Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

[vera_k]

The US can make or break thinga for India (and Pakistan) in an India Pakistan conflict. Pakistan will not go down until the US is taken down.

This is escapism of the Paki kind . As with the pursuit of a socialist economy, most of what is holding us back - education, infant mortality, Pakistan - is within our capacity to fix. Like with the nuke deal, this reliance on the US, to do or to not do, ignores the many possible local solutions.

[Gerard]

All Indian cities under Pak missile range: Minister

[SSridhar]

What's happening in Pakistan - K.Subrahmanyam
Excerpts

There are underlying worries over whether in exchange for cooperation in fighting the Afghan Taliban and the other terrorist groups Pakistan would have obtained U.S. and NATO promises to get their mediatory intervention on the Kashmir issue. Further concerns are, relying on the U.S. gratitude for action against some of the jehadi groups whether Pakistan may carry out more terroristic attacks on India and hope for the U.S. and NATO putting pressure on India not to retaliate.

While scepticism of the Pakistani Army's new strategy is entirely justified one should not overlook the possibility of their launching on a new strategy fully overconfident of their capabilities to prevail, as they did in 1965, 1971 and 1999 and coming to grief. Their bona fides are likely to come under test as Mr. Obama insists on his aims in his just war to dismantle, disrupt and defeat the ‘holy warriors' on Pakistani soil, the main battlefield.

[pgbhat]

Another Taliban leader arrested: report

WASHINGTON: Police in northwest Pakistan arrested Mulvi Kabir, one of the top 10 most wanted Taliban leaders and a former Taliban governor of Afghanistan's Nangahar Province, a US channel reported on its website Sunday.

The network, citing two unnamed senior US officials, said that Pakistani police captured Kabir in the Naw Shera district of NWFP province.

[Airavat]

Meeting violence with violence

Clement Attlee warned the Indians that if "a large section of the Indian population" (i.e., the 92,000,000 Moslems) were not represented in the framing of a constitution, His Majesty's Government would not turn over power to a Congress Party government.

....he found Congress Hindus in a belligerent mood: fierce-eyed Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel thought Nehru had been "tricked" into going to London. Cried Patel: "So long as the Moslems insist on their demand of Pakistan, there shall never be peace in India. We will resist the sword with the sword."

i.e. meet violence with violence. The current GOI meets violence with chai-biskoot.

[Satya_anveshi]

is it possible that pakis are blackmailing unkil/india that if they did not deliver during the upcoming talks, those arrested talibs will be released in the guise of 9-2-11?

I see pakis have started literally salivating at the talks gesture...how the phuck should we convince them to come to talks with empty stomach and develop liking for tea and biscuits?

[shiv]

The US can make or break thinga for India (and Pakistan) in an India Pakistan conflict. Pakistan will not go down until the US is taken down.

This is escapism of the Paki kind . As with the pursuit of a socialist economy, most of what is holding us back - education, infant mortality, Pakistan - is within our capacity to fix. Like with the nuke deal, this reliance on the US, to do or to not do, ignores the many possible local solutions.

One man's escapism is another's selective blindness.

While making an earlier post on the subject of US involvement in supporting and maintaining Pakistani power against India - I was tempted to say "roll back" of US influence on Pakistan's anti India stance.

But it is too late to roll back. Current US funding of Pakistan will keep the Pakistan military a threat for at least 25 years more and nothing will reduce the risk of Paki nukes from China-US collusion. But some people love the US so much that they are unwilling to be critical. A classic example is the wish for a terrorist attack on an address in Delhi rather than a similar address in Washington DC which may have a better effect on reducing arms supplies funding to Pakistan from the US. It is easy to accuse MMS of loving the US, but love of the US and a willingness to overlook the US's role is alive and well on here among people who claim that the Indian PM is not as much of a patriot as they are.

Whether you are a Congress supporter or opponent, the US still pays and arms Pakistan. By bashing MMS or his opponents US funding and arming of Pakistan is not going to be affected. Oh of course India has the "capacity to fix Pakistan". But if the US had not been funding and arming Pakistan our capacity to fix Pakistan would have been that much greater. Well if my aunt had a **** she would have been my uncle no?

