Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Mar. 29, 2011

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Apr 2011 15:03

One big reason why Pakistan is going down the pakeestan is that its 3.5 boyfriends are running scared because India is now almost as big as the 3.5 boyfriends.
The haramigiri that these guys were upto is now pushed into a corner.
They now actually need - rephrase that to desperately need India in their time of economic crises with not much hope visible over the horizon.

There will be more such moments like the Ombaba visit where 50,000-80,000 jobs were created and protected due to business with India. Cheena biladhel will also fall in line, although they have rarely gone out of their way to hop in Pakistan's side when we were fighting a war with the pakis.

King Abdullah's visit to nai dilli, and then MMS's visit changed a few things, we can now look forward to a Japanese trade delegation to visit, now after a looming downturn after the Tsunami and the Nuclear crisis.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 18 Apr 2011 16:26

My question is aren't we rich enough already to stand up to TSP if not flush them down pakistan with our economic might? Let me think a bit pessimistically here. The stake of keeping TSP alive as a leash around India's neck goes up for 3.5 friends every year with India clocking double digit growth rate. If there was a point where they will abandon TSP in favor of India's economic growth, shouldn't it be happening now as we speak if not a couple of years back?

The social, political and economic divide between TSP and India is glaringly obvious for a common man to see and understand. Yet 3.5 friends with soup-e-rear analytical institutions have displayed a lack of interest in pursuing an India policy which would antagonize TSP in any way. Even if we argue that it is because TSP has currently got unkil's chaddi in a twist in Afghanistan it fails acknowledge the suspicion Us &Co harbors towards India as a possible spanner in their works.

If we are to believe the theory that Unkil & Co will have to side with India due to our military and economic might in the future, we first have to assume that they are willing to trust India. This is not a game based only on TSP. May be MMS is willing to walk that extra mile from India's side to meet US's demands but it remains to be seen how far US is willing to meet India's demands. Starting with simple stuff like 26/11 investigation. I am not convinced but I hope and pray you guys turn out to be right.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Apr 2011 17:12

Dilbuddin - your post gives me an excuse to post the mother of all conspiracy theories. I can't say I believe it myself - but I cooked it up in my mind to explain the inexplicable.

1) the fact that there is widespread antagionism to "normalization" of ties with Pakistan should be obvious to the PMO
2) the fact that terror attacks are still being planned against india in Pakistan must be clearly known to the opposition as well as the PMO.
3) Yet the PM invites Gilani, there is talk us dialog no matter what, cricket ties and the BJP sits mum. The only people speaking up apart from BRF are a few lonely media voices.

Is there anything that can explain all this?

One explanation is that the PM represents a soft headed, treacherously weak person who years for a peace prize. But this fais to explain the silence of the opposition.

One alternative possibility that comes to mind is a delicate three-way game between India, Pakistan and the USA.

Pakistan is widely considered to be a failing sate living on handouts where Islamic extremists are dictating the way life is lived, apart from cross border Islamic extremism in India and Afghanistan and a slow leakage of extremists making plots against other nations.

The US is sitting in Pakistan exerting a degree of control over the Pakistan army, trying to get that army to fight the extremists - who are allies of the Pakistan army. The Pakistan army makes it clear that those extremists, no matter what they do in Pakistan, are needed for defence against India.

Note: It is another matter that the excuse is a lame one and has a lot going against it, but there is little the US can do to make the Pakistani army comply as long as that excuse is being used. The US cannot "hand Kashmir to Pakistan". The US and the media constantly ask that the "Cashmere problem should be addressed to reduce Pakistani paranoia so that Pakistan;s support to terror cells can be reduced. The GoI like everyone else also knows that this is bullshit.

Then why does the GoI not tell teh US and Pakistan to fug off and stuff it?

Perhaps the reason is a follows. As long as India does not talk to Pakistan - Pakistan claims fear of India. The Paki army fails to act on US instructions because of "fear of India". So the US then lectures India and the US supplies money and arms to Pakistan. Telling the US not to do that earns the reply "You need to appear less threatening and you need to solve the Cashmere problem" And the more threatening India is, the more the fears of the Paki army are "proven right" - getting them aid and keeping them in power even as they refuse to fight the US's war as the Paki prostitute is meant to do.

