Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan-Sept 05, 2015

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 06 Sep 2015 17:18

Rajaram wrote: We in BRF, far removed from the realistic situation on the ground, may not be satisfied about how India has handled Pakistan and feel that Pakistan has not been made to pay. But the fact remains, that it is only India that has made them pay time and again.

A facile claim that is just a subset of what has been charged against GoI -- making pakistan pay is not the issue, as that is just a tactical response. The goal has to be to cure the disease without killing the patient (India), and the GoI has its goal in the right direction, though it has read pakistan very poorly and gives pakistan room to up the ante without facing any direct consequences from India (Save for large dossiers, as sign of GoI's becturbation).

The other part of the charges against the Indian govt. here is the insistence of resuming dialogue with pakistan and pretending that pakistan is a normal state with which India can do business, and an economically stable pakistan that does business with India is in India's interests, and that India should continue working with a "basket of issues" with the pakis. This has been repeated by people high up in the Indian govt. at different times, and is now being repeated by pakis in Pakistan, after India has cut off all dialog with pakistan recently. This approach just leads to more Indians dying and the pakis finding new ways to mess with India, and India constantly responding to every new threat the pakis cook up, because they cannot do anything else to save their commode of a country.

That is no evidence yet that this approach has worked with pakistan yet -- just saying that "India has damaged pakistan" whenever pakistan has imposed war on India is not relevant how pakistan is being handled at peace time as a "normal" state, when it is anything but normal.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Sep 2015 17:42

India Secretly Attacked Pakistan 50 Years Ago and Was Responded Befittingly: Pakistan Army Chief - New Indian Express

Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif said on Sunday that the nation’s borders are well-guarded, adding that the enemy (India) secretly attacked Pakistan 50 years ago and was responded befittingly.

According to the Pakistan Today, Sharif’s message came on the occasion of Defence Day which was read out by Corps Commander Southern Command Lieutenant General Nasir Janjua at the Youm-e-Shuhuda event.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Sep 2015 17:43

^^^ Part of the audience for "India talks to Pakistan" is the international community.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 06 Sep 2015 19:27

Here is a question: What does India get by playing to that audience (with US and EU/NATO being the "international community" the key "observers") ? It is not like that "audience" is not actively part of funding and arming pakistan, and "Sensitive" to pakistan's India threat -- this same audience not only stops India from stabilizing Afghanisthan but actively degrades all the Indian investments in Afghanisthan in order to give Pakistan a larger role in Afghanisthan -- India is not even militarily assisting Afghanisthan in this case.

Falijee · Post by **Falijee** » 06 Sep 2015 19:34

SSridhar wrote:India Secretly Attacked Pakistan 50 Years Ago and Was Responded Befittingly: Pakistan Army Chief - New Indian Express
Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif said on Sunday that the nation’s borders are well-guarded, adding that the enemy (India) secretly attacked Pakistan 50 years ago and was responded befittingly.

According to the Pakistan Today, Sharif’s message came on the occasion of Defence Day which was read out by Corps Commander Southern Command Lieutenant General Nasir Janjua at the Youm-e-Shuhuda event.

SS, Ji, Have been following with interest the "philosophical discussion" as to how to tackle this artificial entity whose very foundation has been built on lies lies and more lies

A good example of this (lie) is the so_called Youm-e-Shuhuda address by the Bad Sharif

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2015 20:14

Tuvaluan wrote:Here is a question: What does India get by playing to that audience (with US and EU/NATO being the "international community" the key "observers") ? It is not like that "audience" is not actively part of funding and arming pakistan, and "Sensitive" to pakistan's India threat -- this same audience not only stops India from stabilizing Afghanisthan but actively degrades all the Indian investments in Afghanisthan in order to give Pakistan a larger role in Afghanisthan -- India is not even militarily assisting Afghanisthan in this case.

I have thoughts that I am unable to bring out coherently. I will use an example.

For some strange reason I have received some special admiration from some of my colleagues simply because I have a medical qualification from bilayat that is often viewed in India as a great achievement - for no sane reason other than blind admiration of the sootedbooted necktie wearing sahib whose confident words seemeth to drippeth with wisdom and coolth. One perfectly competent and very good colleague of mine likes to get my validation when he glowingly describes how some medical issue is handled in bilayat. His body language changes - his spine straightens up and he talks like a sahib while enacting that, and he glances at me every now and again to make sure that I am agreeing.

