "hairsbreadth away" which is mere rhetorical nonsense.

Do you really want me to spell out the differences in a long post or are you making a time pass rhetorical point although the differences should be obvious to anyone who spends more than one second thinking before typing?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 Mar 2011 08:38

I've just come across a book by K.L. Gauba, "Inside Pakistan". Written January-March 1948 from inside Pakistan. A couple of years earlier he had written "Consequences of Pakistan" where he was extremely skeptical that Pakistan could work. In "Inside Pakistan" he sees all his gloomy predictions being more than exceeded.

In "Consequences of Pakistan", Gauba had written:

Like the ostrich, members of the Muslim League bury their heads in the sand and dream, and dream.

Sweet is the dream no doubt - Sovereignty, Independence, Power. But dreams have an uncanny aptitude of turning into nightmares. God forbid that Pakistan should be a nightmare. Whether Pakistan is going to be Utopia Realised or Hell unloosed, it is certainly going to affect directly the lives of millions on this sub-continent.

K.L. Gauba was a Hindu convert to Islam. He was elected M.L.A. as member of the Majlis-e-Ahrar in British times. The Ahrar was generally anti-Muslim League (but as with political parties, things are not simply described.)

My point is that Pakistan is not in quite as dire a state today as it was three months after partition. All the problems we see today, however, were there.

Gauba's book concludes (March 1948)

"The struggle for power by Muslim Leaguers Inter Se has begun in right earnest. Agha Imdad Ali Shah, a prominent leader of the Lahore City Muslim League has been shot dead by his rivals.

It is quite evident that the scramble for power INSIDE PAKISTAN will not be confined to the ballet box. "PAKISTAN ZINDABAD"

Elsewhere:- (the book went to press around Jan 1948, and then had a post script added before final publication in March 1948)

...unconfirmed reports were current in Karachi that the Pakistan Finance Minister was shortly to leave for Washington to see an American loan for Pakistan. One expert put the request as high as six hundred million dollars. It was also understood that Pakistan through its ambassador was seeking a loan for one million dollars for purchase in the U.S.A. of blankets for refugees for the winter and that the loan is likely to be conceded.

The loan of blankets was probably a camouflage as a loan for blankets negotiated in December would only enable the blankets to reach the refugees when the Punjab summer was well on. The loan once granted could be extended for the purchase of arms for a summer offensive in Kashmir.

And this six hundred million dollars loan, to say nothing of USA opinion, the proposal received a mixed reaction in Pakistan itself......Mirza Bashiruddin said that annual interest of Rs 5.5 crores would involve virtual economic domination by an alien State....

Malik Firoz Khan Noon also opposed the proposal to go to USA for funds as it would result in economic servitude to the USA. Whether it mean economic servitude or not, the USA would certainly insist on law and order for an indefinite period, and peace with Pakistan's neighbours - all not very popular conditions to present Pakistan leadership.

The serious condition of Pakistan's railway finances.....An anticipated loss of about Rs 6 crores in railway revenue by March 31 next....

On October 15th [1947] Pakistan afforded its admirers an opportunity of viewing its military might. The Feuhrer was in Bertestgaden, so Goering took the salute.

The saluting base was near the Museum {Lahore} at a stone's throw from Kipling's famous 'Zamzam'. As the tanks, armoured cars and machine guns rumbled down the Mall, the surging crowds broke into spontaneous display of enthusiasm by shouting slogans, the most loudly and enthusiastic voice being: "Le ke rahenge Hindustan.".....According to one Pakistan estimate about three lakhs of persons are stated to have witnessed this display of Pakistan Military might.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Mar 2011 09:04

So much fetishness for islamism and concern for KSA's sentiments. How is it in Indian interests to help KSA (or any other power) with a religious guard?

Should india lose it's values to gain some geopolitical milage? Then why not alighn with a real super power instead of a tin-pot kingdom.

Is india's need to isolate Pakistan so great that it should become an Islamic kingdom itself? What would be the difference between Pakistan and such an India?

Why don't people put their trust on Indian majority, that led india thru a partition, five wars, and a cold war while giving a respectful economic growth while carrying a nagging minority on it's shoulders?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 09:14

Airavat wrote:x-post from J&K thread:
SSridhar wrote:
All the officers who spoke warned that Indians must not delude themselves of the Pakistani problem going away any time soon, nor Pakistan withdrawing its support to terrorism. Nobody wanted a war or dismemberment of Pakistan for fear of leading to worse problems than now.

I think the issue of dismemberment of Pakistan can have different perspectives.

If you tell the armed forces "hey - go and dismember Pakistan" they may be able to do it but holding on will be a big headache as we have discussed here time and again. So from that perspective they are perfectly correct. If there is a military plan to dismember Pakistan it is just as important to have a political plan for 180 million yahoos. Or else we will be like our democratic allies who won all military battles in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2011 10:54

RamaY wrote:So much fetishness for islamism and concern for KSA's sentiments. How is it in Indian interests to help KSA (or any other power) with a religious guard?

RamaY ji,
I'll give it a try to answer that question!

No matter how strong your adversary is, whether it has the fire of Jihad or nuclear missiles, all adversaries need oxygen to survive. If we think, that a wrestling match with our adversary would result in his defeat but would injure us to such an extent, that we may not be able to stand up to our other adversaries, then the only option is to conserve our strength for bigger adversaries, and trick the first adversary into defeat.

Pulling away KSA from Pakistan is akin to turning off the oxygen to Pakistan!

When we say, if we want to defeat Pakistan, we will have to get our hands dirty, then this is also part of what we mean!

RamaY wrote:Should india lose it's values to gain some geopolitical milage? Then why not alighn with a real super power instead of a tin-pot kingdom.

India should have no such values, which doesn't give us geopolitical mileage. Otherwise we are doomed. Alignment with a real super power is not possible in a complete sense of the word, because they too are our adversaries and may follow different agenda than ours.