One possible solution for this - to get the US off our backs and force the US to pressurize the Paki army si to appear less threatening. One way of appearing less threatening is to keep singing the words of peace. as long as India is talking and sharing a common culture and playing cricket - there is no way the US can accuse India of not trying and there is no excuse for the Pakistani army to be reluctant to do the US's job. Once India looks like a push over ready to talk to Pakistan, the Paki army has no more excuses to give the US. And when the Paki army runs out of excuses, the friction with the US increases. That in fact is what we are seeing now.

What is important now for India while acting supine and weak is to see that

1) There is a complete shut down of terrorism from Pakistan
2) there is a stoppage of US aid to Pakistan that can be used against india
3) A persistence of friction between the US and Pakistan as the India excuse is no longer present for the Pakistani army.

If is a terror act - all bets are off and the US will not be in a position to lecture India. but they will equally not be able to lecture Pakistan either - but if the terror attack comes from Pakistan they will lose all credibility and clout with India unless they stop aid to Pakistan.

From this point on it is possible to game the gains and losses to various nations from various events

A. India supine, Talks to Pakistan. No terror attack from Pakistan
India 0 points
Pakistan -1 (minus 1) (the India threat is removed, terror tap is off, US's work must be done)
USA +1 (india supine, Pakistan toeing the line)

B. Terrorist act in India (or war with India)
India -1
Pakistan -1 (US disapprobation, India threat high)
USA -1 (India out of control, Pakistan not toeing the line)

C. India not talking with Pakistan, and pressurizing Pakistan
India -1 (Pakistan gets US support and arms)
Pakistan +1 (Not doing US's job. Getting aid and arms, proved right about its India fears)
USA -1 (India not listening, Pakistan not toeing the line)

D) India attacks Pakistan even when no terrorist attack occurs
India -1
Pakistan 0 (gets knocked out in war but gets US and international sympathy and aid)
USA -1 (Nothing is working for USA)

Scenario A looks like the best of four bad choices for India. It is also the best for the US. Scenario C is the best for Pakistan.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Apr 2011 17:23

Dilbu wrote:If there was a point where they will abandon TSP in favor of India's economic growth, shouldn't it be happening now as we speak if not a couple of years back?

It has started to happen but give it another 5 years. However, economic strength will not be enough. India will need to significantly upgrade strategic deterrent, ASAT capability, PGMs etc, etc.

Ultimately, India will have to rehabilitate the Paks. But first the majority of the Paks will need to stop being Paks, i.e., abandon their erroneous ideologies and world-views. We are still a long way away from that point.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Apr 2011 17:29

Good perspective Shiv-ji.

Right now (2010 numbers) India's GDP is ~9 times of that of Pakistan. India's military budget at 2.5% of GDP is >5 times that of Pakistan at 4% of GDP. The big guerrilla from Indian POV is China which is ~4 times bigger than India.

Any overt war, at least at this point, with Pakistan will weaken India's preparedness against China.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 18 Apr 2011 17:36

Shiv mullah that is one very good CT ki maa. So India is playing along expecting result A. Only problem is there is no +1 for India in any of these scenarios. Is there any other option available to India to score +1 other than these 3 way games?

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 18 Apr 2011 17:44

RamaY wrote:Good perspective Shiv-ji.

Right now (2010 numbers) India's GDP is ~9 times of that of Pakistan. India's military budget at 2.5% of GDP is >5 times that of Pakistan at 4% of GDP. The big guerrilla from Indian POV is China which is ~4 times bigger than India.

Any overt war, at least at this point, with Pakistan will weaken India's preparedness against China.

Saar China will always be bigger than India. Are we supposed to wait for China's collapse before we sort out our problems with TSP?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Apr 2011 17:57

No Dilbullah. But India should have enough structures (military, political, and international positioning) in place before it can undertake the job of rebuilding West-India. Besides the military costs, reconstruction of west-India would be a huge project. Imagine the money/infra pumped by PRC to hold a passive Tibet (wrong comparison; but to put things in perspective)

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 Apr 2011 18:02

shiv wrote:Dilbuddin - your post gives me an excuse to post the mother of all conspiracy theories. I can't say I believe it myself - but I cooked it up in my mind to explain the inexplicable.

.....Scenario A looks like the best of four bad choices for India. It is also the best for the US. Scenario C is the best for Pakistan.

Except that when in 2001, Jassu invited Mush to " ...walk the high road of peace...etc" it was followed by 15/12, Kaluchak and various other attacks.

