The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

[RajeshA]

Rajesh: The Truth About 9/11 people are primarily the "inside job" / "controlled demolition" camp. They are looking at the other end of the pole. I think by now, there are not that many who doubt that TSP had a key role to play. OBL's role as a permanent guest (and potentially a visiting professor) in Abbotabad sealed the deal. The question still remains, what can they do about it.

VikramS ji,

The 9/11 Truth Movement is a channel to put pressure on the 9/11 Commission and the US Congress for the investigation and disclosure. They are also a source of conspiracy theories. Outside the Government, Truth is identified by the Most Popular Conspiracy Theory!

This movement is the most appropriate channel to make Conspiracy Theories and even Truths Rejected by Officialdom popular and accepted. It is not just the government that needs to be lobbied but the people themselves. The 9/11 Truth Movement has an established platform from where they can speak.

The idea is to build a movement in the people and US Congressmen to punish Pakistan for 9/11 and for what is happening in Afghanistan.

The idea should be thrown so often on the wall, that some of it sticks! The Election Cycle is upon the Americans, and punishing Pakistan should become the Number One Security-related Theme!

The 9/11 Truth Movement should underline that America has been fighting the wrong wars, and the right war still needs to be fought! Secondly for those critics who say, USA cannot afford it, the response should be that this war would not be for some nation-building in Pakistan or be some long-drawn out Counter-Insurgency operation, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan. This war would be different!

[gakakkad]

Just curious. Does a caucus need government support? Could a private organization like - say Microsoft or Lockheed Martin not be able to fund a caucus? Fai's activities after all were perfectly legal and perfectly illegal at the same time. He got arrested for working on behalf of a foreign government - so GoI will not necessarily support private groups who might want to do this.

Who takes the money? A lobbying firm? What do they do with that money? Are there any names of lobbying firms that I can Google for to get more info?

Is the cost of lobbying a secret or are there any ballpark estimates about how much it costs to set up a caucus in the US? Where does the money go and what purpose would it be used for?

As you indicated in the various article you posted , the cost is way beyond our means . US has legalised a way of accepting bribes. Bribes are taken in the name of lecture fees, consultancy fees etc. If you look at the financial disclosures of various senators obscenely huge amount of money is taken in the name of lecture fees.Bush takes half a million dollars ostensibly for delivering a lecture. Obviously no one in the right frame of mind would pay him that kind of money for croaking a "lecture". They pay him to get work done.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ayday.html

The standard fee for even getting a small favour from a senator is 10k dollars. And you can't even approach them on your own to bribe them . Surely , you can have chai-biskoot with them on your own , but you ll not get much beyond lip service. The lobbying firms are for approaching these people. These are people who have mastered the art of bribing . Besides the fixed monthly retainer they often charge some percentage in the bribes.

Surely we can have a caucus, but without finance nothing can be achieved . It will most likely end up as chai biskoot sessions.Even getting media to report your point of view needs obscenely huge sum of money. If you visit capitol hill you will find that every day there is some demonstration . But most of these are hardly reported . They don't make any impact apart from providing some exercise to the demonstrators . Even professional demonstrators don't come in cheap . It is an expensive affair to get 50k + people on rent to protest for you.

Lobbies and interest groups of practically all countries covertly have government support . Its illegal to get caught. If an Israeli gets caught , Israel would bend backwards to help him , however lower down the hierarchy he is. They have got Wolfowitz and other such powerful people emotionally involved for them. We have none. Bobby Jindal converted to Catholicism within a few years after emigrating. He even forced his wife to do so . Because he at the age of 16 calculated that it would help him enter Louisiana politics. Niki Haley labelled herself as a white , even though she is SDRE onlee . I doubt they would help us like the way Soros helps Israel. Jews have got a very close linked fraternity unlike a SDRE Yindoo's .

Most NRI'S too would never give much support
For most NRI's Republic of India(ROI) , represents a land of no opportunity , lost dreams and failures(as they emigrated in 60s-80s when India was a pathetic gigantic village) . While US as a land of oportunity and success. US treated them better than ROI . It is factually true in most cases. If an NRI wants to travel to India and needs an Indian visa he has to go through an ordeal . A decade ago my aunt wanted to travel to India as my maternal grand dad pass away. She could not attend her dads funeral because the Indian consulate workers kept rejecting her visa. Even though she was an Indian citizen for 37 years an had only been a US citizen for a year.Being a doctor you are aware of the harassment resident doctors face at the hands of their seniors and HOD's . In Khanland my attendings treat me as their own kid . They often invite residents for dinner , sometimes even pay their rent , encourage participation in research etc. If I was a spy instead of a doctor I would have gladly defected . Because back in India resident docs and UG med students are treated as slaves. The only reason I will practise in India is because I ll inherit my dads lucrative hospitals.

If we really start making an impact , we ll be under scanner and we ll make enemies.

Most BRFites have successful careers and families to take care of . We don't want to be hounded by goons from CIA.

I have got suggestions of what BRFite can do . Will type it soon enough.

[eklavya]

Who cares why the US is doing it? The US must stop.

Not having a powerful Pakistan being armed by the top military exporters is fundamental to Indian interests.

If a country such as the USA cannot bring itself to accept a fundamental Indian interest there is very little reason why India should be bothered about US interests except to fight them where they are in conflict with our interests.