RamaY wrote:Is india's need to isolate Pakistan so great that it should become an Islamic kingdom itself? What would be the difference between Pakistan and such an India?

Pakistan tries to wrap itself in its flag. Under the flag they are pretty much naked. Would it not be useful to snatch away their flag?

Our strategy and actions to neutralize a grave threat should not be considered as having a bearing on our essence, on our core!

RamaY wrote:Why don't people put their trust on Indian majority, that led india thru a partition, five wars, and a cold war while giving a respectful economic growth while carrying a nagging minority on it's shoulders?

Why should the Indian majority constrain itself by withholding the full use of options at its disposal?! If we have carried a "nagging minority" on our shoulders, why not make use of that minority for a change?!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2011 18:21

Published on Mar 23, 2011
By Feroz Khan

Code: Select all

http://pakteahouse.net/2011/03/23/pakistan-the-silent-coup/

Pakistan: The silent coup

The pointing finger points to the silence of the Pakistani army towards the murders of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti. Has no one wondered why the security establisment has been so silent on the issue? Can no one hear the loudness of this silence? When something is too obvious, it is not really obvious and when all other possibilities are eliminated, what is left no matter how improbable is always the truth.

There are serious things presently afoot in Pakistan and the events clearly hint of a massive imbalancing of the scales of political power in Pakistan. There is a silent coup d’ etat underway in Pakistan and Pakistan, as a state, is quickly becoming a state of martial law. Two events, isolated yet connected, have changed the nature of power in Pakistan and those two events were the extensions given to General Kayani as the Chief of Army Staff and to General Pasha as the head of Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI).

What these extensions imply is that the Pakistani military and the Pakistani military intelligence (ISI) have institutionally merged and the idea of a political power, which was always considered to rest with the chief of the army staff, will now be equally shared between the chief of the army staff and the director-general of the ISI.

This means that the pantomime of a civilian democracy in Pakistan has become irrelevant and the civilian government has become a bonsai government and the Pakistani army, sub voce, has become an autonomous center of power in Pakistan accountable to no one but its own ideological world view and its own metrics of interest in the Pakistani political system. It also means that interregnum of democracy in Pakistani politics, which started in 2008, may be coming to an end.

In a sense, both Generals Kayani and Pasha had held important positions during General Musharraf’s military rule and with both having secure extensions to their tenures, it can be safely said that Pakistan has reverted back to the status of quo of February 2008; a state of political reality which had existed in Pakistan before the elections of February 2008.

Also, the military rule that started in 1999, with a lapse of three years from 2008-2011, has been reestablished. It means that the policies of the Musharraf era vis-a-vis Afghanistan, India and towards the United States will be followed faithfully by the dyarchy of Kayani and Pasha. This means that with the end game in Afghanistan fast approaching its point of eventual terminality, there will be resurgence in the Pakistani Army-ISI’s support of jihadi organizations and groups as possible strategic assets to secure its interests in a post-Americanized Afghanistan.

This also means that the military-mullah alliance had to be recalibrated in view of these newly emerging realities and obstacles to that alliance had to be removed. The murders of Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti and the silencing of all liberal dissent against the spread of an intolerant religious ideology have to been seen and understood in the light of this shared consensus between the Pakistani military, ISI and the religious groups in Pakistan.

The Pakistani media’s role is, and has been, the vocalization of this agreement and to facilitate this aim by creating a climate of fear, hostility and insecurity in which no voice can be raised against this development; the cementing of the Pakistani military’s ideological and political view point onto the politics of Pakistan.

This coup d’ etat, by the Pakistani military, is different from the past coups in Pakistani history. Unlike the past coups, this time the military has no wish to share power with the civilian politicians and unlike the past, where it covertly supported the religious parties; it is now overtly supporting the religious parties’ attempts to influence political power by its silence and refusal to condemn their acts of terror and violence in Pakistan.

The glue, which is binding and reinforcing this alliance is the fact that both the military and the religious groups in Pakistan see eye to eye and agree on the key issues of foreign policy, domestic politics, ideological moorings of Pakistan and on their political perceptions on what is the right course of action in Pakistani politics: the move towards an ideologically conservative society, which protects the traditional roles of the military and the religious groups as the defenders of Pakistan’s ideological, geographic and moral frontiers.

It is in this vortex that the story of Raymond Davis starts to make sense and it is this logic which explains the outbreak of the intelligence war between ISI and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Once the CIA realized that it could not count on ISI to tackle the problem of jihadi organizations acting against the United States interests, it decided to act unilaterally to deal with the problem and this act of independence by CIA threatened ISI, and Pakistani military’s strategic calculations towards the region (read post- United States’ influenced Afghanistan).

Therefore, CIA and its unilateral policies in Pakistan had to be stopped at all costs and it is within this prism that the murders of Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti also make sense. If the politics of Taseer and Bhatti had been allowed to be successful, and the repeals to the Blasphemy Laws had, indeed, been affected, it would have immeasurably strengthened the cause of liberal-secular politics in Pakistan and would have caused untold harm to the military-mullah alliance itself. Both Samaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti were seen as a threat not because they had the political constituencies of support behind them, but because they had the potential to galvanize such a constituency not only within Pakistan, but also internationally and that would have undermined the military’s traditional importance to the United States as the sole interlocutor for the United States’ interests in Pakistani politics.

Frederick the Great of Prussia had once remarked “audace, tojour, audace” on the eve of a battle to his generals telling them that it was audacity, which won battles and not courage. The first rule of a successful coup is not to be losing side and the second rule is to do everything possible to make sure that one comes out on the winning side and this is exactly what has happened in Pakistan.

Faced with the prospect of a defeat and the lessening of its role in Pakistani politics and internationally, the Pakistani military mounted a desperate coup d’etat inside Pakistan to secure its long term interests and the first shots of this coup, which were heard all over the world were fired on January 4th 2011 and since then, Pakistan has become a different country and because of this, may be, the world has also changed.