If I were the India guy at the ISI, I would still focus on keeping up the India threat and I could do that simply by another attack on a Mumbai scale or even smaller. My rationale would be that by leaving circumstantial evidence that points to the ISI but no smoking gun, I can further weaken (if that's possible) MMS and bring out the hardliners who publicly declare that they want to punish Pakistan. I then trot out the 'rogue element' argument to the Americans and to MMS through Gilani/Zardari—saying that retaliation would only makes things worse etc. All of this will follow the same script as before.

Scenario A IMHO, unless backed by a serious effort in Baluchistan to win them separation along with a cold blooded approach to encouraging the Pakistani Taliban to move upscale into Clifton and the 'Defence Colonies', will be no different the failed policies of the past.

I think in our desperation to believe that MMS is NOT exactly what he appears to be—gullible, delusional and bound by a messianic complex, we (including moi) are all falling prey to inventing 'chankian motives' for him.

No such luck. MMS (and it was the personal fax that did it for me), is as he appears: he genuinely believes that the 'nice' people who were part of his childhood in West Punjab are still there and awaiting to be shown their inner Indian. Look, even IG fell for Bhutto's sorcery in 1972 at Simla and overrode her advisors. Same game.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 18 Apr 2011 18:59

I still don't get it. So India becomes rich in next 10-15 years and then what...Suddenly TSP falls off the 3.5 BFF wagon? The whore suddenly loses all its tricks and charms? China is where India wants to be in next 10-15 years, so has USA dumped Taiwan in favor of China?
Would India be willing to cut off trade with USA/China/KSA/UK etc. if they don't stop favoring TSP? Would it be just one way street. Sorry to say but You folks really hope high. Long live Jin-goes.
Most likely scenario would be that India will also be paying protection money to PA in form of open trade, joint movies,kiket & hockey matches, some Gas pipeline and LoC just like others are doing.
Why would one MMS not be followed by another IK Gujral or MSA ? Why is that such a blackswan event ?
Seriously this linear business of hoping that all will fall in place once 20 years pass by like some Hindi movie Where villian simply turns in toi bufoon with the passage of time...

Ultimately it won't be Indian riches but grit and steel b@lls of GoI that will resolve paki problem. We need to resolve TSP problem before we get Rich.
One New-clear attack from Pak while it is going down the toilet would put end to Indian hopes for next 50-75 years as much as we would like to wipe Pakistan off the face of this earth after that event (With leaders like MMS, I doubt even that).

Why do you think that something else would not add TSPian value to its 3.5 friends in next 20 years like it has been happening.
What if at that point world is divided into Islamic block v/s rest of world and TSP provides the manpower to fight Arabian battles ? So it still retains its value to 2.5 friends...It is just one of those most likely scenario looking at how Paki Manpower is helping Gulf countries from Jordan during Black September days to Bahrain in 2011..

Caveat: If TSP decides to self combust and break up before that, Then all hopes come true.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Apr 2011 19:05

We discussed all of these things that we continue to discuss today over the years after the Parliament attack, after the Mumbai train attack, after the multi-city serial bomb blasts, after the Kabul attacks, and for two years after the most horrendous urban warfare of 26/11.

Pakistan's so-called paranoia about a mighty India attacking it is simply a well-managed lie to masquerade its anti-India hostility since 1947 and terrorism, since 2002. Between 1989 and 2002, Pakistan was claiming various reasons for terrorist attack against India such as an indigenous uprising in Kashmir, reaction to Muslim oppression, reaction to Ayodhya etc. After 9/11, it brazenly took the position that the jihadis were needed by it for security against India and the West understood the logic of that argument. It gave up the plausible deniability route. Thus, it leaves tell-tale evidences nowadays without fear of repercussions from anyone, least of all docile India.

The only reason that the LeT/JuD was branded as a terrorist outfit was because it was no longer confining itself to Cashmere & India but taking wings to other parts of the globe and against Western interests. The GWoT was never intended to include India, possibly the most terrorized nation in the world for the last two decades.