The US did not arm Pakistan in the 1970s and 1990s, when they had no use for the wh*re. When they need the wh*re (Cold War logic ca 1959, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ca 1979, 9/11 in 2001), the Americans pay up.

The wh*re requires a dagger as payment for services rendered, with the loudly and clearly purpose of stabbing and chopping up India with the dagger, and the Americans oblige. Let's be 100% clear, as long as the wh*re does not use the dagger against the US, the US does not care.

I am not saying we accept this situation; of course we shouldn't, not even for 1 nanosecond. But there are two ways of dealing with this:

1) Work to mitigate the American need for the wh*re e.g. build up Afghan national army (which is also 100% in India's interests, regardless of its impact on the US need to be present in Afghanistan)

2) Impose a cost on the US every time it gives a dagger to the wh*re. This also we must do, but it would be wrong to not realise that imposing a cost on the US is a tricky proposition, with potential negative consequences for India, and this particular activity has to be undertaken with some subtlety and wit. As long as the US knows that its backside has been pricked, we need not talk about it too much, and indeed offer some nice words about its sore backside.

[shiv]

No Gakakkad - I did not intend that NRIs or BRFites should be doing this. Technically, there are patriotic Indians (or at least in self proclaimed patriotic parties) with that kind of money - for example the BJPs Yediyurapa and the Reddy brothers of Karnataka who have made several thousands of crores. The Reddy brothers who used to fly from Bellary to Bangalore (300 km) for lunch have recently been downgraded from ownership of three helicopters to just one - but they cannot be short of funds. I know a man who lost 200,000 dollars in the Dubai property crash. He gave me an ironic smile and said that if 2 out of 6 of his investments pay off he still makes a profit. But the latter man is honest and has only a couple of honest hundreds of crores.

The money is sloshing around in India. The idea is first to create awareness. You see there is money sloshing around in Pakistan as well - it is the awareness they use and they recycle US aid to pay off senators via lobbyists. India has 10 times that money sloshing about - but a route needs to be identified. Forget you me or NRIs- we are all chhota people.

BTW here is a nice informative article about lobbying
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa ... 23404.html

[gakakkad]

^^^ No one in India is patriotic. People would rather lose money gambling in stock exchange than lose them to the country. TSPians are more patriotic than people of other country. That is precisely the reason why it is a failed state. While SDRE's take care of themselves and their families. Occasional donations to the charity and blogging on BR is the most patriotic thing we manage. Thats why India is a success story .

Your link was interesting . And us SDRE's thought corruption is India's biggest problem . I once met a person who interned in a law firm. They can organise anything from bribing to organised demonstrations to even riots. All in the name of law.

The sequel to your article too is interesting . It is especially interesting in the view the Lokpal bill being discussed by SDRE'S.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa ... 07789.html

[shivajisisodia]

No Gakakkad - I did not intend that NRIs or BRFites should be doing this. Technically, there are patriotic Indians (or at least in self proclaimed patriotic parties) with that kind of money - for example the BJPs Yediyurapa and the Reddy brothers of Karnataka who have made several thousands of crores. The Reddy brothers who used to fly from Bellary to Bangalore (300 km) for lunch have recently been downgraded from ownership of three helicopters to just one - but they cannot be short of funds. I know a man who lost 200,000 dollars in the Dubai property crash. He gave me an ironic smile and said that if 2 out of 6 of his investments pay off he still makes a profit. But the latter man is honest and has only a couple of honest hundreds of crores.

The money is sloshing around in India. The idea is first to create awareness. You see there is money sloshing around in Pakistan as well - it is the awareness they use and they recycle US aid to pay off senators via lobbyists. India has 10 times that money sloshing about - but a route needs to be identified. Forget you me or NRIs- we are all chhota people.

BTW here is a nice informative article about lobbying
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa ... 23404.html

Sir,

You expect people who made big money through unpatriotic means to become patriots and spend money on patriotic endeavors ? Even the rare person who has made money honestly (it is practically impossible to make big money in India honestly, hell, it is practically impossible for any person, rich or poor to merely live out his life in India without breaking the law a couple of times a day) is more than likely so stingy that he would'nt spend on his mother, leave aside his mother land.

Unfortunately, in India the middle and the lower middle classes and even a majority of the poor, regardless of caste, who have a great stake in transformation of the system and preservation of India as a nation, dont realize how much worst off they will be without this transformation, if the status quo continues. It is like a slow burn, people keep getting used to progressively greater heat until they burn and thus they dont protest, thinking they will somehow endure or find a way around (jugad) of the increasingly worst situation they find themselves in. The way out they find results in them cannibalizing on each other, further worsening their lot. Therefore, even they dont rise up and collect the money or do anything else to strengthen the nation from within or internationally via lobbying.

[gakakkad]

^^^ He does not expect them to. Someone on the previous page suggested NRI's to do so. But due to the costs involved it is not practical. Thing is US is no longer that powerful . So we don't need to do much.

[shiv]

You expect people who made big money through unpatriotic means to become patriots and spend money on patriotic endeavors ?

Chill mate. I expect NOTHING. I am merely probing for useful information. Money does not even come into the picture. If money must be used - it will have to be from someone who has the money. I was pointing out that there is money - in various hands, including members of a patriotic political party that has prided itself on transparency and lack of corruption.