The US has been sitting right there from the 1960s providing arms to Pakistan and keeping the Paki army healthy. And this is what we have to "fix" Naturally our capacity to "fix" Pakistan is directly related to US aid to Pakistan. Opposing the US as India did in the past did not reduce US aid to Pakistan. Licking US ass as MMS is being accused of doing is not reducing US aid to Pakistan.

But the logic I see on here is that the US is not a problem. MMS is the problem and Pakistan is a fixable problem that goes unfixed because of MMS. The US has no role. Everyone is entitled his his own version of reality. God appears to different people in different ways and naturally if the US is one's god, one will not want to blame one's own god.

I prefer to stick to my gods though. We are going to continue to differ on the issue of the US's much advertised innocence.

[Rudradev]

But the logic I see on here is that the US is not a problem. MMS is the problem and Pakistan is a fixable problem that goes unfixed because of MMS. The US has no role. Everyone is entitled his his own version of reality. God appears to different people in different ways and naturally if the US is one's god, one will not want to blame one's own god.

Shiv,

Except for maybe a handful of misguided MUTUs, I don't think anyone on BRF holds the view you have set forth in that above paragraph. Certainly a lot of the members most opposed to MMS' handling of Pakistan do not.

However, I agree with the rest of what you have said in that post.

On how to deal with the problem: "neutralizing" the US is a maximalist option and may not be the most realistic thing to aim for at this point (which, by the way, isn't an excuse for any government to take the minimalist option and do everything the US tells them to do).

There is a lot of space in between maximalist and minimalist positions to explore options that are partly coercive and partly cooperative, targeted in the right doses towards the right American constituencies. Much of the anger at MMS is that he doesn't seem to be exploring this space at all but merely pursuing the minimalist approach.

Looking at the broader picture there seems to be more rancor between the US and China, all of a sudden, than at any time in the past decade. Let us see how that impacts things, and if it gives us another card to play here.

[SSridhar]

I see some debate here on the 'spike' of violence both by the Pakistanis and the Maoists/Naxals etc. I have not been impressed by any party that ruled our country in their attempts at dealing with Pakistan. There is a clear lack of consistent strategy on Pakistan, for various reasons. Let's keep party politics out.

What we have to recognize are at least two things.

One is that the audacity and increasing sophistication of the attacks as well as the audacity of the ISI in not even attempting to cover its tracks anymore. And, here we have Mani Shankar Aiyar arrogantly, as usual, claiming that Pakistan does not use terror as an instrument of state policy.

The second is that whether some of the insurgencies and problems in India are indigeneous or not, Pakistan inserts itself into these and make mischief, sometimes considerably. Pakistan's support for the Punjab terrorism is too well known. Khalistani terrorists like Babbar Khalsa or Khalistan Commando Force or Khalistan Zindabad Force or International Sikh Youth Federation continue to remain in Pakistan and get patronized. The ISI also trained, and continues to train, various terrorist organizations in India’s North-East, such as the ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam), NDFB (National Democratic Front of Bodoland), MNF (Mizo National Front of insurgents in Mizoram). We now know about Riyaz Bhatkal, Thadiyantavide Nazir from the South and their Pakistani connection in several bombing incidents in the South and the West of India. The ISI has colluded with LTTE to target India. In Jan 2010, a Bangladeshi minister revealed that the ULFA leader, Anup Chetia, met the Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf in Dhaka in July 2002 during his official visit to that country. ISI’s involvement in neighbouring countries, bordering India, was brought out clearly by the Maoist leader of Nepal recently.

I am therefore disinclined to believe that we can separate any terrorist incident in India from Pakistan.

[Pranav]

Whether you are a Congress supporter or opponent, the US still pays and arms Pakistan. By bashing MMS or his opponents US funding and arming of Pakistan is not going to be affected.

It is expected that the US will act in its own interests. Nothing new.

But people are still not used to the idea that MMS will act in western interests.

[shiv]

This is escapism of the Paki kind .