Feroz Khan is a Toronto based political analyst with interests in military history and issues of conflict management and conflict resolution.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2011 18:53

Using KSA or GCC hatred and fear of Iran to try and de-link KSA support to Pak, is a beautiful dream, but not possible in practice. Can anyone here give the example of a single "Islamic" country that has ever seriously allied itself (or come to India's aid) when needed - with respect to tackling another hostile Islamic nation? Hemming and hawing is all that we got - even including BD - a country IG helped to form. Under tremednous pressure not with bargaining - India may just be able to extract some lip service, some token overt symbolic gesture from KSA in suppressing Pak. But it will never be done to the extent that Pak is really disabled.

For the simple reason that if Pak is disabled, the baragining power offered by Paki existence and capabilities - to KSA or its ilk in negotiating and extracting concessions from India - is gone. It is in KSAinterest to preserve not only Pak but also its India-hurting capacities.

We repeatedly model Pakis or Islamist regimes by what we think of ourselves as. That is a blunder. Isalmism combined with political and military power creates a type of thinking that looks at non-Muslim countries as mere pawns and tools - to be used one against another. No amount of help afforded to GCC or KSA will bring any tangible reduction of Paki capabilities - because it simply is not how Sunni Islamists in this case will think.

Only way to turn this would have been to see to increasing Shia population in pak, or Pakis making alliances with Iran. The AFG Talebs probably already are in touch with Iran, so if only Pakijabi Talebs turn in that direction too - that would be a real wake up call for KSA.

Under the current situation, I see much potential in propping up Iran. Support the weaker - just below in strength party in a conflict that has almost reached stalemate - so that they mutual weaken each other in attrition. It is the Sunni Jamaat that is a problem for India in its immediate neighbourhood. Not the Shia as yet [well just a bit in J&K - but could it not be explored to kill both birds with one shot?]

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2011 19:02

brihaspati garu,

We have no leverage on KSA to change its policies towards Pakistan, while sitting on our shores. But if we sit on their shores, they may be coerced to change those policies.

brihaspati wrote:It is the Sunni Jamaat that is a problem for India in its immediate neighbourhood. Not the Shia as yet

Exactly!
Our need for control over the Shia is less than that over Sunni, and the latter can be controlled only by going to their HQ.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Mar 2011 00:26

RajeshA garu,

We have done so much reading and analysis on the forced birth of Pakistan. We all know that KSA had very little, if any, to do with that. Pakistan will remain as another Sunni Islamic state even if KSA allies with India strategically. Pakistan has enough of Islamism to self-sustain. Moreover such a realignment will have no bearing on Pakistan as KSA and Pakistan will be connected, in strategic sense, thru the inter linkages of Pakistan, KSA and India with USA, UK and PRC.

Once we remove the Islamism from islam, the remaining faith is similar to certain streams of veera-saivam. The reason for various deva-asura wars was to remove that Islamism aspect of veera-saivam; where those Asura emperors coerced others to denounce Vishnu and worship Shiva alone. Similarly a pacified Islam can find a peaceful place in SD fold.

Thus it would be detrimental to Indian interests if India chooses to play religion (manipulating religious sentiments and aggressions) in destroying Pakistan. The road to Indic victory in the subcontinent is to remove Islamism from Islam; not islamization of Indian geopolitical strategy.

India’s geopolitical strategy cannot hinge on a value system that is detrimental to its purpose. The objective of establishing a dharmic society that can build a vasudhaika kutumbam cannot be achieved by emulating the very dark forces we want to defeat.

We also need to get clarity on the contradictions between Indic values and Indic geopolitical interests as we analyze history. Indian interests are threatened every time Indic society veered away from SD value system; the unqualified fetishes towards Ahimsa (arrival of Buddhism) or modernity (colonization) or secularism (post-independence colonization of mind and die-nasty).

India’s success in the past two millennia came from its unwavering adherence to Indic philosophy against all odds. It would be unwise to relinquish the very values that gave the strategic advantage culminating to the current topic – KSA’s alignment with India. That is want differentiates India from USA; KSA’s current super-power all-lie, or PRC a contender.

India’s geopolitical strategy for west-asia should be to make those states self-aware and co-exist. The purpose of this strategy is to transform west-asia into another indic-society not the other way round; by making India another KSA.

Pakistan may or may not be naked under the flag. Like I said above, it is one thing for Pakistan to get out of that flag (naked or otherwise) and a different thing for India to pull that flag and wrap it around in the (false) hope that Pakistan’s nakedness will be exposed. What it in fact proves in the long-term is that India has been naked all these days and its fight with Pakistan all these years is to get that robe.

If the objective of India were to the annihilation of Pakistan, it could have been achieved easily and with little cost to Indic interests (a 10-20 year sanction regime is very small compared to the benefits). The whole purpose of this thread is to manage the aftermath of demise of the idea of Pakistan.

Indian majority has been working with its minority for past sixty years and made good progress. It would have been a complete success by now if not for the [sic] secularism. Other estranged societies like BD, MM, LK, NP etc., started seeing the long-term benefits of Indic worldview. Why destroying all those gains?

JMHT

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Mar 2011 00:56

RajeshA ji,
I pointed out the basic problem in the model. If Pak as a Muslim country supplies things important for KSA, and Pak undermines or hurts India, and India wants to give things to KSA to entice KSA to break that special relationship- then is it not in KSA interest to protect Pakis as a good bargaining chip to extract things from India? This means never an explicit split or withdrawal of support to that extent from KSA that makes it impossible for Pak to survive against India.

KSA is the source and cultural centre of Islam and world mullahcracy. However much Iran tries, it will never be the centre of Ummah as long as Mecca/Kaaba/Medina and Al-Aqsa survives. KSA was the source of initial attack on India and creating the breach in the subcontinent through which later murderous expansion took place. That nothing has ever changed in the Arab attitude towards India, is shown by continued KSA sponsorship of Pak. We can of course hear immediate loud protests that this has nothing to do with culture/ideology but with pure "profits/economic" interests etc. Whatever, the actual reason and geo-political history [Pak was available with things KSA needed while India was not etc, - dubious, since from economic interests angle KSA sponsorship of India would always have been more profitable than Pak at all periods of post WWII history] - KSA cannot be relied on on any terms of agreement. Moreover as long as KSA survives, it will be the base of the mullahcracy which looks at India as unfinished conquest.