[shivajisisodia]

I get it, I now understand, Sir, rather belatedly. It took me a minute to fully grasp your irony.

[eklavya]

Pakistan gave China access to US helicopter
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09700746-c681 ... z1V1aRrRmR

[rajithn]

Your link was interesting . And us SDRE's thought corruption is India's biggest problem . I once met a person who interned in a law firm. They can organise anything from bribing to organised demonstrations to even riots. All in the name of law.

The sequel to your article too is interesting . It is especially interesting in the view the Lokpal bill being discussed by SDRE'S.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa ... 07789.html

That is why Transparency International's index is called "Corruption Perception Index". India rates high on this index because corruption in India touches the citizen at the smallest, simplest transactional level.

Corruption exists in almost every country - look up UK's Serious Fraud Office's investigation into the Al Yamama project and a subsequent BAE project (which were stalled by the UK Government on account that further investigations would harm the relations between Saudi Arabia and the UK), the lobbying firms of the U.S (the Fai episode was known to the U.S Administration long, long before they actually indicted him), the current and past regimes in Italy, Israel, Japan (where numerous politicians, including Prime Ministers have been in the dock for abject corruption). The Middle East countries are also known for this malaise (Driving licenses, health & safety violations, labour violations, infrastructure projects et al). Some exceptions are countries like Finland and the Netherlands where the incidence is negligible.

The "perception" of the existence of corruption in India is higher because more people can identify that as a problem - doesnt mean that we are the only nation with this malaise.

Mind you, I am not defending or condoning corruption in India. Corruption is an undesirable off-shoot of regulations/law. We cannot do without laws/regulations - but in their presence, there will always be people who want to take advantage of it - either to circumvent it or in assisting that circumvention.

[This is similar to another pet peeve of mine. The Freedom Index that rates Freedom of the Press around the world. Authoritarian regimes of the likes of the Middle East rate higher than India!!! The Irony!! For instance, Al Jazeera stopped a boradcast of a segment about the Bahraini riots because of protests by the Bahraini Government - within that same week, they were running a multi-episode segment about Kashmir!!!]

The Indian Government and its civil/foreign service have always ignored these indices. Just like they used to ignore the credit ratings, until recently. We are slowly waking up to the fact that this "perception" can actually harm us. We are taking small steps. Albeit small, its still a start. Only recently have we started engaging the credit rating agencies proactively - one of the reasons why we are seriously engaged in conversations with S&P, Moodys and Fitch about an upgrade from our BBB- rating, come November. Perhaps, we will start acting on the others as well sometime soon.

I know most of this is OT. Just wanted to put some context to it.

[svinayak]

That is why Transparency International's index is called "Corruption Perception Index". India rates high on this index because corruption in India touches the citizen at the smallest, simplest transactional level.

Corruption exists in almost every country - look up UK's Serious Fraud Office's investigation into the Al Yamama project and a subsequent BAE project (which were stalled by the UK Government on account that further investigations would harm the relations between Saudi Arabia and the UK), the lobbying firms of the U.S (the Fai episode was known to the U.S Administration long, long before they actually indicted him), the current and past regimes in Italy, Israel, Japan (where numerous politicians, including Prime Ministers have been in the dock for abject corruption).

Bad publicity of India and Indians with global media control in the hands of western interest can create the 'perception'

[rajithn]

Bad publicity of India and Indians with global media control in the hands of western interest can create the 'perception'

I dont disagree. At all. But these same western interests wont allow another body to pitch in strongly or will pooh-pooh the findings.

So in the absence of mind-share bandwidth from the rest of the world for any other body and competing indices, all we have to do is think about how to change the existing bodies' tune. And the bodies that create (and I am not using the word 'create' loosely) these indices are malleable. Money talks. And these bodies can be leaned upon. Lastly, what better than to have these very bodies that used to trot out miserable scores for India bring out numbers that present us favorably?!

While the Government in power doesnt give a rat's a** to these indices in their short sighted wisdom, I believe some others in Government have realised the importance of perception creation. I am counting on seeing a different tune from these agencies over the next 5-10 years.

[svinayak]

I am counting on seeing a different tune from these agencies over the next 5-10 years.

Why do we have to listen to them.

[rajithn]

I am counting on seeing a different tune from these agencies over the next 5-10 years.

Why do we have to listen to them.

But that's exactly what the GoI used to think.

Make no mistake: A non-western century is in the making. But it's going to take years to wipe out the importance of western dominated agencies, their reports yada..yada..yada. [Why, even today, even us on BRF, gloat about S&P's downgrade of the U.S! Shouldnt the international media (and BRF) be ridiculing them considering that these same agencies gave stellar ratings to the Banks and other FIs prior to the crises?]

In the meantime, while the lustre of these agencies fade, what's wrong in using them to our advantage? What's wrong in getting them to tell the world what WE want them to tell the world??

[svinayak]

What's wrong in getting them to tell the world what WE want them to tell the world??

Why not create our own India's nationlistic global media. Why not create India;s own rating agencies.
We reach the world directly and not through somebody else.

Why rely on their global media.

The six billion world people must hear from India direclty.
See how colonized the mind is still after 60 years.