This qualifies for a separate post

I see on this forum deep anguish that Pakistan, by its actions has been tremendously successful. Simultaneously there is a deep loathing for Pakistan and the way Pakistanis get things done.
But if Pakistan is successful and India is not, surely a Paki way of doing things might be better way forward for India. After all they are proven to be successful. No?

Escapism of the Paki kind that seeks to thwart US aid to Pakistan is IMO one more step in bringing Pakistan down. Only a deeply felt affinity for America where American actions are blameless can blind anyone to the obvious advantages of using even Paki methods to stop America from making Pakistan stronger. On America Rakshak form I would not argue..but I would use even Paki methods if it made Pakistan weaker.

[arun]

The years of the “tactical brilliance” of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in supporting Islamic terrorism have resulted in sections of the US media being suspicious of the Islamic Republic’s actions even if they appear on the surface to target Islamic terrorists.

The question of course remains if GOTUS has similar opinions and more importantly is willing to act against the Islamic Republic if such “tactical brilliance” is evident

Boston Globe editorial:

Globe Editorial

Pakistan’s complicated motives

February 22, 2010

………………………. It’s helpful to the American cause if Pakistan now believes its best chance of maintaining influence in Afghanistan is to cooperate with US and NATO forces. But it would be deeply damaging if Pakistan were to try to block peace negotiations between the Taliban and the Karzai government.

US military commanders in Afghanistan have wisely insisted that the war be concluded by political means. The current troop surge is aimed at convincing insurgent factions to seek a peace deal with the Afghan government. So President Obama needs to warn Pakistan that true cooperation means helping, not hindering, such an agreement.


Boston Globe

[shiv]

Whether you are a Congress supporter or opponent, the US still pays and arms Pakistan. By bashing MMS or his opponents US funding and arming of Pakistan is not going to be affected.

It is expected that the US will act in its own interests. Nothing new.

But people are still not used to the idea that MMS will act in western interests.

This is a matter of opinion.

[Malayappan]

There seems to be 'some sort of consensus' among us on this: Unless the interests of the elite of pakistan are impacted there will be no change in paki behavior

But then there are two problems:
- The US loves this elite and will prop up and defend their interests - they have been doing all along
- And second, there appears to be a section of our own elite - a) who do not perceive paki elite as hostile to our interests (in fact some of them may even feel more comfortable with their elite than our masses) and b) who are currently powerful or rather in positions of power (Government, Media, Academia etc)

This is compounded by the fact that there is no groundswell among the masses against paki elite behavior, either out of other priorities or simple lack of awareness.

So that part of our 'powerful elite' have no incentive to pursue other alternatives.

Segments of elite that may think otherwise are a) those that are aware of the role of paki elite, b) defence forces, c) sections of strategic community,and d) opposition politicians (who need to challenge status quo to succeed). It is these groups that we should address?

And within this as well as beyond - Work on the different levers of power in US to cut off support to paki elite!

[vera_k]

Current US funding of Pakistan will keep the Pakistan military a threat for at least 25 years more and nothing will reduce the risk of Paki nukes from China-US collusion. But some people love the US so much that they are unwilling to be critical

The escapism lies in not realising one's own strengths and instead resorting to "if only the US did this or that or was not around" type arguments. It is not a question of being critical of the US or China for that matter for arming Pakistan. Let me put it this way - India today lags China by about 20 years on the HDI variables, by 10 years on something like Internet broadband and perhaps by 20 years on bijli, sadak, pani issues. This limits Indian national power even more effectively than US or European support of Pakistan. Is the fix for this not something that is not within our control?

[abhishek_sharma]

Pakistan hopes to make most of Feb 25 talks

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... 220--bi-01

Pakistan’s strategists are particularly cognizant of what they call ‘shrinking political space for dialogue’ after Islamabad’s foreign policy doves struggled hard to convince the hawks on accepting Indian invitation for foreign secretary level talks without any concrete assurance on revival of the Composite Dialogue.

The situation, it is believed, was caused because of India’s hard-line position linking progress in ties with what Delhi calls credible action against India focused terror network.