This is a disease that is rampant across the nation (India) - possibly starting from Jawaharlal Nehru down via the babu class to the people on the ground. When the British - at the peak of their power gave lectures on diplomacy and interstate relations they were speaking from a position of being a superpower. The superpower could dictate terms and then show its magnanimity and grace in the form of diplomatic niceties and expect that all other pipsqueak powers too should follow suit in order to be the good boys of the international community. The ability to behave "right", wear suits and appear like good boys of the international community was a prized thing that made the short dark, rice eating, formerly lungi clad native feel he was there "at the high table" The expression "high table' itself is a pathetic invention to show the chutiya native what big really means . So we put on a pretence of being very reasonable and civilized and then glance at the international community for their validation of our ability to belong at that high table much like my colleague glances at me for validation every time he glowingly describes some bilayati greatness.

We need to grow out of this, but admiration of the west runs deep in our veins - hooking us on to issues where we are actually joker-monkees simply miming what we have beeen taught is "greatness". Mao's greatness was his ability to sit in this sort of company, lean to one side and let out a loud fart and say "This is what i think of you and your world order". Gandhi did it in a more subtle way. But we are all Nehruites.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 06 Sep 2015 21:29

Shiv-ji:
Admiration of west is slowly eroding. The blind admiration and adulation of the west (or rather Caucasians as a race) stopped many of our youngsters from starting hi-tech companies some 20 years ago. Even the ones started were mostly around service business. As Indians became more successful than Caucasians in IT and hi-tech areas and started occupying CXO roles in major MNCs, a can-do attitude has emerged amongst several Indians. Few years ago, I have heard many in Bangalore and amongst NRIs in US say that Amazon will eat up Flipkart or recently that Uber will eat up Ola cabs. Same is the case with Paytm vs paypal. As Indian start ups such as Flipkart and Snapdeal and Olacabs and PayTM outgrew Amazon and eBay and Uber and Paypal, there is growing acceptance amongst youngsters in IT that we can build world class companies and technologies ourselves. This has given rise to over 8000 technological start ups in India curently, a number unimaginable a few years ago.

Same is happening in English literature (still a long way to go as Indian language contemporary literature which is much more profound than Indian English literature does not get its due).

As Indian accomplishments grow in various areas of Arts, Science and humanities work, it will have a corresponding impact on our self image. Without contemporary accomplishments, it would be difficult to sustain a high self image based only on past glory.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 06 Sep 2015 21:49

how we won the war

Curtsey, pakistani education system.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 06 Sep 2015 21:50

Aayush Sidd ‏@slicesofIife 9h9 hours ago

Greetings to Pakistan army in #defenceday. Have won no war ever but have conquered Islamabad thrice already. Only army to do that.
344 retweets 127 favorites

Narad · Post by **Narad** » 06 Sep 2015 22:12

India thinking about Dawood and Hafiz, ready to 'neutralize' them, Rajyavardhan Rathore says

"saam, daam, dand, beid (all means will be used). Besides dossier, other means also will be used. Whenever it happens, you will get the news."

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/India-t ... 848227.cms

partha · Post by **partha** » 06 Sep 2015 22:14

Narad wrote:India thinking about Dawood and Hafiz, ready to 'neutralize' them, Rajyavardhan Rathore says

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/India-t ... 848227.cms

Why? Why is he saying that on TV? A statement like that must have been cleared at the highest levels. So what's the plan here? To see how Pakis react?

deWalker · Post by **deWalker** » 06 Sep 2015 22:44

Retired Air Vice Marshall Shahzad Chaudhry of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s Air Force on the 1965 War:

So much so, that the two needed to fight another war in 1971 to achieve their political ambitions. In this case, India won and Pakistan couldn’t prevent the loss.

Look at this sentence in a purportedly neutral and enlightened article!! "Pakistan couldnt prevent the loss"!! The Air Vice Marshal cannot bring himself to say "India won and Pakistan lost". Or more simply "India defeated Pakistan".

That's pretty good, but Kaiser Tufail takes the cake with this line from his Kargil report:

The over-arching consideration was the BVR missile capability of IAF fighters which impinged unfavourably on the mission success probability.

That's another way of saying "The IAF would probably have ash-faq'ed us".

Sir Humphrey Appleby (from Yes Minister) couldn't be prouder!