Musharraf was squeezed by Armitage and we gloated over that spectacle. But, he had the last laugh in the end when he made sure that the Americans understood some red lines, one of which was about State-supported jihadis. Then, we realized that the State had completely lost control of the jihadis as they mounted attacks on Pakistan itself, Musharraf himself, his top Army commanders, the ISI, the GHQ etc. Musharraf could not even prosecute the jihadis who planned his own elimination, like Qari Saifullah Akhtar or Ilyas Kashmiri or Masood Azhar. They were caught but had to be released. The Mullah of the Lal Masjid went scot free and is continuing to preach jihad from the centre of Islamabad. Jihadi posters are freely displayed in Islamabad and Rawalpindi where no poster or banner can be displayed without government concurrence. The State could not hang Omar Saeed Sheikh. He continues to threaten the State from within the safe confines of the prison. Creators and mentors of Taliban have been eliminated or are being eliminated.

It is therefore futile to expect the Pakistani State to give any guarantee to India about stopping terrorism. Even the Pakistani Army/ISI themselves can no longer make that kind of promise. The situation is mostly not under Pakistani control. It will be even worse after the drawdown of the US & NATO forces starting later this year. I do not therefore buy the argument that US leaned heavily on Pakistan and stopped terrorism against us after 26/11. The fact that terror threats continue to be raised and several threats have been thwarted or delayed prove that it is *NOT* due to American warnings that Pakistan has stopped terror. To justify talks with Pakistan on that basis is incorrect. Simply, the US and Pakistan have been taking undue credits if they were in fact doing so.

India is being bled economically, militarily and diplomatically by Pakistan. It suits a China which instigates Pakistan to do much more of the same so that we do not pay it more attention than what we are meagerly able to do currently because we are engrossed with Pakistan. Pakistan poses every day threat to us while China is a strategic threat. But, China needs Pakistan heavily to keep us completely off balance and sap our energies as much as possible. If we think that China would not come to Pakistan's help if and when time comes 10 years later when we muster courage to attack her because we had gained enormous economic, military and diplomatic clout, IMHO, that would be incorrect. China might have advised Pakistan to cease fighting in Kargil but that cannot be extrapolated to China not coming to Pakistan's rescue if we attack the latter with the intention of settling the matter once-and-for-all. We must be prepared for a two-pronged war and that is the scenario that IA is planning for, I think.

Again, India's strength in the next five or ten years because we will have newer capabilities militarily and therefore Pakistan could be taken care of, is a mirage. We have been consistently having overwhelming capabilities since 1947 and yet have been unable to convert that to any worthwhile advantage leave alone a decisive victory (except in 1971). In the meanwhile, while we are developing the capabilities, Pakistan has been able to buy or steal or acquire the same from other countries, thus eroding our advantage.

There can be no one, singular method to defeat the Pakistani cancer. It has to be a combination of surgery, chemo, radiation, experimental new drugs, palliative medicine, yoga etc.

menon s · Post by **menon s** » 18 Apr 2011 19:09

^^^ MMS is not acting in a vacuum! Spare him for once, and lets think coolly, after all he did for our economy! The NSA is a guy who knows Pakistan well. And if i am correct, MMS is not the man who will stubbornly pursue his ambitions, without consensus within the PMO. ISI has been chided really well by the Americans, after 26/11. The agreement was that ... and here it is merely my speculation, America will restrain ISI, in ways possible, and in return India will engage Pakistan, to ease pressure on USA.

menon s · Post by **menon s** » 18 Apr 2011 19:15

Atimes when we do not know where to go, we need to seek guidance from our elders who dealth with Pakistan.

Some quotes from that old spymaster of India, (a pandit!...

) Ram Natheshwar Kao...

* "Pakistan deserves to be declared a rogue state. How I wish that geography could be changed and we should leave Pakistan alone to stew in her own juice! " (9-8-96)
* "My gnawing fear is that, so long as there is an oligarchy in Pakistan of the armed forces and the senior bureaucrats, the government there would continue to maintain a posture of some hostility to us. Perhaps, they need it for their survival. " (23-5-97)

* "It is relevant to observe that in the 50th year of our independence, our Prime Minister (My comment: Mr. Inder Gujral) is a person who came as a refugee from what is now West Pakistan; whereas in Pakistan, the Muslim migrants from India are still known only as Mohajirs." (6-9-97)

* "It may sound somewhat impulsive, but I do often feel that we should leave Pakistan alone to stew in its own juice. The only thing we need to make certain is that if they start any adventurist course of action, we are able to give them a bloody nose. " (7-10-97)

* "There is little doubt that China and North Korea have helped Pakistan in developing her missile capability, even if they have not handed over to them finished products. It is of extreme importance that we should know what Pakistan is doing so that we are able to maintain a posture of strength, based on our defensive and offensive capacities. " (25-4-98)

And the wily old man, left us with further guidance.....