It is common feeling in Islamabad that while Delhi over-emphasizes on prosecution of alleged perpetrators of Mumbai attacks, who are already being tried in an anti-terrorism court, it forgets that it too has to show progress on Samjhota Express incident in which about 60 Pakistanis lost their lives.

No one is ready to predict the outcome of the talks, but a diplomat following the events in the lead up to the talks deems the litmus test for the success of the meeting would be unlocking of the present stalemate and movement towards resumption of Composite Dialogue.

[abhishek_sharma]

India’s belated turnaround

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=225556

After a long period of militancy, the movement for azadi has now entered a new phase. It has become a deeply rooted and broad-based political movement that cannot be suppressed indefinitely through brute force. Our policy should aim at generating international pressure on India to allow this movement to operate at the political level, while promoting links between the people in the two parts of the state through increased trade and travel across the Line of Control. The rest will follow.

Was our emissary’s meeting with S K Lambah last November in Bangkok a “secret” between “selected individuals” like those under the Musharraf regime, or was it a part of formal talks? And if it was wrong for Musharraf to negotiate through the backchannel, why is it right for this government to do the same?

[abhishek_sharma]

Defence budget likely to go up by Rs 130 bn

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27405

Pakistan’s defence budget is all set to increase by, at least, Rs 130 billion in the wake of the ongoing military operation against the militants in the tribal areas as well as on account of increased salaries of military personnel, paving the way for achieving a broader consensus with the IMF for jacking up the fiscal deficit target up to 5.1 per cent of the GDP from the earlier envisaged target of 4.9 per cent.

By end-June 2010, the defence expenditure may go up to Rs 205 billion on account of the military operation as well as increased salaries of armed forces personnel. For the time being, it is projected during the talks with the IMF that the defence expenditure will be increased in the range of Rs 130 billion.

[shiv]

The escapism lies in not realising one's own strengths

..and the blindness is in being unable to see one's weaknesses.

[shiv]

I do not mean to be deliberately supportive (or critical) of any particular political party, but when a group of people are in the midst of governance they are faced with a multitude of problems that call for the same resources - be it time, material, men or money. When problems are multiple and overwhelming - every problem gets a quick-fix band aid. When one problem gets far more intense than others - that one necessarily occupies all time and attention.

Anybody who manages a state (even if that state is Pakistan) realises this very soon. And this realization is a tool that can be used to hammer an "enemy" nation.

Pakistanis realise that India is a difficult governance problem, and understand fully well that if they can force the Indian government to concentrate all its hatred and attention on security issues, other problems in India will (hopefully) spin out of control. So it is not as though Pakis and jihadis hope to invade India (as they imagined it would be possible in the 1960s), but the idea is to change India's focus from poverty, malnutrition, lack of infrastructure and human development to internal and external security. Keep India's borders on attack and keep India's cities unsafe so India sinks more and more and more time, money and attention on security, allowing other things to deteriorate. And Pakistan is always first off the mark to point out to the world how India is spending money on security while human problems continue or multiply. This in brief is what Pakistan is trying to do. Isalm, Muslims, Islamism etc are only tools to generate the manpower to do this to India. It could just as well have been the Church of the middle ages or communism used to try and knock India off balance.

India's response therefore has to be to take care of external and internal security challenges and simultaneously address the development issues that take a back seat as security demands more and more time, money and attention.

Pakistan's tactic is a good and effective one, but Pakistan itself should have failed because its leaders have ignored the very problems they are trying to aggravate within India. Pakistan has not failed because of external intervention and life support. Given these priorities what must India do? Obviously there are a lot of viewpoints even if the known goals are similar.

[amit]

There is a lot of space in between maximalist and minimalist positions to explore options that are partly coercive and partly cooperative, targeted in the right doses towards the right American constituencies.

Rudradev,

In a post several pages away on this thread you had espoused on this point in more detail.

Gaining influence with various stakeholders in the US so that they can act as pressure groups is crucial to wean away the US from its love for the TFTA Pakis. A lot of folks here seem to realise this point. However, I haven't seen too many details of how this can actually be done.