[rajithn]

What's wrong in getting them to tell the world what WE want them to tell the world??

Why not create our own India's nationlistic global media. Why not create India;s own rating agencies.

Why rely on their global media.

We are back at square 1. An Indian rating agency, today, will be marginalised by the western dominated media similar to how the Chinese credit rating agency has been.

Should we create our own media arms that talk to the world (a'la Al Jazeera, CCTC and RT): Yes. Without a doubt.
Do we have them today? No.
Do we see one starting today or in the near term: No. At least, I dont.

Should we create our own rating agency (ies)?: Yes. Without a doubt.
Do we have them today? No.
Do we see one starting today or in the near term: No. At least, I dont.

Considering that both need time to be accepted and to overwhelm existing agencies, we use what exists now. The size of our markets, the important role our private industry plays in the global scene (M&As, job creation et al) and the resulting heft of India as a country...all these make us reasonably big enough for these agencies to listen to us. So, while we hopefully create our own, we use these agencies in the short and medium term.

Pragmatically speaking, whats the harm in getting them to speak our language? What do we lose?

[rajithn]

The six billion world people must hear from India direclty.
See how colonized the mind is still after 60 years.

You bet it does. But it takes time. The agency so created needs to overwhelm what exists out there presently - through sustained evidence of objective reports/reporting.

Yes, the mind is colonized. The billions have been conditioned to think that way - not that you can blame them.

And mind you, I am not talking about your mind or mine. If our mind was colonized (I would like to think mine isnt), then we wouldnt be discussing this, would we?

[Compare the mind to a huge crude carrier. When it wants to reverse course, it cant just turn on its axis. It takes time. I dont intend to be patronizing with this analogy but its the closest I can think of.]

[Ambar]

We are back at square 1. An Indian rating agency, today, will be marginalised by the western dominated media similar to how the Chinese credit rating agency has been.


Should we create our own rating agency (ies)?: Yes. Without a doubt.
Do we have them today? No.
Do we see one starting today or in the near term: No. At least, I dont.

Considering that both need time to be accepted and to overwhelm existing agencies, we use what exists now. The size of our markets, the important role our private industry plays in the global scene (M&As, job creation et al) and the resulting heft of India as a country...all these make us reasonably big enough for these agencies to listen to us. So, while we hopefully create our own, we use these agencies in the short and medium term.

Pragmatically speaking, whats the harm in getting them to speak our language? What do we lose?

We have far digressed from the topic of this thread, and here's the final OT from me : Create our own rating agency for what joy ? No Indian bank has a place in major underwriting in asia let alone on global scale. We are nowhere close to being the largest buyers/sellers of sovereign US debt/US corporate paper. With total Indian debt reaching close to 90%/GDP and deficits of hovering around 8%, trying to be cute with US debt is like shooting ourselves in the foot. Besides, it'll be as effective Iran declaring CIA as a terrorist organization.

Creation of a global media house would definitely help in building a global audience based on our perception. Increase funding for direct lobbying by GOI and encourage the expat Indians,esp the powerful motel and IT lobbyists to do our bidding could go a long way in turning the tide on Capitol hill. You gotta give it to the Pakis, despite being a third-rate country with no economy, they have been far more smarter hiring NGOs,lobbyists and politicians to do their bidding. And when names like Harsh Mander comes out,it goes to show they have a never ending supply of "useful idiots" from India.

[Airavat]

Pakistan gave China access to US stealth helicopter

The report said Pakistan, which enjoys a close relationship with China, allowed Chinese intelligence officials to take pictures of the crashed aircraft as well as samples of its special “skin,” despite explicit requests from the CIA not to.

[shiv]

US arms suppies to Pakistan have been a chronic irritant in India-US relations, but the US has consistently chosen to supply Pakistan for its own "interests". Arming Pakistan with weapons to fight India was in the US interest in other words.
I want to have an archive of whatever news reports I can find from the past about this..

I have linked, in a post above, the failure of an Indian lobbying effort n stopping F-16 sales to Pakistan in 2004
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... government

Here are a few more that I found. I will post whatever I find here as a ready reckoner for how long the US has known that India objects to arms supplies/aid/sales to Pakistan as a measure of how long US interests in arming Pakistan has been at loggerheads with a core Indian interest. I am hoping it will allow me to see where Indian objections worked and when they failed

I have reports from 1953 to 2010 - 57 years (older than most BRFites) about arms supplies to Pakistan from the U with reports from Nehru in 1953, mentions of Reagan, ad Bush Sr and Indira Gandhi. I still need to fill the 1953 to 1970 gap. No time now. Will do later

From 1953
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/acc ... atl=google

Prime Minister Nebru served notice on the United States and Pakistan today that any military pact between them would "have some very far-reaching consequences in the whole structure of things in south Asia."

1965
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PT ... stan&hl=en
Oct 13 1965

An Indian government spokesman also said that India has made its views known to the US Government "in very clear and unmistakable terms" on the question of resumption of arms supplies to Pakistan

1968
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Q4 ... stan&hl=en
16 May 1968

Some members of the Senate foreign relations committee believe the US is once again becoming involved in an arms race in the Indian subcontinent. This was the conclusion they reached after an investigation of a proposed Italian-Pakistani tank deal that has received the approval of the state dept. The deal involves a complicated three way transaction with the US as a silent acquiescent partner.