Kaiser Tufail Kargil article is here http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/200 ... force.html

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 06 Sep 2015 22:46

partha wrote:
Narad wrote:India thinking about Dawood and Hafiz, ready to 'neutralize' them, Rajyavardhan Rathore says

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/India-t ... 848227.cms
Why? Why is he saying that on TV? A statement like that must have been cleared at the highest levels. So what's the plan here? To see how Pakis react?

What is wrong in that? Didnt USA say OBL will be hunted down?

For wanted terrorists lets not be diplomatic.

PS: when I read you again I don't think you meant that. That aside, I wouldn't take Rathore too seriously.

deWalker · Post by **deWalker** » 06 Sep 2015 23:02

shiv wrote:If they want war, we should be ready to give it to them. No point preparing for war and then taking punishment from Pakistan, keeping our military options in abeyance and rewarding Pakistan. This has been India's dysfunctional policy so far.

After 1999 Pakistan seems to have detached overt state military backing and stuck to provocations by non state actors while the state remains in teh background and protests its innocence. The idea seems to be that India cannot punish the Pakistani state when the provocations come from insurgents and angry freedom fighters. This is where India needs to get its act together.

Shiv,

Couldn't agree more. There is ALWAYS a reaction that can be done. Only we can constrain ourselves to "dharma yuddha" concepts. Yielding strategic space will always result in a weaker India.

They want war? We should be ready to give it back. Nothing makes the bully back off as the fear of his own danger. I don't think the jernails want their sons or daughters vaporized for a piece of land they've never seen, either.

They want to use non-state proxies? I actually have a solution. Deploy undercover assets. Everytime there is a terrorist incident in India, some factory in Packland gets blown up. Fauji fertilizers will stink. Shaheen Cement will freeze. Bahria construction will collapse. This is easy - a sub-station here, an unstable process control there, and pretty soon jernails are hurting at their most sensitive spots. Palusibly deniable on our side.

Countries like Israel - that don't constrain themselves to "that's not cricket, old chap" responses - are the ones that have established their strategic space with perfect clarity for all to see. We need Stuxnet and Entebbe, not dossiers and pleading.

Diwakar

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Sep 2015 23:21

I am one of the people who are proponents of the Pak-is-nook-nude line
I also believe that India's H-bomb test either failed or that drdo didn't test to full TN.

Now if india proofs its TN (for chi chi purposes), pak will finally proof a working U and a prelim poo bum
In terms of yield, India has more than enough and more! Only that its not certified in triplicate chi chi.

They will acquire a poo bum capability and will be a true nuclear power

I also understand that their bum numbers are <50 (25-30 per last unbiased media report), and are dirty uranium spewing devices of very low yield.

If the Pakis lie to their countrymen after they get those thappads at the LOC, that means that GOI and the IA can continue to punish them endlessly and they will have to suffer in silence for H&D reasons.
So they are caught in an H&D trap / monkey trap that GoI can endlessly employ

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Sep 2015 23:22

Exactly right Hakim ji. Pakistan ' delusions are a threat to India. It shouldn't just be about response to provocations but pre-emptive action to protect Indian citizens.That is what nationhood demands. If we don't learn statecraft, then we need to all learn Mandarin Chinese.

And if we will not take preemptive action then why spend billions on weapon systems? Buy cheap glass bangles instead.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 06 Sep 2015 23:32

I think India is aware of this asymmetric warfare. IIRC for one question about "If India is so powerful, why cant it get Dawood", Shri Doval replied (paraphrased) "Power of one type is not always convertible to power of the other type. You might have a tank battalion but if someone picks your pocket, what will you do? Power of all types should be cultivated"

partha · Post by **partha** » 06 Sep 2015 23:37

+1 Diwakarji.

Disproportionate covert response. Hit at fauji business interests. That will really hurt. Also, we should not hesitate to strike at terror camps on our land i.e. PoK.

partha · Post by **partha** » 06 Sep 2015 23:40

abhijitm wrote: Why? Why is he saying that on TV? A statement like that must have been cleared at the highest levels. So what's the plan here? To see how Pakis react?
What is wrong in that? Didnt USA say OBL will be hunted down?

For wanted terrorists lets not be diplomatic.

PS: when I read you again I don't think you meant that. That aside, I wouldn't take Rathore too seriously.