We can't just wring our hands and appeal to better sense, neither can we preach with a moral tone that Dharma is on our side so please get you government to stop helping the Pakis. And surely pointing a few ICBMs at the US is not going to do the trick either.

What we need is inducements for various American constituencies - big business is one such highly influential pressure group. But to do that we need the economic muscle to make it attractive for them to be engaged with India and not be indifferent. And that brings things back to why economic growth is so important. Just look at how China has the US industry by the b***s, despite rampant theft of intellectual property.

We may be wowed with our US$1.3 - US$1.4 trillion economy but as I pointed out in a previous post, it does not really cut it in terms of global influence. We need to grow bigger and whether we like it or not the only way we can do that in the fastest possible manner is to have a continuous growth in excess of 7-8 per cent over this decade. Once we cross a certain threshold - I mentioned the US$4-US$5 trillion figure which I came to after seeing how China is now behaving after having reached that level - we should be on a different footing in dealing with the US. Solve the US problem and the Pakis are reduced to what they actually are, barking street dogs - they lose their US-gifted Rottweiler fangs.

I suspect at least a section of the Pakis realise this. And hence this desperate attempt to provoke India into a major confrontation. One may not like the way MMS is conducting foreign policy vis a vis the Pakis but one reading of all the signals could be he's trying to do a holding operation - keep the Pakis interested in extracting concessions (without making any tangible ones) while the Indian economy grows and military acquisition take place as fast as possible within the Indian system.

On the last point, I hope you do notice that despite the UPA govt being depicted as a wimp in terms of security, investment in missiles, submarines, ships and aircraft all seem to be going apace - even though in the very inefficient way such things are done in India. There has been no waffling, IMO.

[CRamS]

India’s belated turnaround

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=225556

After a long period of militancy, the movement for azadi has now entered a new phase. It has become a deeply rooted and broad-based political movement that cannot be suppressed indefinitely through brute force. Our policy should aim at generating international pressure on India to allow this movement to operate at the political level, while promoting links between the people in the two parts of the state through increased trade and travel across the Line of Control. The rest will follow.

What was all that bus service across the LoC all about? Did the Kashmiris really use that service? So why the need for international pressure? I wonder what he means by rest will follow? He is right about militancy certainly being reduced despite recent spurt. No, I am not sure if this is a tactical move by TSP, or as RudraJi suggest, this is because of operation parakram, LoC fencing etc.

[CRamS]

It is common feeling in Islamabad that while Delhi over-emphasizes on prosecution of alleged perpetrators of Mumbai attacks, who are already being tried in an anti-terrorism court, it forgets that it too has to show progress on Samjhota Express incident in which about 60 Pakistanis lost their lives.

What a desparate attempt at equal equal. Do they really believe their own delusions?

[Anujan]

Pakistanis realise that India is a difficult governance problem, and understand fully well that if they can force the Indian government to concentrate all its hatred and attention on security issues, other problems in India will (hopefully) spin out of control. So it is not as though Pakis and jihadis hope to invade India (as they imagined it would be possible in the 1960s), but the idea is to change India's focus from poverty, malnutrition, lack of infrastructure and human development to internal and external security. Keep India's borders on attack and keep India's cities unsafe so India sinks more and more and more time, money and attention on security, allowing other things to deteriorate.

Shiv-ji

I respectfully disagree.

Paki aim is to destabilize India, not by drawing away Indian resources from governance to security, but by simply eroding people's confidence in their government and creating fissures in the society. These are two different things. If Paki strategy is based on the former, they are idiots. Somebody in Tamil Nadu is more affected by what Amma or Kalaingar wants than by what MMS or PC wants. In that sense administration is "decentralized" and security issues dont suck up state government resources as much as they suck up central government resources. Even if they are succeeding in the former, it is a relatively simple fix -- shift internal security into the home ministry and ask every other ministry to do their job. The bureaucracy is a vast machine and fully capable of handling lack of manpower and resources.