From 1970
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/acc ... atl=google

America's decision to supply arms to India's neighbor, Pakistan, will increase tension in the subcontinent, harming India's effort to normalize relations with Pakistan, Swaran Singh, the Indian minister of external affairs said...

From 1973 - two years after the Bangladesh war
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=g3 ... 1114&hl=en

US lifts Arms Embargo on Pakistan

1973
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_h ... atl=google

Despite New Delhi's displeasure, Washington's decision to lift its embargo on arms shipments to Pakistan and India is not viewed here as having military significance.

From 1975
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0o ... stan&hl=en

US move to lift arms embargo on Pakistn linked to protection of oil supply

1975
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NU ... stan&hl=en
Wed Feb 19th 1975

India has officially warned the United States that any decision to resume arms supplies to Pakistan will jeopardize Indo-American relations

1975
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=51 ... stan&hl=en

Oil supplies and arms to Pakistan are connected ... Such a decision would be consistent with the multi-billion dollar US arms sales to Iran

From 1981
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/acc ... 37-1985%29&
desc=Pakistan+arms+protest+voiced+by+Mrs.+Gandhi&pqatl=google

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi last night conveyed to President Reagan India's serious concern at American arms supplies for Pakistan and "dangers of great power rivalry being brought to the Indian subcontinent.

1981
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nw ... stan&hl=en

India Upset by arms sales to Pakistan

1984
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7V ... stan&hl=en

(Indira) Gandhi says arms to Pakistan fuel arms race (in meeting with George Bush sr)

1994
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/ac ... atl=google

Clinton has chance to mend U.S.-India ties
[1,2,3,4 Edition]
The San Diego Union - Tribune - San Diego, Calif.
Author: MATT MILLER
Date: May 16, 1994

Abstract (Document Summary)

Pakistan, on the other hand, has been a military dictatorship for most of its life, but became an important U.S. surrogate in its Cold War fight against the Soviet Union. In the 1980s, billions of dollars worth of weapons flowed through Pakistan. Much of this was destined for Afghan rebels fighting Soviet troops. But India saw the sophisticated weapons as a source of further insecurity and priming a regional arms buildup. Indeed, some of those U.S. weapons are now turning up in Kashmir, where separatists are fighting Indian troops, Indians allege.

Wikileaks Cables 2005
http://www.thehindu.com/news/the-india- ... 983608.ece

4. (C) There is universal opposition in India to the supply of sophisticated arms to Pakistan, with the F-16 aircraft symbolizing a US commitment to upgrading the Pakistani armed forces. The Secstate visit has raised new fears among the GOI that it could again be blindsided by an announcement in Islamabad, this time concerning new weapons supplies. With Parliament now engaged, the issue is certain to be raised in the Secretary's New Delhi media interactions.

MULFORD

2010
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article798669.ece

Ahead of his talks with top U.S. officials here, Defence Minister A.K. Antony has said he would convey New Delhi’s concerns about supply of American arms to Pakistan as a portion of them is being diverted against India and seek an “early solution” to export control restrictions.

[shiv]

The above collection of links - at first glance tells me two things:

1. An allegation was made in an earlier discussion on this thread that India might not have conveyed its concerns to the US about arms supply to Pakistan. Clearly that is nonense. There are reports from the Nehru, Indira Gandhi and later eras of India making its position clear and stating that India US relations would be affected if the US continues to supply arms to Pakistan. Clearly US interests have been inimical to Indian interests

2. The idea that the US did not supply arms to after 1965 and 1971 and again after 1990 is questionable at best. The US seemed to merrily continue after 1965 and 1971. It is only the period 1990 to 2001 that the US did not supply arms to Pakistan. Stingers supplied to Pakistan in the 1980s shot down Indian aircraft in 1999. Many types of arms have no expiry date.

[gakakkad]

^^^ The above links that Shiv saar provided should be archived as they provide a significant insight into geopolitics concerning US-Pakistan and desh. They also provide a great perspective into lobbying as a way of influencing the US government.

[ramana]

Shiv, After the 1965 war the US allowed the West Germans to supply F-86 planes claiming they were spares. West Germany was moving from the F-86s to F-104 Star Fighters (aka Widow makers) and hence had the spares. Shahi Iran was also used as a conduit to supply arms to TSP. All this till the Kissinger visit to Peking.

[shyamd]

Just to add, TSP was part of the CENTO agreement - a mutual defence pact between Iraq Iran Pakistan Turkey and the GCC. it was primarily an agreement to defend against the Soviet Union. Although Pakistan asked for the CENTO agreement to be used against India during 65 and 71, TSP was turned down as they said the alliance was meant for Soviet Union.

In practice, F 86s painted in TSPAF colours were sent from KSA in both wars (when they realised they were getting battered). I believe in 71, F-15s were provided to secure Karachi airspace.

[ramana]

You mean F-104s from Jordan? I dont think KSA had F-86s. The KSAFwere a British supplied force in those days and had English Electric Lightnings. Jordan on the other hand had US supplied planes.

[shyamd]

Ramana ji, I recall reading it from one of BHarry's blog/reports. I'll try and find the link.