"As a people, we sometimes get carried away by euphoria or sink into gloom. It is quite clear that, so far as China is concerned, it would be a long haul for us. I remember that, in the mid fifties, while addressing an annual conference of the intelligence chiefs of the States, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru had said that while our problems with Pakistan were acute and demanded urgent solution, our problems with China would prove more intractable and continue for a long long time. "(14-12-96)

The real problem is China.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Apr 2011 19:22

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/world ... wanted=all

As their nervousness about American intentions have increased in recent months, the Pakistanis have sought to improve their leverage — threatening C.I.A. operations in Pakistan, cracking down on Taliban leaders to coerce their cooperation, and trying to befriend President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who has also felt on the outs with Washington.

In the latest iteration of this new Pakistani-Afghan relationship, General Kayani and the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, accompanied Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on a visit to Kabul on Saturday, the most public of a number of visits to Afghanistan by General Kayani in the past year.

American diplomats in Islamabad and Kabul declined to comment on the Pakistani visit to Afghanistan, and appeared to know little about the intention of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Joint Commission unveiled with considerable fanfare by the two sides in Kabul as a vehicle to end the war.

To some extent, the Americans have been coaxing the Afghan and Pakistani leadership to talk to each other, but not at the cost of keeping the United States out of the loop, or of concocting solutions that are against American interests, American officials said.

The Pakistanis’ efforts to improve relations with Mr. Karzai, whom until recently they had given the cold shoulder, was but the latest example of attempts to sidestep the United States in order to safeguard Pakistani interests in Afghanistan.

The Pakistanis may well have scored an early gain with Mr. Karzai, reportedly persuading the Afghan president that a 400,000-strong Afghan Army favored by the Americans was unsustainable and should only number 100,000, a Pakistani familiar with General Kayani’s thinking said. For their part, American officials say they are reluctant to include Pakistan in the early maneuverings on peace in Afghanistan because they are concerned that Pakistan will block concessions that the United States wants from the Taliban.

In particular, the United States wants to keep pressure on the network led by Sirajuddin Haqqani, a longtime asset of Pakistan, whose fighters cross from North Waziristan into Afghanistan to strike at American and NATO soldiers.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Apr 2011 19:28

VikasRaina wrote:I still don't get it. So India becomes rich in next 10-15 years and then what...Suddenly TSP falls off the 3.5 BFF wagon? The whore suddenly loses all its tricks and charms? China is where India wants to be in next 10-15 years, so has USA dumped Taiwan in favor of China?
Would India be willing to cut off trade with USA/China/KSA/UK etc. if they don't stop favoring TSP? Would it be just one way street. Sorry to say but You folks really hope high.
...
Ultimately it won't be Indian riches but grit and steel b@lls of GoI that will resolve paki problem. We need to resolve TSP problem before we get Rich.

There is no magic bullet. India should be militarily strong but should also work with all sides including the 3.5 baaps and various factions within Pak.

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 18 Apr 2011 19:28

Baloch protest racist comments by Pakistani editor at U.S.I.P.

WASHINGTON, DC: April 16, 2011. (PCP) Yesterday it was Bangladesh, today is it Balochistan. Pakistani occupiers used to say before 1971 Bengalis are lazy and indolent, do not work in the rice fields or jute mills. Now they are using the same language for the Baloch in Balochistan mines.

This came to light at an event "Turmoil in Balochistan" Friday at the chic new building of the United States Institute of Peace on Connecticut Avenue.

In a letter to the U.S.I.P. the pro-independence American Friends of Balochistan protested the racist comment made by Ejaz Haider, contributing editor the Friday Times.

"He insinuated as if the Baloch are lazy by saying that though the mines [coal, copper, marble, etc.] are in Balochistan, the Baloch do not work and the miners are drawn from Swat and Dir," A.F.B. Presiding Council members Malik Baloch and Zahid Mir wrote to U.S.I.P. officials.

The two activists said the same kind of arguments were used against the Bengalis in Bangladesh prior to 1971 by the Punjabi occupiers that the Bengalis were lazy and did not work.

The U.S.I.P. is a body that is considered an alternate to the State Department and takes an enlightened and bipartisan approach on foreign issues.