On the other hand, Paki aim is to create a lack of confidence in our own government and create disunity in our society. This cannot be fixed by recruiting more babus or creating new ministries. Already we see fissures with the likes of Bdutt and Nayar doing a equal equal and insinuating that "hindu terrorists groups" are involved in Karkare killing. The backlash will be felt among the hindus who will ask why everytime a bomb goes off Abu-something or someone-Khan is involved. Even within this forum, people accuse MMS of being susceptible to US pressure and longing for his birthplace. Coming back to the two things (a) lack of confidence in our guvrmand (b) fissures in society. These two are far more important and of immediate concern than worrying how many babus we need to hire more, or how many ministries we need to create, and how much money we need to spend. Defence takes up what? 3% of our GDP? 2 years of 9% growth instead of 8% growth will fix that.

And Pakistan is always first off the mark to point out to the world how India is spending money on security while human problems continue or multiply. This in brief is what Pakistan is trying to do.

Attributing any kind of (strategic, long term) intelligence of sophistication to Paki scum is idiocy. Pakis say that to do a equal equal. Finding something that they say which makes sense in this dung heap is self delusion rather than any thing indicative of their well thought our strategy**. "India has 700 million poor!!!" should be put it in the same bin as "Defense of the west lies in the east", "One Muslim = 8 Hindus", "Peace in cashmere essential for peace in Afghanistan", "Pakistan and India both victims of terrorism", "Pakistan front line ally against terrorism and its principled stand is for everyone to see", "India stealing water", "Pakistanis have better English accent", "Pakistani women get raped to get Canadian visa", "Kasab is not Pakistani", "disparity in conventional weapons forcing Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons", "we will eat grass", "we will wage 1000 year Jihad", "terrosists are non-state actors, Pakistan has no control over them, so India should talk with Pakistan, after which Pakistan will magically gain control over them and rein them in", "Pressing Paki civilian government to halt terrorism means army will take over, and India should support their democracy". After going through this stinking pile, (a) am I supposed to think what they say is indicative of their Chunkiyan strategy or (b) It is just another corn kernel in their verbal diarrhea and is not indicative of anybody's strategy.




**In fact it reminds me of the debate between Kalidasa (who was a villiage idiot) and the Princess. The princess shows one finger -- to indicate that only God is the permanent thing in the world. Kalidasa thinks she is threatening to poke his eye out and shows two fingers to threaten to poke both of her eyes out. She interprets it to mean that God and Soul make 2 permanent things in the world and is impressed by his intelligence and scholarship.

[A_Gupta]

Pakistanis realise that India is a difficult governance problem, and understand fully well that if they can force the Indian government to concentrate all its hatred and attention on security issues, other problems in India will (hopefully) spin out of control. So it is not as though Pakis and jihadis hope to invade India (as they imagined it would be possible in the 1960s), but the idea is to change India's focus from poverty, malnutrition, lack of infrastructure and human development to internal and external security. Keep India's borders on attack and keep India's cities unsafe so India sinks more and more and more time, money and attention on security, allowing other things to deteriorate. And Pakistan is always first off the mark to point out to the world how India is spending money on security while human problems continue or multiply. This in brief is what Pakistan is trying to do.

India is good at hitting self-goals. There is no shortage of resources, or so we are told. Therefore, Pakistan cannot make India sink so much into security that it cannot address poverty and malnutrition. Only Indians do that.

India Should Have Zero Poverty
Well, the official poverty line is a bit of a joke, being above it does not mean that you're well-nourished, adequately clothed and sheltered and have health care. Nevertheless, there should be ZERO Indians below the official poverty line. I'm not stating a moral imperative, I'm saying that the means to make this true exist.

How?

Tavleen Singh informs us of a report by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy of Hong Kong, that surveyed 12 Asian economies and found India to have the worst government bureaucracy.

The Government of India spent Rs 4 trillion on various poverty alleviation programmes last year. The report points out that if even half this money had been distributed among our estimated 60 million poor households, they would each get Rs 80 a day and so rise above the poverty line. Our own Planning Commission pointed this out more than a decade ago but because there has not been the smallest attempt to get our babu-log to work more efficiently, nothing has changed.

[vera_k]

The escapism lies in not realising one's own strengths

..and the blindness is in being unable to see one's weaknesses.