[RamaY]

I believe it is good that US supplies mil-hardware to Pakistan. Since pakis sell their mothers for few green bucks, every wanna be power can get access to US mil-hardware technology. This is the reason why they demand/beg all exotic us mil-hw like drones etc. More PRC knows about the mil-technology the weaker US gets. Good going.

Pakis -
V1. Invite US into Afghanistan to hurt USSR
V2. Invite china into Afghanistan to hurt US

V3. Innvite india into Afghanistan to hurt PRC (done as part of Indian occupation of west-india)

[svinayak]

Pragmatically speaking, whats the harm in getting them to speak our language? What do we lose?

We have a lot to lose. Ability to send our message directly with our language is known as true freedom.

[rajithn]

We have a lot to lose. Ability to send our message directly with our language is known as true freedom.

As I mentioned in my first post, this discussion is digressing and is seriously OT. And debating for the sake of debating is not my cup of tea.

[shiv]

For decades the US has done things reactively and out of fear of what US leaders thought that communism or the USSR would do. US involvement in Vietnam was a direct consequence of the domino theory where regimes were expected to turn communist like dominoes falling.

In a later era, after the oil shock - the US reactively helped to arm both Pakistan and China. Here are two screen grabs of what the US did for Pakistan in the Reagan era. None of these actions appear to me to be those of a nation that was confident in itself of prevailing. These were actions of a nation that was deeply anxious that it would not be strong enough to prevail unless it co-opted all sorts of dubious partners who shared none of the values that the US loudly proclaimed that it stood for. Many of those nations became powerful that way and then turned anti USA. I recall being treated to lectures about how Chanakyan the US strategy was. It is amazing how the Chankianism of yesterday becomes the stupidity of today.

The whole question of "dharma" revolves around a consideration of whom you should help and for what reason. Being "Chanakyan" is more about the state being selfish. The two concepts can be conflicting. The state's advantage may not come from that which is dharmic, but by being "Chanakyan" - but according to ancient Indian concepts, being adharmic will extract a price at a later date. Nobody really cares for any of this nonsensical blather nowadays and even fewer actually understand, and I mention it in passing...Sorry to digress

Kelik on thumbnail

[shiv]

kelik on thumbnail

Look at the pages linked above and let me go back in history.

The USA in the 1980s armed Pakistan with nuclear capable F-16s and ignored the development of nukes in Pakistan because - as per the link above Pakistan offered sanctuary to Afghan rebels. The F-16s and the go ahead fro nuclear weapons were in "US interests" because Pakistan wanted both and Pakistan was doing such a good job giving "sanctuary" to "Afghan rebels" that it was good arm Pakistan with nuclear delivery vehicles.

Fast forward 15 years to the post 9-11 era and you find that the USA does not want those Afghan rebels any more. So the US offers Pakistan those F-16s again to get help from Pakistan in eliminating those same Afghan rebels whom the US gratefully paid Pakistan for giving "sanctuary".

In case 1 - the US wanted Pakistan to offer sanctuary to those Afghan rebels
In case 2 the US does not want those Afghan rebels any more

In both cases the US arms and funds Pakistan. In both cases F-16s etc are given only as sweeteners to Pakistan who needs them against India. Keeping Pakistan in good humor is in US interest.

A few simple conclusions stem from this and I believe that reaching those conclusionsis essential for moving forward
1. In all cases the arming of Pakistan was against Indian interests and was done depite Indian objections
2. In all cases the arming of Pakistan coincided with Pakistani interests in being well armed against India. That was the price Pakistan demanded from the USA for cooperation. First to "provide sanctuary" for Afghan rebels and later promising to hep eliminate those Afghan rebels.
3. In all cases it was in the US's interest to keep Pakistan cooperative. Pakistan's cooperation was bought by providing arms that could be used against india and not worrying about the consequences of that to India.
4. It was the USA that was dependent on Pakistan's cooperation and the USA had to buy Pakistan's cooperation. It was not a case of the USA "controlling Pakistan"

The Pakistani army and establishment are perfectly correct in their assessment that the USA needs Pakistan. Whether the USA needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs USA is moot. The USA certainly needs Pakistan and is dependent on Pakistani cooperation and to that extent the position of superpower USA is one of weakness with regard to Pakistan. Pakistan occupies a position of strength.

What are India's options in this game where the US depends on the Pakistani army, the US depends on an intact coherent Pakistan to serve its interests and the US bows to blackmail from Pakistan and writes blank checks to Pakistan to try and buy cooperation?

In theory, (on paper) India occupies a position of strength vis a vis Pakistan. India does not depend on Pakistan and India can (in theory) see off Pakistan in any conflict.

But a war to destroy the Pakistan army is against US interests. To that extent India becomes subservient to US interests. Any attempt by India to damage the Pakistani army will always cause (and has always caused) the US to use various pressures on a vulnerable and relatively weak India to make it costly for India to oppose Pakistan. The Pakistanis realise this and have exploited this to the fullest extent. Pakistan has always bargained with the USA to retain a degree of indepenedence in its actions towards India. "Independence" of Pakistan actions towards india has reflected in the 1965 war, Kargil war, parliament attack, 26/11, constant inflitration, harboring of criminals like Dawood and Khalistani hijackers, and economic warfare by printing counterfeit money. It has been in US interest to ignore pain caused on Indians. his is glaringly obvious to a huge number of Indians and reflects in Indian attitudes to th USA.