Stage by stage, now or in the future, any entity that has supported Jihad in one form or another against India, has to be eliminated, erased, and so completely destroyed [Islamist narratives on India proudly describe how they dug up to the foundation layer of stones of temples until they reach soil and water] that they only become myths of the future - which archaeologists fail to find traces of and therefore historians dismiss as imaginary constructs. We cannot do any thing that prolongs their life in any possible way.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Mar 2011 01:19

RamaY wrote:RajeshA garu,

We have done so much reading and analysis on the forced birth of Pakistan. We all know that KSA had very little, if any, to do with that. Pakistan will remain as another Sunni Islamic state even if KSA allies with India strategically. Pakistan has enough of Islamism to self-sustain. Moreover such a realignment will have no bearing on Pakistan as KSA and Pakistan will be connected, in strategic sense, thru the inter linkages of Pakistan, KSA and India with USA, UK and PRC.

Once we remove the Islamism from islam, the remaining faith is similar to certain streams of veera-saivam. The reason for various deva-asura wars was to remove that Islamism aspect of veera-saivam; where those Asura emperors coerced others to denounce Vishnu and worship Shiva alone. Similarly a pacified Islam can find a peaceful place in SD fold.

Thus it would be detrimental to Indian interests if India chooses to play religion (manipulating religious sentiments and aggressions) in destroying Pakistan. The road to Indic victory in the subcontinent is to remove Islamism from Islam; not islamization of Indian geopolitical strategy.

India’s geopolitical strategy cannot hinge on a value system that is detrimental to its purpose. The objective of establishing a dharmic society that can build a vasudhaika kutumbam cannot be achieved by emulating the very dark forces we want to defeat.

We also need to get clarity on the contradictions between Indic values and Indic geopolitical interests as we analyze history. Indian interests are threatened every time Indic society veered away from SD value system; the unqualified fetishes towards Ahimsa (arrival of Buddhism) or modernity (colonization) or secularism (post-independence colonization of mind and die-nasty).

India’s success in the past two millennia came from its unwavering adherence to Indic philosophy against all odds. It would be unwise to relinquish the very values that gave the strategic advantage culminating to the current topic – KSA’s alignment with India. That is want differentiates India from USA; KSA’s current super-power all-lie, or PRC a contender.

India’s geopolitical strategy for west-asia should be to make those states self-aware and co-exist. The purpose of this strategy is to transform west-asia into another indic-society not the other way round; by making India another KSA.

Pakistan may or may not be naked under the flag. Like I said above, it is one thing for Pakistan to get out of that flag (naked or otherwise) and a different thing for India to pull that flag and wrap it around in the (false) hope that Pakistan’s nakedness will be exposed. What it in fact proves in the long-term is that India has been naked all these days and its fight with Pakistan all these years is to get that robe.

If the objective of India were to the annihilation of Pakistan, it could have been achieved easily and with little cost to Indic interests (a 10-20 year sanction regime is very small compared to the benefits). The whole purpose of this thread is to manage the aftermath of demise of the idea of Pakistan.

Indian majority has been working with its minority for past sixty years and made good progress. It would have been a complete success by now if not for the [sic] secularism. Other estranged societies like BD, MM, LK, NP etc., started seeing the long-term benefits of Indic worldview. Why destroying all those gains?

JMHT

RamaY ji,

Thanks for your response. I believe, I understand your view, but I have a slightly different opinion on this.

India’s success in the past two millennia came from its unwavering adherence to Indic philosophy against all odds.

I believe, this is where I disagree. India's cultural expansion rode on the shoulder's of India's military and economic might.

Others ape successful societies, and only if one shows success in some field - military, economic, scientific, technological, lifestyle, physical performance, etc.; only then would the other's interest be awakened, and they will want to know more about how one lives and what one does!

Values on their own have value only for the overly curious individuals, but not for whole societies. Whole societies are moved by success of the other. So if India wants the world to ape her, and adopt her values, India would have to show success. For that we have to break the shackles placed by other powers around her feet! Pakistan is one such shackle. Macaulayism is another.

If success can be achieved based on the value system itself, then all the better. Sometimes however one has to go deeper into one's value system and ignore its superficial trappings, in order to see ways to achieve that what would not have been possible by looking at the value system on the surface.

It is imperative that we neutralize Pakistan, and our value system has to give us the liberty to do so, by whatever means possible, and if our value system does not give us that liberty, than we shall have to reinterpret it at a deeper level until it bends to our imperatives.

India’s geopolitical strategy for west-asia should be to make those states self-aware and co-exist. The purpose of this strategy is to transform west-asia into another indic-society not the other way round; by making India another KSA.

This is where, I believe, you make a leap in your assumptions regarding my suggestions. India is not supposed to become KSA. Our aims may even be the same, but our roads are diametrically different. Your view is that the aim can be achieved by being as we are, or by being even more SD, and that would suffice. I am saying, that that is not sufficient. We have to dig deeper into SD, and see how our diametrically different road can be taken. That diametrically different road demands "strategy".

Can one say EU is self-aware and want to coexist? If yes, why are they not Indic. Probably because that it needs to a bit more than that. What we want from West Asia, is an acknowledgement of Indian dominance as well as and identity which sees itself as related with that of the Indic. But before that we need to bring West Asia under our influence. A direct approach may not work.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Mar 2011 01:38

RajeshA wrote:
RamaY ji,

Thanks for your response. I believe, I understand your view, but I have a slightly different opinion on this.
India’s success in the past two millennia came from its unwavering adherence to Indic philosophy against all odds.
I believe, this is where I disagree. India's cultural expansion rode on the shoulder's of India's military and economic might.