So pray, how is the US to be "taken down" as you put it? And will India be capable of batting after the US is out of the picture? Point is that even when the weaknesses are visible and on full display, the priority seems to be to look for some foreign actor as a scapegoat or as a God that will deliver.

Given these priorities what must India do?

Fix governance on priority. Institute the death penalty for corruption if need be. Raise resources (increase taxes) for governance issues as necessary. All of these are eminently things that do not depend on US, Pakistani or Chinese forbearance.

Once we cross a certain threshold - I mentioned the US$4-US$5 trillion figure which I came to after seeing how China is now behaving after having reached that level - we should be on a different footing in dealing with the US.

At present rates of growth, India will be a $4-$5 trillion economy by 2015. Is the Pakistan problem going away in 5 years? For that matter can you imagine similar dynamics in India-USA relations today as obtained in China-USA relations during the 2001 spy plane incident? It is not as if we'll want to be hostile to the USA in any case - that gameplan has been tried and is part of our history.

[csharma]

amit, you have provided a good summary. Couple of observations:

1) Holding pattern is OK as long as no real concessions are made. There is fear that might happen in J&K. Some would rightfully argue that SeS was also a concession. I understand that govt has moved away some of the positions in SeS since then owing to public opinion.

2) The idea that US can be weaned away from Pakistan once India becomes a $4 trillion economy is open to debate. US can take maximum advantage of India's growing economy without conceding an inch on its interest in Pakistan. US will rather work to negate and work on India's "ill-feeling" for Pakistan.

3) As some people have rightly concluded that India has to take care of US before it can take of Pakistan. So India cannot do anything to take care of US now (or maybe never). India will probably not want to jeopardize its US ties for Pakistan since it needs the US ties for China.

[A_Gupta]

shiv wrote how WKKs like to point out "... that if India spent less on defence there would be more money left to feed India's starving millions".

As pointed out above, India spends enough to feed its starving millions already. The problem is that it spends it ineffectively. This defence vs. feeding the poor is a false dilemma.

[vera_k]

This would be an academic debate if the Prime Minister did not buy into this WKK argument as stated in this HT article. Without fixing corruption, this argument essentially is "let's stop spending on arms so our Swiss bank accounts can prosper".

[shiv]

Paki aim is to destabilize India, not by drawing away Indian resources from governance to security, but by simply eroding people's confidence in their government and creating fissures in the society.

Anujan I don't see the difference between Indians losing faith in government and government failing to meet the expectation of people.

As you can see from reactions on here (not echoed in India in general) continued terrorism from Pakistan is causing shrill cries that the government is a failure and that it should punish Pakistan. Don't you think the reactions we see on this forum are exactly what Pakistan is hoping for when you say "eroding people's confidence in their government". So random and continued acts of terror are having just the effect that Pakistan wants - of destabilizing India and pressurizing the Indian government to pay more attention to internal security. This has costs and India has managed to keep these costs within limits that development expenditure has not been affected greatly.

But if there is a massive increase in terrorism, or if we were to wage overt war would we still be able to spend what we are now doing on development?

[Pranav]

But if there is a massive increase in terrorism, or if we were to wage overt war would we still be able to spend what we are now doing on development?

As somebody had pointed out in a rare moment of candour, 95% of the money that is spent goes into the Swiss bank accounts of the elites.

[krishnan]

What was Baradar doing in Karachi?

[abhishek_sharma]

India plans dam on River Chenab

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... -220-hh-02

With Pakistan still undecided when to formally seek intervention of the International Court of Arbitration against controversial construction of Kishanganga hydropower project by India in violation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, New Delhi has started preparations to build another big dam on River Chenab.

Documents available with Dawn suggest that the government of Indian-occupied Kashmir has invited bids for a ‘topographical survey of Bursar Dam (on Chenab) for acquisition of land and property’. New Delhi plans to begin construction by the end of the year.

Informed sources said that India had not only started building three other dams namely Sawalkot, Pakal-Dul and Kirthai on Chenab River, it has also completed the detail project report of Bursar Dam site. The proposed dam would have 829 feet height, storage capacity of more than two million acres feet and power generation capacity of 1200MW. The height of Baglihar, Tarbela and Mangla Dam is 474, 485 and 453 feet, respectively.