"As you might be knowing Balochistan was occupied at gunpoint by Pakistan on March 27, 1948 against the unanimous resolution of the Balochistan bicameral parliament, Diwa-i-Aam and Diwan-i-Khas," Malik Baloch and Zahid Mir told the U.S.I.P. "It is for this reason, Baloch view Pakistan founder M.A. Jinnah as one of the biggest thugs in history. May he burn in hell."

The two A.F.B. activists said in the last eight months, more than 130 Baloch political and civil rights activists that include lawyers, teachers, artistes, youth and student leaders have been killed Nazi-style by Pakistani occupation forces.

These Pakistani forces are the Military Intelligence, Inter-Services Intelligence and Frontier Corps.

"The victims were first abducted, tortured at military torture cells, killed execution style and then their bodies dumped for animals to eat in one of the worst forms of indignity inflicted on the human person," Baloch and Mir said.

"In this backdrop, the Baloch have been extremely offended by the views of two Pakistani specialists who were on the panel of the talk Turmoil in Balochistan," they said.

The two Pakistanis were using cliches against the Baloch people as if it was a Pakistani television or radio show, though the U.S.I.P. should be totally neutral and objective, the Baloch activists said. they also tried to tie the Baloch movement to Islamic fundamentailsm.

"We learned that Barrister Shazadee Beg and Ejaz Haider, contributing editor of the Friday Times, who could not even pronounce Baloch proper names of persons and places correctly, let alone presenting any objective analysis of the Nazi-style atrocities being perpetrated on the people of Balochistan, rubbed salt to the Baloch national wounds," they deplored, adding U.S.I.P. venue should not be allowed for such dirty Pakistani propaganda.

"Ms. Beg was heaping scorn on Balochistan statesman Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, who never lost any elections and lying that the salaries of Baloch workers was kept at his feet for disbursement. The fact remains that Sui that is Bugti territory produces $6 million of natural gas each day and Balochistan gets only 11 days worth of those monies while the Punjabi occupiers pocket the rest. This has been happening for the last 50 or so years," they said.

"Pakistani army generals are butchers who conducted a genocide of three million Bengalis and raped more than 200,000 of their women and the Pakistani army soldiers are repeating the same Nazi-tyle atrocities in Balochistan, they said.

They appealed to the U.S.I.P. not to include Pakistanis and Iranians whenever there is a talk on Balochistan as the Baloch do not expect of them to take an objective and neutral stand on the Balochistan question.

"We must reiterate Balochistan means the land of the Baloch and it has meant that for at least one thousand years, and no amount of Pakistani or Iranian state terrorism will change that ground reality," Malik Baloch and Zahid Mir said. On the other hand Pakistan means "land of the pure" and the name was concocted to insult the Hindus who are in a majority in India, they added.

"As secular people of Balochistan, we publicly denounce that both Pakistan and Iran are 'Islamic republics' which means only a Muslim can become the head of state and government in either country."

However, the two A.F.B. activists commended American scholar Selig S. Harrison, who knows about Balochistan more than anybody else in the U.S.A., for brilliantly articulating the Balochistan situation.

Harrison, who is Asia director at the Center for International Policy, said in his talk that independence of Balochistan was in the vital interests of the United States.

The A.F.B. also sent a copy of its letter to the U.S.I.P. to Akramul Qader, ambassador of Bangladesh to the U.S.A.

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/he ... ewsid=2750

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Apr 2011 19:30

Cosmo_R wrote:
I think in our desperation to believe that MMS is NOT exactly what he appears to be—gullible, delusional and bound by a messianic complex, we (including moi) are all falling prey to inventing 'chankian motives' for him.

No such luck. MMS (and it was the personal fax that did it for me), is as he appears: he genuinely believes that the 'nice' people who were part of his childhood in West Punjab are still there and awaiting to be shown their inner Indian. Look, even IG fell for Bhutto's sorcery in 1972 at Simla and overrode her advisors. Same game.

This too fits in well with the current scenario as I have stated, except that if it is wrong - it will be known only after MMS leaves.

What we are doing right now is imagining that MMS is contributing greatly to the problem and postponing thinking about it imagining that something will change after he goes.

if that is correct - then problems should get better after he goes. We should then be able to say what we can do right after MMS goes.

If it is wrong then we should be able to say that nothing will change when MMS goes, which means that we should be able to say right now what we should be doing.

What we should be doing has been mooted on BRF as
1. Attack Pakistan
2. Don't talk to Pakistan
3. Encourage "liberals"

What are the pros and cons of these tactics? Any takers?