Yeah, not about being diplomatic but about keeping it a secret, doing the job and then asking Pakis for proof if they accuse us. The thing is if for whatever reasons GoI doesn't walk the talk then Pakis will claim victory.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 07 Sep 2015 01:37

Narad wrote:India thinking about Dawood and Hafiz, ready to 'neutralize' them, Rajyavardhan Rathore says

"saam, daam, dand, beid (all means will be used). Besides dossier, other means also will be used. Whenever it happens, you will get the news."
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/India-t ... 848227.cms

OMG!
This is going to send the Pakistanis ballistic! Arnab Goswami will really breathe fire.
Gleefully waiting for those jootube videos to appear.

Too bad Zaid Hamid is missing all the Modi-Doval action, he was just getting warmed up on TV

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Sep 2015 04:01

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Sep 2015 04:48

Gagan - talk is cheap. Jo garajte hain woh Baraste nahin.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Sep 2015 04:51

Really Anujanji? We have not even imposed any sanctions on Pukistan. They kill and behead Indians with impunity while we try to "nail them in meetings". Bravo!

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Sep 2015 05:14

^^^ It is not "admiration of the West". Diplomacy is about whether, e.g., Sri Lanka or Thailand or Vietnam, that India wants influence with, consider India to be a reasonable country, "responsible world power" or not, etc. etc. etc. Contra Shiv, this has nothing to do with a secret desire to win kudos from the West.

PS: e.g., Putin - tough guy, ultra-Russian-nationalist, but I think nations think twice about doing business with him.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Sep 2015 05:27

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ It is not "admiration of the West". Diplomacy is about whether, e.g., Sri Lanka or Thailand or Vietnam, that India wants influence with, consider India to be a reasonable country, "responsible world power" or not, etc. etc. etc.

"Reasonableness" occupies a huge patch of ground to the extent that a power that is capable of making life miserable for you with no chance of your being able to complain is being "reasonable" by simply leaving you alone barring some restrictions on what your nation can do and who it deals with. Another nation with less clout is being "unreasonable" when it puts forward conditions that it cannot enforce.

China is a "reasonable power" that attaches slips of paper as "visas" for people from Arunachal Pradesh.

Pakistan is a "reasonable power" that is doing all it can to battle militancy while feeling threatened by a huge India next door.

The idea that "reasonableness" is a uniform standard is what Nehruvian diplomacy believed, without giving allowance for the fact that "reasonableness" is relative to national power and the ability to make offers that others cannot refuse.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Sep 2015 05:31

deWalker wrote: I don't think the jernails want their sons or daughters vaporized for a piece of land they've never seen, either.

And mullahs like Hafiz Saeed who are busy fuking the widows of young men they send to their deaths will have to feel physically threatened - so they are no longer able to enjoy carnal pleasures of widowed women. The Paki army after all is the "secular face" of Islamdom shown to the west so that the west sees Pakistan as "reasonable"

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Sep 2015 05:36

Shiv, consider my example of Putin. Because his international approval rating is in the mid-20%s, it is much harder for the politicians of democratic countries to make deals with him.

I think your assessment of Nehruvian diplomacy is quite mistaken, he would not have been non-aligned had he craved Western approval.

But I'm bowing out of this particular topic, it is not a topic on which a productive discussion is possible, when one side is pre-judged of being burdened with all sorts of psychological complexes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Sep 2015 05:53

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv, consider my example of Putin. Because his international approval rating is in the mid-20%s, it is much harder for the politicians of democratic countries to make deals with him.

I think your assessment of Nehruvian diplomacy is quite mistaken, he would not have been non-aligned had he craved Western approval.

But I'm bowing out of this particular topic, it is not a topic on which a productive discussion is possible, when one side is pre-judged of being burdened with all sorts of psychological complexes.

I agree with your assessment that the discussion is not appropriate here. It is impossible to express exact meanings by briefly tapping out individual letters. My post was never an indictment of Nehru, but only a statement of how a class of Indian represented by Nehru were made to believe the goodness and reasonableness of a particular world order that was hoped would come in after WW2. Nehru suffered and died when he realized that he had been mistaken about the world order.

I am out of this topic too

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Sep 2015 06:05

abhijitm wrote:how we won the war

Curtsey, pakistani education system.

Thanks for the link.