Others ape successful societies, and only if one shows success in some field - military, economic, scientific, technological, lifestyle, physical performance, etc.; only then would the other's interest be awakened, and they will want to know more about how one lives and what one does!

Rajesh ji, This is an important and may need deeper historical identity of India. Indian cultural influence and its religions are a part of its history and its value system

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Mar 2011 01:41

brihaspati wrote:Stage by stage, now or in the future, any entity that has supported Jihad in one form or another against India, has to be eliminated, erased, and so completely destroyed

brihaspati garu,

What I see often proposed is what needs to be done. I have made suggestions on how EXACTLY that CAN be done, but since I do not advocate a direct march with troops carrying the flag staff, the suggestion is often shot down.

Any strategy proposed, when countered with values and imperatives, loses out, because strategy can only appeal to logic while values are a thing of the heart, and that is what makes people tick!

If we say "stage by stage", how can a strategy be shot down, simply because it encompasses just one stage, and not the whole process in order to deliver the end product?! If I say, lets wet the clay first and make it more malleable in order to give it form, I hear - NO, pottery is solid and dry; putting water into the clay would go against our values!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Mar 2011 02:03

RajeshA wrote: Values on their own have value only for the overly curious individuals, but not for whole societies. Whole societies are moved by success of the other. So if India wants the world to ape her, and adopt her values, India would have to show success. For that we have to break the shackles placed by other powers around her feet! Pakistan is one such shackle. Macaulayism is another.

If success can be achieved based on the value system itself, then all the better. Sometimes however one has to go deeper into one's value system and ignore its superficial trappings, in order to see ways to achieve that what would not have been possible by looking at the value system on the surface.

RajeshA garu,

This is the fundamental difference between the Indic system and other systems. This is the USP of Indic value system.

Every society, irrespective of their value system, produced one in a millennia (that too if at all) realized souls. Only the Indic value system produced numerous realized souls continually; we do not know most of them because they didn't start new religions and Macaulayised education.

SD demands the individual as well as the society as a whole to perform its duty, including merciless war if need be, to protect that value system. That means India can and should definitely offer friendship to KSA but on its own terms i.e., no islamism nonsense. The end product of such a relationship (or alliance if you will) should be removal of KSA's insecurity vis-a-vis islamism.

Pakistan is a small fly in this process.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Mar 2011 02:54

RamaY wrote:That means India can and should definitely offer friendship to KSA but on its own terms i.e., no islamism nonsense. The end product of such a relationship (or alliance if you will) should be removal of KSA's insecurity vis-a-vis islamism.

Why should we reveal to the Saudis, what our real game is? If we want more than they can give us initially, then we should make us so indispensable to them, that at some later time, they may be persuaded to show flexibility.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Mar 2011 03:07

RajeshA ji,
one can never really separate out tactics from strategy - there is a huge grey zone. I am not opposing your "tactics", just saying that we need to evaluate tactical "stages" keeping the ultimate aim in mind. For me the ultimate aim in that region is the crushing of the identity - the cultural iconic roots which sustains itself as an image of a "global centre". If that is the ultimate aim, at every step we have to keep in mind that we are not somehow also helping prolonging the life of the system we ultimately aim to erase completely.

We need to carefully think out which side to back - better to back both sides. Maybe we should split ourselves into two camps - one supporting KSA/GCC and the other supporting Iran [ or the more abstract candidates - Sunni-Shia].

No way should we help tilt the balance entirely in favour of KSA Sunni HQ.

Just as Gaddafi - for me - is a dead man, because he supported Kashmiri separatism, even if in rhetoric [how do we know that his petro-dollars did not find their way into the Valley after a long long detour?], KSA has committed the ultimate crime - by helping Paki search for nukes and basically helping it to survive. KSA needs to be eliminated in the future to remove at least one point of Islamist revival. Until then we can help it bleed as much as possible while pretending cooperation.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Mar 2011 04:18

RajeshA garu,

The ultimate goal, IMHO, of Indo-KSA relationship is the bold portion...

India can and should definitely offer friendship to KSA but on its own terms[/b] i.e., no islamism nonsense. The end product of such a relationship (or alliance if you will) should be removal of KSA's insecurity vis-a-vis islamism

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Mar 2011 15:55

Solving Pakistan: Solution 2

Unchaddee the Echandee of the Bully & Swat It Solution

The H&D and Pride of the Pakistani Army lies in lies about its valor and its nukes. So even as it is quite easy to pull down its mask of valor every now and then, the unmasking is not enduring.

What India needs is, is to give Pakistan a slap every time Pakistan misbehaves! In the current environment where Pakistan uses terrorism under a nuclear cover, that however cannot be done. No Government in India can play Russian roulette on a whim and a hope. Pakistan feeds on India's fear of getting hit by nukes, should India start a war against Pakistan.

The logical conclusion is that in order to curtail Pakistan's audacious behavior of using terror against India, it is imperative that Pakistan knows that fear of nukes will not stop India from military retaliation and punishing Pakistan, and every time India retaliates, Pakistan would be left standing there naked in the rain whipped to a bloody pulp.

As things stand, India cannot convince Pakistan, that Indians are not afraid of nukes falling on our cities, simply because we have not convinced ourselves, that we do not fear Apocalypse or Qayamat! So what is "Fear"?

Fear is fear of pain, fear of loss, and fear of the unexpected. This fear we have to conquer.

Even though in strategic considerations, it is unwise to bring in religious beliefs, here they would seem appropriate. The Hindu belief of reincarnation based on karma, body being just the clothes for the spirit for this birth, and the world being just maya; can be a useful psychological shield against fear. We have to be mentally prepared for "aar paar ki larhai"!