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 18 Apr 2011 20:07

menon s wrote:^^^ MMS is not acting in a vacuum! Spare him for once, and lets think coolly, after all he did for our economy! The NSA is a guy who knows Pakistan well. And if i am correct, MMS is not the man who will stubbornly pursue his ambitions, without consensus within the PMO. ISI has been chided really well by the Americans, after 26/11. The agreement was that ... and here it is merely my speculation, America will restrain ISI, in ways possible, and in return India will engage Pakistan, to ease pressure on USA.

This is not about MMS neither is it about USA. This is a question about India as a nation taking steps to punish the perpetrators and prevent terrorist attacks on its citizens. Which self respecting nation will depend on another country 'chiding' ISI to ensure the safety of its citizens? If thing are not getting done by doing what you normally do then try something different. Wishful thinking wont do the job. Twiddling thumbs wont do it. Giving up and making concessions may do it for a while which is what I think MMS is up to. Whatever he did for the economy has got nothing to do with this issue.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 18 Apr 2011 20:12

Shiv,

In your analysis in your post before this, I noticed one peculiarity. Your options are not exclusive.

Infact what is happening right now is A+B. - India supine + terrorist acts in India.

Edit: 3) is not something I would agree on

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Apr 2011 20:16

ravi_ku wrote:Shiv,

In your analysis in your post before this, I noticed one peculiarity. Your options are not exclusive.

Infact what is happening right now is A+B. - India supine + terrorist acts in India.

Edit: 3) is not something I would agree on

Ravi that is not A+B. It is B being nudged towards A by being supine. Just a guess.

That is why the 2001 example by Cosmo cannot apply to these 4 scenarios. My CT was merely to try and explain what is happening NOW (as in the last 1-2 years since 26/11) and Indians dossier filled inaction since then.

Added later - my own explanation here suggests to me that is a terrorist attack were to occur tomorrow - it would be a good excuse to remain supine and look at the US when that happens rather than hitting Pakistan back.

Having said that - only a major terror attack now would indicate the true strength and resolve of India's supine ness. But I am certain the public will not take kindly to India being supine. It might have some effect on the next election though. Not on Pakistan.

Just a guess

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 18 Apr 2011 20:28

The only problem with the present approach if it is as stated by you is, India has ceded all and any kind of initiative to Pak.

They will be the decision makers when to move from A to B and vice versa.

Paks are the terrorist who is holding children of a single class captive. He is now demanding that the security from entire school be removed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Apr 2011 20:33

ravi_ku wrote:The only problem with the present approach if it is as stated by you is, India has ceded all and any kind of initiative to Pak.

They will be the decision makers when to move from A to B and vice versa.

Paks are the terrorist who is holding children of a single class captive. He is now demanding that the security from entire school be removed.

It looks like that to me if I am to swallow my own analysis - read the addendum to my post above. We will do nothing and look at America if a terrorist attack occurs. But talks cannot be interrupted can they?

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 18 Apr 2011 21:14

menon s wrote:^^^ MMS is not acting in a vacuum! Spare him for once, and lets think coolly, after all he did for our economy! The NSA is a guy who knows Pakistan well. And if i am correct, MMS is not the man who will stubbornly pursue his ambitions, without consensus within the PMO. ISI has been chided really well by the Americans, after 26/11. The agreement was that ... and here it is merely my speculation, America will restrain ISI, in ways possible, and in return India will engage Pakistan, to ease pressure on USA.

how can it be that simple? if we can find it out then isi definitely can. visualize indo pak meet and what they must be discussing? 26/11, kashmir, fake notes, LeT, water? what benefit that gonna reap? I am trying to visualize every scenario and that ends up with stalemate, no outcome. Why US is insisting for such talks where no one is a winner? And how that will ease pressure on the US? Except if US has proposed something re afghanjstan and they want us to discuss out. I have said this earlier. Anyway, just my thoughts.

or it is really simple that MMS is on pakistan high; no conspiracy theory at all...