It is worth looking at young Pakistanis today. Need to compare with photos of school going Pakis in the 1950s

Ghiyas Kiyani

September 6 is affiliated with Defence Day and we should all pray on this day as the sacrifice of our brave and courageous soldiers has made Pakistan a nuclear state. I do not know how the war started in 1965, but one possible reason could be that India wanted to take control of our nuclear weapons.

Abdul Rehman
The celebration of September 6 is linked to the 1965 war between India and Pakistan and we call it Defence day.

We won the war with ease as the Indian did not have the courage to fight us, but I do not know where the battles were fought.

Mehmood Hassan This is Defence Day because in 1965, Pakistan not only pushed the aggressive Indian army back but also captured their men and equipment. The war proved that the Pakistan army is stronger than the larger Indian army. This was mainly due to the able army command and courage of soldiers who tied bombs to their bodies and took on enemy tanks. But I do not know where the war was fought.

Mohammad Naveed I don’t know about Defence Day and why it is celebrated. Yes, Pakistan did fight a war with India but I don’t know which year this war was fought in. All I know is that the Pakistan army won the war because I have read this in my textbooks. I really don’t know why the war began, how long it lasted and whether or not, Pakistan occupied Indian land.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Sep 2015 06:30

Just wanted to say that "realist" world views talk about power and its use, without throwing in words like "responsiblity", and doing so reveals a lack of understand of how power politics works. "responsible power" is just a buzzword meant for optics, like how China talks about "peaceful rise" without doing anything remotely peaceful in reality...ignoring for now that it is overplaying its hand. The "international community" is much more adept at putting on this "responsible power" charade and Indians seem to swallow that bullshyte wholesale too, seeing as to how such terms are being thrown out even when the topic being discussed is Pakistan, FFS. The Indian govt. is only expected to be responsible for Indian lives and the interest of the country at large -- restricting India's options towards playing to some international audience for being seen as a "responsible power" exhibits that mindset Shiv mentioned earlier. We have to do what we need do, even if the "international community" views it "irresponsible" -- the only important thing is making sure that the consequences of our actions are within the boundaries of what can be handled given current capabilities.

Ramesh · Post by **Ramesh** » 07 Sep 2015 06:45

^In the dawn news posted above
Interesting thing to note is that there is no photo of Shia student. It means situation is so bad that publishing a photo of shia will be painting a target on him.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 07 Sep 2015 09:50

@tuvaluvan

Just to clarify. I am not making a point that the GOI has handled Pakistan correctly. I am in agreement with your observation that the elite in India are held prisoner to what I call the twin myths

Myth 1 : A peaceful, stable and united Paksitan is in the interest of India
Myth 2 : There is no alternative but talks with Pakistan as they are a neighbour

In fact, I have written both here and in other fora about how both these myths have held prisoner our decision makers and been propogated for the last 6 decades and more to the general public in India. In fact, those posts of mine are more than 2 to 3 years old now.

In any case, the limited point I was making was that contrary to popular perception, even the USG has not been able to make Pakistan accountable for its actions. The reasons for why Pakistan is able to get away with its actions even when it has resulted in terror world wide and has directly impacted the national interests of the US could be an interesting study. As SSridhar mentioned, I may have got the time line of Pickering- Musharaff wrong, but the general point I was making is pretty clear from the several instances, including the allowing of Kunduz Airlift, that Pakistan has been provided a leeway by the greatest military, economic and geo-political power on earth to go scot free.

Reactive and inadequate as it may be seen, the GOI, since 1947, despite its many constraints and coercions from outside, has made Pakistan pay for their acts. The reasons why I brought this dimension to this thread are two fold.

1. Two highlight this hitherto unexplored facet in this forum, as many seem to believe that India is a weak and soft state that has no clue on how to handle Pakistan and equally strongly believe that the USG, in comparison, has made Pakistan pay when they have dared to act against them.

2. I agree with the other general observations made, that this thread needs to refocus on real issues of Pakistan, for example, the myth about their nuclear stockpile, the multiple myths about its economic and political stability, the growing disenchantment across the board from Balaochi Nationlists, Mohajirs, Gilgit and Baltistanis, Pakthuni Nationalism, dwindling control over Jehadi Army by the ISI and the pressure that the ever widening gap between India and Pakistan coupled with the Offensive Defence doctrine of India is posing to the viability of this artificial entity including its diminishing value to its benefactors.