India's inability or unwillingness to wage hot war against Pakistan has allowed Pakistan to wage a low grade war against India. Pakistan's wars have always been backed by a bloated Pakistan military that has received state of the art equipment that included radars and communication equipment apart from aircraft and other lethal weapons. And crucial intel during wars and sanctions and UN actions that bite india.

What this means is that both India and the USA find themselves in a position of weakness with regard to Pakistan. The US because it is directly dependent on Pakistan, and India because Pakistan is supported by the USA. In a sense both India and the USA are subservient to Pakistan interests and Pakistan's best interests are served when Indian and US interests are at loggerheads.

In my view India-US relations can move only in two ways. One is they can move down if India wages an all out war to destroy Pakistan. But for India US relations to move up, the US has to stop providing the support that Pakistan finds vital to wage war against India.

In the post 26/11 era, if there is any covert agreement between the USA and India where the quid pro quo for India not fighting Pakistan is US pressure on Pakistan to stop fighting India you can be sure that
1. Neither the USA nor India will make it public. Going public wil erode US pressure on Pakistan.
2. For me as an Indian, I cannot afford to believe that such cooperation is occurring until I see overt evidence in a reduction of lethal arms supply to Pakistan and a reduction of Pakistani terrorism against India. After seeing hostility all my life - it will be some years before I or any Indian can reach a safe/sane judgement on this.

Can India ever depend on US goodwill? The answer is simple. The US has to show that goodwill first, which will reflect in its pressure on Pakistan. If the US can show goodwill the question of India depending on it arises as the next question.

If India cannot depend on US goodwill - there is absolutely no sense in anyone asking that India should maintain good relations with the USA. It is possible for countries to maintain rivalry with the USA and suffer, but survive to see the US back down or lose eventually. Surprisingly piddly and weak countries have done that. Pakistan is itself playing the US from a position of relative strength. If teh US stays it is dependent on Pakistan. If the US goes Pakistan benefits. Heads Pakistan wins. Tails USA loses. catch 22

The only question is whether the US has the strength to pressure Pakistan and consequently "show goodwill" towards India. It is possible that the US is not powerful enough to pressure Pakistan. But at least I would like to see a reduction in arms flow. if the US can't do that - it means that the US is truly in a weak position - something that India should seek to exploit in the long term. India can hep make the US position stronger or weaker.

If we can move the US aside or make the US more neutral, China can be handled in a different way.

[RajeshA]

shiv saar,

excellent write up!

[Sanku]

Terribly sorry for to be late to the party, the cake has already been cut by Shiv-ji I see, so let me chime in with two bits.

India cannot dictate to USA.

Yes we can.

======================




======================

The post is deliberately cryptic and the smileys are there for a certain message. Folks will decode, I am sure.

[eklavya]

But a war to destroy the Pakistan army is against US interests. To that extent India becomes subservient to US interests. Any attempt by India to damage the Pakistani army will always cause (and has always caused) the US to use various pressures on a vulnerable and relatively weak India to make it costly for India to oppose Pakistan.

"American pressure" is a convenient fig leaf for India's leaders that lack the stomach (for good or bad reasons) to punish Pakistan for criminal acts of terrorism and mass-muder committed against India.

"A war to destroy the Pakistan army" will impose huge financial and human costs on India, regardless of whether the Americans are trying to stop the fight or cheering us on. Not sure our leaders or the people at large are prepared to bear the costs of an all-out war.

All I want is some 'low level' retaliation e.g. after 26/11 we should have destroyed with LGBs 50 Pak Army bunkers on the LoC. At least make the b*stards bleed when they cut us ... but our netas & babus are too wise (translate: afraid, greedy, useless, etc) for even that.

[shiv]

But a war to destroy the Pakistan army is against US interests. To that extent India becomes subservient to US interests. Any attempt by India to damage the Pakistani army will always cause (and has always caused) the US to use various pressures on a vulnerable and relatively weak India to make it costly for India to oppose Pakistan.

"American pressure" is a convenient fig leaf for India's leaders that lack the stomach (for good or bad reasons) to punish Pakistan for criminal acts of terrorism and mass-muder committed against India.

"A war to destroy the Pakistan army" will impose huge financial and human costs on India, regardless of whether the Americans are trying to stop the fight or cheering us on. Not sure our leaders or the people at large are prepared to bear the costs of an all-out war.

It does not matter what the excuse for no war is. If lack of stomach is one feeble but valid excuse, American pressure is an equally feeble but valid excuse. The point is that Pakistan is not going to be hit by India and that coincides perfectly with US interests. The US has always done things to support Pakistani interests against India. India is supporting that US interest by not hitting Pakistan

Now here is another question which is related to the same topic of Indian or US motivations.

Question: If India does something that is in the interests of the US but not totally in Indian interests, has India done it out of US pressure or out of its own incompetence/cowardice?

If it is because of US pressure then India is subservient to the US
If it is because of incompetence and cowardice it means that US pressure played no role in that decision.

Your argument above is that India failed to hit Pakistan because we did not have the stomach. Therefore it is your argument that US pressure does not exist/would not have come into play if India were to hit Pakistan. The US would have no objection if India were to hit Pakistan. "US pressure on India" is only an excuse for cowardice.