However philosophical orientation is just one part of this foundation of fearlessness. Whatever we say, not all Indians would accept this view, and even if they accept it, it would be irresponsible for the state to not try to cut its losses. Society must know that even in this world, it would again be able to stand on its feet, and the enemy would never succeed to destroy it, try as hard as it may. The enemy should know, "We will not go down"! So fearlessness has to be married with self-confidence and a will to survive anything the enemy throws at us.

So even though fearlessness requires philosophical moorings and their dissemination through the whole society, self-confidence requires a far more visible preparedness to deal with defense, destruction and the aftermath.

India needs self-confidence of two kinds - that we will win a game of chicken, and that we will survive a crash!

So what should be the building blocks of our game of chicken?

Mental preparedness for nuclear war
A Nuclear Doctrine based on a convincing deterrence and an overwhelming retaliation!
A credible and tested nuclear deterrent of at least 10 times the Pakistani nuclear firepower, as well as a whole gamut of options with delivery systems.
Timely destruction of Pakistan's delivery systems and a thoroughly tested BMD shield against nuclear attacks
Institutional preparedness and a comprehensive nuclear shelter protection policy in India against NBC weapons
Comprehensive preparedness to deal with nuclear fallout, infrastructural destruction and health problems in the aftermath of a nuclear war.
Policy for the protection of Bharat-Core and a program for rejuvenation of India after a nuclear war

In order to win the game of chicken against Pakistan, we also have to show that of the two, India is the madder party, or at least capable of getting mad. We need a really really crazy persona of Bharat to tell the others not to mess up with India. It is here that Hindu beliefs of reincarnation, distinction between body and soul, and world as maya come in handy. As India develops and creates megapolises and skyscrapers, ports and manufacturing hubs, science colleges and world class laboratories, we are creating value! The enemy thinks that all this would stay our hand, would make us weak and stop us from taking hard decision. We have to tell the enemy, that at one level all this value is of no value to us. If we create mandalas, we can also destroy mandalas. We need to convince the enemy and ourselves that at one level we are willing to let everything be destroyed if it means the total destruction of the enemy, his ideology and his associates. The world is maya only!

We should refuse to be cowered by Pakistan's threats to use nukes. Perhaps we cannot take away Pakistan's nukes right now, but we can take away their effect on us, which in effect, makes their nukes useless as a deterrent.

Once we win the fearlessness of the heart and the self-confidence from preparedness, we will see that that we have freed ourselves from the straitjacket in which Pakistan and the World had put us in.

The untouchability (in the English sense of the word) of Pakistani Army would then just vaporize. Then we would have called Pakistani Army's bluff, that their nukes are a deterrent for India from retaliating for the terrorist attacks.

Then we start swatting them like flies, every time they go beyond their aukaat! The "Land for Terror" strategy would ensure that Pakistani Army loses all its aura of strength, honor and dignity amongst the Pakistanis. It would ensure that we can swat them at anytime we want.

The big benefit of this solution is that after all this preparedness, India would be well matched to take on China as well, or for that matter any other power as well, as far as world's power politics is concerned.

Solving Pakistan: Solution 1 (The Supari Plantation Solution)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Mar 2011 18:33

Solving Pakistan: Solution 3

Water for Nuclear Disarmament Solution

Basically the title says it all.

Indians "fear" nuclear attack by Pakistanis and Pakistanis fear "desertification" by Indians.

Wait a second! Actually Pakistanis don't fear that. And why not? Because Indians never really gave Pakistanis a reason to fear that. Sure Pakistanis have been talking about India stealing "their" water, but then that again is entitlement!

It is India's innate faith in fairness and entitlement of the enemies, that inhibits us in using the strategic cards we have in hand. We never consider our strengths as strategic cards. This needs to change.

First we have to change our world view. In this new world view, Pakistan is entitled to nothing - nothing at all! All that passes through our land is ours. Period!

Indus Waters Treaty agreed upon in 1960 has run its course. India as the higher riparian country has allowed Pakistan to flourish, and in the process allowed Pakistan to threaten us. In 1965 Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had declared that "If India builds the Bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry. But we will get one of our own." Well it is time to tell the Pakistanis, that "Sorry, you'll have no water to grow grass even."

India should go ahead and build canals and dams needed to divert all the waters of the Western Rivers - Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, into India.

We should start first by building a network of canals bringing them all the way up to the rivers, without going ahead and connecting them. Since these canals would not be infrastructure like dams being built on the rivers themselves, they will not invite the provisions of the IWT and as such can go ahead unimpeded. India can give some or the other excuse for this infrastructure and digging.

Then we should leave the Indus Waters Treaty at the next opportunity, that is when Pakistan does something stupid like carrying out another terrorist attack on India.

In this time, when we are outside the treaty, though still allowing Pakistan to get its "shares of waters", India should start building dams and other water diversion infrastructure needed to connect the rivers with the man-made canals flowing into India. Also this construction should be beyond any scrutiny by others, as suggested by the IWT.

This is the time, when there would be heightened tensions between Pakistan and India, but India should stay the course and finish the infrastructure. This infrastructure should be such, that even if Pakistan attacks those dams etc. the river still continues to flow into Indian canals. The flow of water into India once started should be immune to Pakistani attacks on the dams.

Then we gradually start turning off the tap. First we decrease the flow of water into Pakistan by a quarter, then a third coming down to around half. Now the tensions between India and Pakistan would increase even further. They will say, we are stealing their water. We say then can go to hell. It is our water. period. If they want our water, they can trade with us.

The deal is that either they disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, effectively, transparently, verifiably, irreversibly and by both IAEA and Indians; or we would decrease their water supply even further.

We need to change the nature of the struggle between Pakistan and India. We should turn the struggle into one between the Ghazis (Pakistani Army) and the Zamindars (the Feudals). If Pakistan wants to feed its millions, it needs to produce food. To produce food, the Zamindars and other farmers need water. We control water! We have to get the Pakistanis to force their Army to disarm itself. Pakistan must be given a choice - either food or nukes. They cannot have both!