We need to disabuse this false notion that the USG has the ability to punish Pakistan but is not doing so because it sees this entity as a useful vassal to counter India and base to monitor Islamic world. While they may be contributory reasons for their inaction, it does not in any way explain their recitence in punishing Pakistan even when it promotes terror inside mainland USA.

What else could be the reason? If a poverty stricken, third world, indecisive, consensus oriented power like India, has, from time to time, taken action and punished Pakistan, even dividing the country, why is the US and its allies with all their power, seem poweless when it comes to Pakistan. If they can bomb Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya on specious grounds, why do they not take any action against Pakistan? It is all well to talk tough like Armitage did, but the action on the ground is nowhere near that intent.

My point is that while GOI policy on Pakistan has many an issue, it is not an unmitigated failure nor is it unrealistic. To understand better, why India adopts such a policy, why even a Narendra Modi government is ready and willing to talk to these dastardly fellows in Islamabad, we need to get to understand what hold Pakistan has that makes even the US tread slowly with this artifical entity.

I myself do not know the answer yet. I want to stimulate thinking here so that collectively we can get an insight that goes beyond what is conventional thinking. I think this was something that BRF was able to do well in the past. I hope that this little attempt will elicit that kind of probing thinking that has made all of us better informed.

So now, I shall wait for the veterans here to get us back to a level of discourse that made this forum unique.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Sep 2015 10:22

RajaRam wrote: In any case, the limited point I was making was that contrary to popular perception, even the USG has not been able to make Pakistan accountable for its actions.

Pakistan has been provided a leeway by the greatest military, economic and geo-political power on earth to go scot free.

Rajaram, it is not just that US cannot "punish" pakistan, but it has no interest in doing so. This can be readily seen in the advice given to the US senate/congress by academic exberts in the US, who push this line (and have been doing so for decades) -- US cannot handle afghanisthan without the help of Pakistan. This seems almost a deliberate ploy to provide pakistan space to create trouble, given pakistan's history in creating trouble in Afghanisthan, and how the US was consistently against any strong leadership in Afghanisthan that did not care much for pakistan's shenanigans, like Hamid Karzai. Given such US perfidy, the question is whether "US can't" or "US won't" -- after a decade long war to fight "al qaeda" and finding al qaeda no. 1 hiding in a paki garrison town, all that the US has done since is strengthen its relations with pakistan so they can create more mayhem in afghanisthan. The US DoD is decidedly against pakistan's involvement in Afghanisthan, and has been stating publicly so, but the US State Dept. has no intention of taking pakistan to task or indeed even hold them accountable, which leads one to conclude that it is official US policy to use the pakis as official troublemaker in the region, a nuisance actor that destabilizes the region.

To understand better, why India adopts such a policy, why even a Narendra Modi government is ready and willing to talk to these dastardly fellows in Islamabad, we need to get to understand what hold Pakistan has that makes even the US tread slowly with this artifical entity.

The entire "treading slowly" is a US charade, as can be readily seen from their actions of not just providing life support to pakistan, but of late, providing Pakistan with a sheen of respectability and pretending that it is just another normal state with a big, booming IT industry, which is mostly true, but the US state dept. mouthpieces like NY Times and WaPo are talking about Information technology, not International Terrorism. I think if you just watch how the US's words differ largely from its actions, it is very clear what they are up to. The mistake you make, IMO, is thinking that the US is a benign power when it anything but -- the US has no qualms about renting a terrorist state to be a nuisance as a means to "balance" countries like India. Why else would the US be so comfortable with the idea of nuclear armed country with a radicalized military that finds common cause with jihadist terrorist groups... to the point of funding them many times a year via entities like WB and IMF?

For example, this joker is one of the people who testifies in the US congress/senate about Af-Pak

Question: how can U.S. aid Afghanistan while isolating, sanctioning Pakistan? Answers without logistics will be rejected.

The implication here is (a) US must remain in Afghanisthan -- a line that strangely enough pushed by the very people in the Indian govt. No one seems to ask why the US needs to remain in Afghanisthan? The cold war is over isn't it? (b) Since the US army is in Afghanisthan, Pakistan's cooperation is necessary. Fact is Russia was actually assisting the US troops in afghan logistics until the US and its NATO allies drew Russia into the Ukraine conflict with another of their "colour revolutions". This was done well after Obama's decision to get out of Afghanisthan, so does this mean the US's rapprochment with Iran is a pre cursor to taking Pakistan out of the Afghan equation? I wouldn't hold my breath for any such thing, even if Iran gets involved.