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 18 Apr 2011 21:49

If India is to wrest any advantage, the current 70+ year old leadership should die and a generation born after 1960 needs to come to power.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Apr 2011 22:16

I think we can all agree on 10 T Plus economy,translating into hard military power with old soft power base and new generation of politicial leader will go long way in correcting the few shortcomings repeatidly exhibited by traditional Indians who have just woken up after few hundred years of slumber. The onlee Indian way to do is to not onlee throw the military,physical challenge but also insisit on bringing the paradigm shift in intellectual, spiritual discourse. Lead the way from battle of Mahabharta to the war of Mahasansara. Yindoo must dream at epic scale to change the local continental destiny. No one guity ought to be spared this time.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 18 Apr 2011 22:18

shiv wrote: What we should be doing has been mooted on BRF as
1. Attack Pakistan
2. Don't talk to Pakistan
3. Encourage "liberals"

What are the pros and cons of these tactics? Any takers?

shiv, can there be an option of economic attack? Then this + 2 is doable.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 18 Apr 2011 22:19

^ Like RG..Right!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Apr 2011 22:39

SSridhar wrote:

Pakistan's so-called paranoia about a mighty India attacking it is simply a well-managed lie to masquerade its anti-India hostility since 1947 and terrorism, since 2002. Between 1989 and 2002, Pakistan was claiming various reasons for terrorist attack against India such as an indigenous uprising in Kashmir, reaction to Muslim oppression, reaction to Ayodhya etc. After 9/11, it brazenly took the position that the jihadis were needed by it for security against India and the West understood the logic of that argument. It gave up the plausible deniability route. Thus, it leaves tell-tale evidences nowadays without fear of repercussions from anyone, least of all docile India.

Boss, forget anything else, but this fraud is what needs to be overtunred immediatly IMO.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 18 Apr 2011 22:42

Indo-Pak war is the biggest triumph card India holds today. 3.5 will go to any extent to prevent it.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 18 Apr 2011 22:45

indo-pak war is not in our interest either

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 18 Apr 2011 22:49

If we want to change the world order, this is a golden opportunity. The Persians are willing...

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 18 Apr 2011 22:54

^ Persians might be willing but are Indians ???

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 18 Apr 2011 22:55

whats the use if
1] we cannot exterminate the species
2] cannot alter the border
3] spend billions and back to the square one

you jump into the mud you get mud all over you, let it dry and crack under the hot sun

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 18 Apr 2011 22:59

What can the 3.5 do about it? It is up to us. History will judge us based on what we do in the next few years. All I know is, we cannot let a Sunni caliphate form. From that POV, I don't know if our interests align with the 3.5

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Apr 2011 23:00

V_Raman wrote:Indo-Pak war is the biggest triumph card India holds today. 3.5 will go to any extent to prevent it.

why should they.

menon s · Post by **menon s** » 18 Apr 2011 23:01

^^^^ people who unabashedly talk about waging war are actually the real fools, first of all they have no idea, the tragedies of war, secondly they do not know that , war should only be waged, if it is winnable. Remember Indira asking Manekshaw to go to war in 71? He said sorry madam, i cannot. Give me time, let the Pakis lock into a corner, let the mountain passes close and monsoon end, then, i will win that war you. Yes we will spite them, if they attack us, but we cannot go on an offensive war or hot pursuit, at this moment in time. Okay, so lets boot ourselves to hat task and do it. Ad hoc knee jerk reactions will not do.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Apr 2011 23:14

war could be waged not just for a clear cut WW2 style win.

weakening the enemy politically (1962)
teach a lesson (patent pending)
send a signal that someone is pushing us up against a hard limit from which automatic repurcussions will follow
to selectively claim chunks of territory

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 18 Apr 2011 23:20

Sometimes genuine threat of war is stronger incentive than the war itself. Keeps the enemy in line

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Apr 2011 23:21

Poaks must go through couple of droughts and floods before the bloodshed. We dont need to match the combined economic might of 3.5 habitual Gubolubers but to display the ability and will to use the crooked finger in their Musharraf by picking them one by one from time to time. We must use this decade with Hosh and not Josh to knock Poak Behosh in the inevitable final round. Cover all the loose ends ( water, economic, trade, diplomatic, miitary etc ) Its no secret Poaks fear standing alone in front of us . This weakness must be exploited in final countdown. War must be at the time of our choosing , nothing else.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 18 Apr 2011 23:30

Singha wrote:war could be waged not just for a clear cut WW2 style win.

weakening the enemy politically (1962)
teach a lesson (patent pending)
send a signal that someone is pushing us up against a hard limit from which automatic repurcussions will follow
to selectively claim chunks of territory

1. enemy is already in a mess
2. have tried that
3. we are not ready yet to have and sustain such arrogance against the UN wish