If they continue to resist we continue to decrease their water supply. If Pakistanis don't relent, theirs will be a desert with neither water nor Oil, and ultimately no nukes either. If in days of abundance of water, the Pakistanis are hardly able to manage along, what would their situation when India starts wielding water as a weapon.

Then nuclear disarmament is only part of our demands. Ultimately we want them to relent on the various tanzeems, their education system, business opportunities for Indians, religious freedom there especially for the Dharmiks, etc. Water would pave the way for all our demands.

Again, Pakistanis are entitled to nothing. For everything we give them, especially water, they have to demonstrate their gratitude visibly and amply!

Solving Pakistan: Solution 1 (The Supari Plantation Solution)
Solving Pakistan: Solution 2 (Unchaddee the Echandee of the Bully & Swat It Solution)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Mar 2011 11:13

Solving Pakistan: Solution 3

Water for Nuclear Disarmament Solution (cont.)

Of course, Pakistan could try to snatch Kashmir from India's grasp. It would most probably have help from the Chinese for such a venture. So important is that India strengthens India's hold over Kashmir. This can only be done only if J&K's demography is changed.

Now Article 370 does not allow Indian citizens from other states to buy property in J&K, nor does it allow Indian citizens from other states to vote in J&K elections. But what is wrong with Kashmir has less to do with the politics of the assembly and more to do with the politics of the street, and politics of the gun. It is the politics of the streets and the politics of the gun, where India has to get the upper hand. Since the hands of the Indian Government are bound due to Article 370, democracy, federalism, wagerah, wagerah, the pro-Indian politics of the street and the gun, at least, would need to be controlled privately, using private militias.

None is better positioned to invite private militias into Kashmir "legally" than Kashmiri Pundits who have been ethnically cleansed from the Valley. There are around 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits residing outside Kashmir in other parts of India like Jammu, Udhampur, Delhi, etc. These Kashmiri Pandits should return to J&K, and since under the current environment that is not possible, these Kashmiri Pandits should return with "security".

Each Kashmiri Pandit family should return to Kashmir with a private security brief of around 50 personnel. For this they need land for housing these people, and to pay their salaries. These private militias can be made up of ex-servicemen and brave men from Central India. Secondly it would be good if each family's upkeep is made self-sustaining as much as possible, possibly through some business, e.g. agri-business, etc.

And that is the kind of capital, the Union Government would have to make available to the Kashmiri Pandits for failing them in ensuring their safety in J&K - capital to buy land, capital to start off a business, capital to build quarters for their private militias and monthly allotment to pay for their security.

Of course, these would be considered private militia, each answering to a Kashmiri Pandit family residing in Kashmir Valley, but that is a formal relationship. In effect, these private militias would be made available to the families through a united Kashmir Pandit Security Association, which again would be provided with "consultancy" in these matters by ex-servicemen of the Indian Army.

So next time there are street protests in Kashmir Valley, one can be sure that there would be counter protests from various people in the Kashmir Pandit Militias, and if Tanzeems become active, then these Kashmir Pandit Militias would know how to react.

We need to bring security of Kashmir to the private level, to the pro-Indian "civilians".

As far as J&K Govt. is concerned, as they have failed to provide security to the Kashmiri Pandits, it is to be expected they would look for security elsewhere, and J&K Govt. has lost the right to criticize them.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Mar 2011 17:42

Solving Pakistan: Solution 3

Water for Nuclear Disarmament Solution (cont.)

Originally posted by jrjrao
Published on Jan 30, 2009
By M.S. Menon
Withdraw from Indus treaty: The Tribune Chandigarh

Just read the old article:

The treaty does not explicitly provide for an exit option or a mechanism to withdraw from the agreements. The only possibility is to modify the provisions by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two countries; but, this would remain a distant dream in view of the prevailing circumstances.

The time has, therefore, come to put an end to the covert wars waged by that country against India and the option available to us is by justifying India’s right to withdraw from the treaty citing Pakistan’s non-compliance with the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1373 on denial of terrorist sanctuaries and support.

Any pronouncement to walk out of the treaty would need to be followed by requisite actions to show that India means business since pious declarations alone would not stop the flow of the river. Hence, we must be ready with our plans to control and divert the river flows.

In this connection, available data indicate that, in the past, India had planned many schemes across the western rivers to tap the hydropower potential as permitted in the treaty. However, not much has been done to study the diversion possibilities of water from the western to the eastern rivers to augment the flows in the Indian side.

For example, there is a possibility of diverting the Indus at a point upstream of the Stakna hydro power project to a tributary of the Sutlej through a tunnel.

Similarly , the Chenab waters could be diverted from the river Chandra, a tributary of the Chenab, to a tributary of the Beas and from the Chenab main at Marlu to a tributary of the Ravi through tunnels.

A possibility also exists for constructing large dams on the Jhelum to facilitate the diversion of waters to the Chenab and to the Ravi.

In view of the large irrigation water demands made by Indian states, field surveys and sub-surface investigations should be taken up urgently and detailed project reports got ready for implementation of various diversion proposals.

It is, therefore, for India to take the lead in its own defence so that Pakistan would be forced to abide by the UN Security Council Resolution for ending terrorism.

India should go ahead and build the diversion canals!

We just need to draw the line, that without full, effective, transparent, verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament by Pakistan, India cannot continue to give water to a country that threatens it with nuclear weapons and terrorism.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Mar 2011 19:09

Solving Pakistan: Solution 3

Water for Nuclear Disarmament Solution (cont.)

X-Posting from Indus Water Treaty Thread

chaanakya wrote:^^There is no provision to that effect in IWT.It would become ineffective when one side cease to exist .
India doesn't have holding capacity and diversion is not possible as yet.

on side note

Now the question is whether GOI had the authority to enter into treaty with another nation on water resources of J&K unless it is one of the subject included in the central list and concurrent list corresponding to list in IOA

From the schedule to IOA I don't see water is included as the subject

SCHEDULE OF INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION
THE MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE DOMINION
LEGISLATURE MAY MAKE LAWS FOR THIS STATE

So treaty has to be extended to J&K with concurrence of its Legislature only. In fact J&K is , apparently not bound by the treaty so there is no question of violation by J&K govt.( It is not clear to me if J&K govt was consulted and concurrence obtained )
By implication J&K can do whatever they wish to with the waters of rivers passing through their state.