RCase · Post by **RCase** » 07 Sep 2015 10:24

Mehmood Hassan - This is Defence Day because in 1965, Pakistan not only pushed the aggressive Indian army back but also captured their men and equipment. The war proved that the Pakistan army is stronger than the larger Indian army. This was mainly due to the able army command and courage of soldiers who tied bombs to their bodies and took on enemy tanks. But I do not know where the war was fought.

AoA! I guess soosai vest was invented by Pakistanis! Only difference is it was state actors before and non-state actors now.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 07 Sep 2015 10:30

Tuvaluan wrote:Rajaram, it is not just that US cannot "punish" pakistan, but it has no interest in doing so. This can be readily seen in the advice given to the US senate/congress by academic exberts in the US, who push this line (and have been doing so for decades) -- US cannot handle afghanisthan without the help of Pakistan.

In other words they cannot, so they will not.

If they really could, they WOULD have made Pakis completely toe their line on Afghanistan. Since they have not been able to do that, it's reasonable to assume that they cannot do that or perhaps they can but they opine that the cost of doing so would be very high.

All they can do is what they have been doing so far, despite being fully cognizant of the law of diminishing returns.

Now replace US with India and see how the pattern emerges..

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Sep 2015 10:42

Raja Ram wrote:
I am in agreement with your observation that the elite in India are held prisoner to what I call the twin myths

Myth 1 : A peaceful, stable and united Paksitan is in the interest of India
Myth 2 : There is no alternative but talks with Pakistan as they are a neighbour

There are no myths in the realism that drives the foreign policy India pursues to her best advantage. Actions (not words) clearly show that India for reasons it keeps close to the chest, chooses to have Pakistan as a neighbor. This is the precursor to the above two myths that may or may not be true. The clearest evidence for what I say is the creation of Bangladesh. India has not hesitated to go against your myth 1 or for that matter myth 2. Let me say again - India currently chooses to have Pakistan as a neighbor to its West.

If you accept this were so, then one must ask why and there in lies the conundrum

Raja Ram wrote:
My point is that while GOI policy on Pakistan has many an issue, it is not an unmitigated failure nor is it unrealistic. To understand better, why India adopts such a policy, why even a Narendra Modi government is ready and willing to talk to these dastardly fellows in Islamabad, we need to get to understand what hold Pakistan has that makes even the US tread slowly with this artifical entity.

Most of the discussion on BRF is above average, but patting oneself on the back is less deserved. Most of the arguments on BRF are about morality, punishment, ideology and other such irrelevant thinking common among those outside the trade craft. For my read of geopolitics is that it is never as simple as the one dimensional answers BRF seeks. The real world and realism requires countries to manipulate and optimize along multiple dimensions. Therefore it will be very difficult to answer the why, I raised above, with a straight forward cause and effect answer. However, if one heeds to what I've proposed and ponders a future when India will choose not to have Pakistan as a neighbor and then project the next set of challenges that will present themselves when that happens, then there may be a kernel of an answer in the making. My suggestion is not merely limited to dealing with the non-existence of Pakistan, with more endurance, one can arrive at who the new neighbors will be and what that will mean for Indian interests. Finally, it is also critical to evaluate if the current or projected capabilities will enable this outcome and if so at what point will India choose such an eventuality. My read, it will happen at India's choosing, but it will happen. If there is a value in evaluating the when, then some minds are more capable of deciphering the timing that I am at present.
In the meanwhile chai biskoot and disum-disum shall continue to provide Butka & Ornab moral high ground

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Sep 2015 10:51

Kashi wrote: In other words they cannot, so they will not.

If they really could, they WOULD have made Pakis completely toe their line on Afghanistan. Since they have not been able to do that, it's reasonable to assume that they cannot do that or perhaps they can but they opine that the cost of doing so would be very high.

Forget about "toeing their line" in Afghanisthan -- the US's GOAT cost them billions of dollars and 1000s of US lives fighting this so-called "al qaeda", and when they actually found OBL in Pakistan, they suddenly decided al-qaeda was no longer a threat...never mind that OBL was isolated during the entire time he was stuck as a "guest" of the paki army and not actively involved in "al qaeda".