If this is correct then it means that the US, while supporting and arming Pakistan, and needing Pakistan's help, does not object to a possible Indian attack on Pakistan and only Indian cowardice stops that. Not US pressure. But why would the US want Pakistan's help and then not oppose an Indian attack on Pakistan? One reason is that the US has no leverage or power to stop India if India attacked Pakistan. Only Indian cowardice is stopping that. That seems to be your viewpoint.

You see - my viewpoint is that the US is strong and has leverage on India. Your viewpoint is that the US is weak and has no leverage on India.

I think the US has very little leverage over Pakistan, but has some leverage over India. You are saying that the US has no leverage over India. IOW the US is weaker that I think it is. Fine. I will accept your viewpoint. Maybe there is some merit in that. It fits in with the overall picture that the US's power over nations is overrated.

[shivajisisodia]

Shiv Sab,

Sir, ultimately nothing matters. If US stops selling arms to PAk, it will be China and KSA and Turkey and even Iran. Remember, Pak is only a forward brigade of the entire Islamic ulemma and is backed by it and provides strategic depth and support to it.

I absolutely agree with Eklavya Sab that Indian leadership has for years using US as a convenient fig leaf for not taking forceful action against Pak. I also agree with him fully that it is not the leadership's fault per se, except that they dont exercise leadership, but the Indian public in general doesnt have it high on its priority list to take effective action against Pak, because they know that it will be costly. It will indeed be costly but be less costly in the long run than not taking any action and letting the sore that is Pakistan fester in our midst. But then, the Indian population has never thought strategically and long term, its all about "now" for them. Hell, if the heat gets to be too much for the Indian masses in the long run, they will convert to Islam. After all, we are a pragmatic people, capable of taking "pragmatic" actions, quite unlike the fanatical Islamists, arent we ? Practicality will dictate that to prevent mass slaughter and rape of their women and children, conversion is the way forward. This is sure to be the end result of the nation slacking against the Islamic threat right now, which follows massive strategic blunders in the past which lead to the Islamists successfully able to invade and establish their beach head in India for a thousand years, followed by the British invasion, which has already resulted in the Indian subcontinent being almost 40% Islamic.

So, my question to you is, Sir, why in your opinion does India not strike back more forcefully against Pak, where the results are lethal and observable by all. I hope you will give me a serious answer and not upset my intelligence by saying that India does take effective action, only its not visible.

Your points about US, sir, some of them are good. I dont grudge you, your distaste for the US. Whether I agree with your analysis on US or not, I request that after every diatribe against the US, you put a disclaimer, saying that this diatribe should not be used as a fig leaf or an excuse by anyone in India for not taking strong action against Paki. That it is our responsibility, all our citizens', to ensure that even if US is a big impediment, that we make our nation capable enough and willing enough to strike hard against the Islamic threat (I dont even want to call it a Paki threat, as calling it merely a Paki threat, minimizes the real threat). The way our citizenry can do that is by realizing that India needs to strike hard, that it is an existential problem for us, that more than that, it is almost an emergency for us and they should organize and elect appropriate leadership and/or pressure that leadership to do the right things.

Sir, I sincerely hope you will put that disclaimer, as I am sure, as a true nationalist, you dont want to provide solace to the excuse makers and apologists for a meek and weak policy.

[shivajisisodia]

And as to your point, Sir, Shiv Sab, that US has leverage over India. I may agree with you that it may have some, but what you are missing is that at least starting in 2011, there is no apetite in the US to use any leverage it may have against India to prevent it from taking forceful action against the Islamists.

[shiv]

shivajisisodiaji - I find it hilarious that you believe that I have a "distaste" for the US. Time and again you choose to forcefully confirm my suspicion that some people take criticism of the US as dislike or distaste - "anti-USA". Why should anyone worry about criticism of the US and attribute some kind of motive to me? That is a curious psychological effect that i have noticed on this forum for over a decade. I criticise the US and I am told that I hate the USA. Why do people do that? Why do YOU do that?

I have no distaste for the US.

I have a deep distaste for an unrealistic assessment of US capabilities. That is all. Misperceptions make nonsense of a lot of our attempts at analysis of world events. When I post my views on that I am often attacked personally. There is one particular statement made on this thread about me (not made by you) that I find really really curious. Sorry I will keep everyone in suspense about which one it is because it would hurt a friend if I pointed out that statement and its author. But it is illustrative of the angst that criticism of US policies or an alternate assessment of US capabilities makes. Why???

[shivajisisodia]

As to what form this strong action can take, well, I suggest we take the following steps immediately. These steps have zero possibility of any nuclear response from across the border.

1. Start off by resettling the Kashmiri Pandits by creating safe settlements for them in Kashmir valley. These settlements should be along the lines of Israeli settlements in the West Banks, heavily fortified and we can even contract out the work of establishing these settlements to the Isreaelis, even if they charge us a pretty penny.

2. Even without doing away with 370 formally, start settling non Kashmiris in Kashmir, starting with only the muslims first, even some Bangladeshis, again by establishing fortified settlements for them. Our leaders can tour Tibet and Xinxiang to get ideas on how this can be done.

This can be started tomorrow, sir.