This may have serious implications for Pakistan as well as India in case of independence or merger with either country or sanctified LOC giving each country held portion of J&K. IWT could be properly operated only in these situations. Till such time J&K is not legally bound by IWT nor can it be enforced by parties to either POK or J&K which are not party to IWT.

This is my loud thinking and subject to further elaboration/clarification etc by esteemed members, esp ssridhar.

chaanakya ji,
I like your inferencing here!

I think Government of India should reach a separate treaty with Govt. of J&K on water, which gives J&K full ownership of the waters of the Western Rivers and GoI the ownership of the Eastern Rivers. In the treaty, GoI reaches an understanding on how much India would be willing to pay J&K for the waters of the Western Rivers, depending on the level of financing of J&K Government in building of diversion canals, dams and other infrastructure for the purpose. It must be made clear that J&K Govt. can sell the water, but not the electricity generated from hydel power plants on the rivers, basically reaffirming (Rest of) India's rights on the Western Rivers as per IWT right now.

This way GoI abdicates any responsibility for the Western Rivers, making IWT null and void.

That way J&K Govt. would commission India for the construction of diversion canals on the Western Rivers, and would get paid for the waters, rest of India gets from J&K.

This money we are already pumping into J&K. Why not get J&K to give India something in exchange!

Secondly we push Pakistan to reimburse J&K Govt. for any waters that flow into Pakistan. Considering that Pakistan cannot pay well, obviously J&K would be giving rest of India most of the waters.

We can put another clause in the deal, that in times of war with Pakistan or even during times of heightened threat, GoI is entitled to divert all the waters of the Western Rivers to India, and pay J&K the equivalent amount it would have received from Pakistan.

For J&K it would mean a windfall! If India wants certain other changes in J&K Constitution, Article 370, etc. we can dangle this candle in front of the J&K Assembly. For example, in exchange for letting other Indians buy property in J&K and even vote. The politicians in J&K can make a lot of money through this. J&K should be offered the deal!

Lets also not underestimate, the amount of animosity it would generate between the Pakistanis and the Kashmiris. I'd say, let the Kashmiris haggle with the Pakistanis over the price of water, water that Pakistanis get right now free of charge!

Kashmiris would start saying India pays for the water, Pakistan doesn't, so Pakistan should pay for the water, which passes through their rivers. To put it simply, that would be the end of the love-affair between Kashmir and Pakistan, and basically a few years down the line, Kashmiris would be calling anybody amongst their ranks who speaks in favor of Pakistan, a traitor!

So empowering Kashmir in this case would play in our favor! Also the major powers would have some difficulty coming out in favor of Pakistan against J&K Govt. Can the world stop Kashmiris from selling the waters flowing through their region?!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Mar 2011 21:49

Solving Pakistan: Solution 3

Water for Nuclear Disarmament Solution (cont.)

Now what kind of effect would this water rights treaty between J&K Govt and GoI have on Azad Kashmir and Gilgit&Baltistan Administrations?

They will be seeing how J&K is minting money and its politicians and people are becoming rich and getting social and infrastructural benefits, and not because of GoI "bribing" the J&K Govt., but rather because of entitlement of J&K over its water resources, because of entitlement! Whenever one brings out the concept of entitlement, the issue becomes very emotional indeed.

So basically Azad Kashmir and Gilgit&Baltistan Govts. would be demanding the same thing from Pakistan! Would Pakistan relent? Of course not! It wouldn't have the money to pay even the J&K Govt. for the use of its waters, much less Azad Kashmir and Gilgit&Baltistan for the use of the same waters a second time! The Pakistanis consider the area, their baap ki jaagir! And no matter even if the Pakistanis were to try to resolve the matter with Azad Kashmir and Gilgit&Baltistan Administrations through increasing their budgets, it would still not placate them, because they wouldn't be getting money because of their entitlement but rather some arbitrary 'gift'! Indians would be telling the PoKians, "you have toast, now let me butter it for you", whereas the Pakistanis would be telling PoKians, "the toast does not belong to you, and neither would you be eating toast anytime soon!".

Soon they too will see, that being part of Pakistan is a losing enterprise, and it would be best if they get the same kind of deal as the J&K Govt. and that too from India!

That would be the opportune time to start supporting an insurgency in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit&Baltistan, when they would be willing to pick up the gun and fight for their rights! India can offer them, that should they become part of India, they too would be given a similar deal, or rather a share in the payment to J&K, as they would be considered part of J&K in the new arrangement.

So we have to bring "entitlement" into the equation with respect to waters flowing through the greater J&K region! IMHO, entitlement beats co-religionist sentiments any day!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Mar 2011 22:45

Solving Pakistan: Solution 3

Water for Nuclear Disarmament Solution (cont.)

So how does water treaties help India get rid of Pakistani nukes?

Well apart from inciting a conflict between the Pakis and the PoKis, on the nuclear front, India retains the right to decide how much water goes to Pakistan through the Western rivers!

If India decides not to buy any water from J&K, then J&K would have to allow the waters to flow to Pakistan. If India does not use the diversion canals to divert water from the Western Rivers, the waters would continue to flow to Pakistan. Whether J&K gets any money for their water or not, depends on the agreement between the Pakistanis and the J&K Govt. The point is it is up to India to allow water to flow unimpeded to Pakistan, and thus we control Pakistan's desertification.

If Pakistan agrees to disarm its nukes, India would not buy the water from the Western Rivers, and Pakjab can prosper. If not, India would buy up much of Pakistan's share of water, leaving Pakistan to turn into a desert and unable to feed its growing population.