Fast forward to today, when we know that the US had a hand in allowing the IS to blossom as "threat to civilization as we know it", and then anoints pakistan the foremost ally in fighting IS terrorism. The storyline is that Pakis do not have an interest in seeing the IS blossom in Af-PAk, as it undercuts their own terrorist groups. Not to mention, we all have only the Pakis and US claims that IS is in fact in Afghanisthan. ...so what exactly is the US trying to achieve here playing favorites and pushing Paki terrorists over IS terrorists, when they have no interest in taking on IS in the middle east? Why is this pretension of "stabilizing afghanistan" so important that they want to push the one entity that is the biggest destabilizing actor in Afghanisthan?

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 07 Sep 2015 10:53

Just to clarify again, I am under no illusion that the US is a benign power. It did not get where it is by being so. Many a long time postor here would know where I stand on this. In any case, my submission is that there is something more to than just "US Can't" Vs "US Won't". Probably it is a bit of both.

One has to discern from the publicly stated positions and demonstrated action, to arrive at a more realistic appreciation of the geo-political boundries. I call it the razor edge of power. Each nation has to walk a thin line between the inherent capacity that they possess which gets tempered with an appreciation of the geo-political context that the power is sought to be used to serve the national interests.

India, has over the years, made this assessment and acted accordingly. So has Pakistan. Both with respect to India and with respect to the US. What I want to explore here is what is the reality that is forcing the US to either exercise the "Can't" or "Won't " reasoning with respect to Pakistan. Conversely, what is the hold that Pakistan has over the US establishment that makes the US "Can't" or "won't" beyond what we have normally associated?

For example, why did the US allow Kunduz Airlift? Remember this was at a time, when the Pakis were threatened and coerced to act or step aside by the US. What did the GHQ in Pindi have in their cupboards to get the US to accept to this airlift? The USG was completely justified in the action to throw out Mullah Omar and hunt for Osama. The geo-politcal reality for Pakistan was bleak. They had no other choice but to fall in line. It was in the midst of war, and yet the Pakistanis were allowed to extract assets from Kunduz. In fact the whole exercise was sought to be hushed up. India was one of the very few nations that unmasked it and made the world aware.

There is some hold that Pakistan exercises over the US elite that allows them to go scot free. Beyond its tactical value as a base and asset for the USG. That is what is dictating the US inaction/reluctance to punish Pakistan. I am trying to see if we can arrive at a few postulates with regard to this.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Sep 2015 11:15

Raja ram wrote: There is some hold that Pakistan exercises over the US elite that allows them to go scot free. Beyond its tactical value as a base and asset for the USG. That is what is dictating the US inaction/reluctance to punish Pakistan. I am trying to see if we can arrive at a few postulates with regard to this.

AFAICT, US policy doesn't bend itself for the interests of the "elite" in the US, though it will readily do so to protect economic interests. Having said that nukular blackmail is one possibility, i.e., Pakistan has covertly indicated it will leak nukes to "non state actors" should the US fail to pay rent or otherwise behave unhelpfully. Notwithstanding all those US TV shows where they deal with nuclear bomb threats quickly and then go out for a beer after a hard day's work, the reality maybe that they are vulnerable to such blackmail by pakis.

However, I do think there are a lot more data points that support the postulate that US has many axes to grind in Af-Pak, and working towards these conflicting goals results in some confusing policy that does not do them any good. So the US gets what it can out of pakistan, using whatever leverage it has in term of keeping pakistan's begging bowl full of change or giving the army and navy some new toys.

TKiran · Post by **TKiran** » 07 Sep 2015 13:18

Pakis have understood the entire security apparatus of Khan, and decided to play Randi, and have been playing the game so perfectly (on one hand humouring policy makers and on the other hand killing their soldiers quietly) that a person addicted to Randy, would have soft corner always so much so that they can always escape with a wrap on the arm for their perfidy, but never a punishment.

There is no solution for this problem. They can keep on and on playing this game. Even the talk of Paki usefulness as a hedge against India for Khan is also propagated by those influenced policy makers who are 'katputlis' of pakis.

We can't stoop to their level and become better rundies. There lies the problem, nationalistic govt or otherwise

The only way to counter this is calling Paki bluff, but that could end up in more messy balkanization of shitistan, we don't have stomach for.

Whatever said and done, pakis have been playing for too long this game that they nearly perfected the art.