[Rudradev]

Paki aim is to destabilize India, not by drawing away Indian resources from governance to security, but by simply eroding people's confidence in their government and creating fissures in the society.

Anujan I don't see the difference between Indians losing faith in government and government failing to meet the expectation of people.

If I may: the difference is that the government voluntarily undertakes a social contract with the people, and has a responsibility to manage the people's expectations as to the extent of its capacity to get things done.

By and large, "people" don't set the expectations. Every one of 1.1 billion Indian citizens has different expectations. It is the government which sets the expectations in saying, "if you elect us we will do this that and the other".

One of the most fundamental expectations of any government, of course, is that it will keep its citizens safe. Security and development are both part of the package any candidate government offers. It is never one or the other.

After 26/11 the people decided to give this government another chance. The government raised their expectations by saying, the guilty will be brought to justice, terrorism will be stopped, etc. etc. And they got re-elected.

People became skeptical when all the government did about bringing the guilty to justice or stopping terrorism, was to issue dossiers. These dossiers went in the trashcans of the Paki government as some sham trials and house-arrests were organized.

This increased skepticism among the people (at least, those who happened to be paying attention).

But it wasn't until the humiliation of India became abject in the international diplomatic sphere that people (at least on BRF) began actually to lose faith in this government. The blows were fast and furious. India was denied access of any meaningful kind to David Headley and T.H. Rana. Despite its years of faithful adherence to American interests in Afghanistan, India started getting kicked to the curb at Afghan summits. We were given no shrift in Turkey and short shrift in London. The international community, led by the US, made it clear that for all our respect towards American interests, our interests were not at all going to be taken into account in determining a future for Afghanistan.

So at this point we had: dossiers. No punishment for the 26-11 guilty in Pakistan (and a Sharm-el-Shaikh declaration that further terrorism would not affect future dialogue with Pakistan). And no guarantees (far from it) of our continuing interests in Afghanistan.

When the GOI responded to this dismal state of affairs by launching "Aman ki Asha", and then making this offer of talks... I think that sent a lot of optimistic fence-sitters over the edge into complete loss of faith in the government. The continuation of this travesty after Pune has not helped.

So that is the difference. It is completely, 100% the responsibility of the government... not the people... to make sure that the people don't lose faith in it. And at least for a section of the people who are interested in strategic interests and national security: the government has failed to do this.

As you can see from reactions on here (not echoed in India in general) continued terrorism from Pakistan is causing shrill cries that the government is a failure and that it should punish Pakistan. Don't you think the reactions we see on this forum are exactly what Pakistan is hoping for when you say "eroding people's confidence in their government". So random and continued acts of terror are having just the effect that Pakistan wants - of destabilizing India and pressurizing the Indian government to pay more attention to internal security.

Firstly, it is not only continued terrorism from Pakistan that is pointing to the government's failure. That only underlines one aspect of the degree of failure.

Secondly, random and continued acts of terror from Pakistan are now having the effect of destabilizing India, only because the GOI has not evolved an adequate response. Constitutionally it is up to the GOI to evolve that response... that is why they are entrusted with the powers they have. It is not up to the people to grin and bear it.

There are three players here: Pakistan, the GOI, and the Indian citizenry. To say that the people should remain firm and steadfast with faith in the GOI even when the GOI has done nothing to earn such faith... in fact, has done everything to undermine the people's faith in its ability to handle Pakistan... does not hold water.

This has costs and India has managed to keep these costs within limits that development expenditure has not been affected greatly.

The GOI must evolve a strategy to ensure the people's security while keeping up development expenditure to what the people consider acceptable levels. If it does not do this, then by definition it has failed. It is not up to the people to maintain blind faith in the GOI or to bail it out. It is up to the GOI to protect its people and spend adequately on their development.

But if there is a massive increase in terrorism, or if we were to wage overt war would we still be able to spend what we are now doing on development?

I believe are enough resources to protect the people better than the GOI is doing now, and also ensure development better than the GOI is doing now; except for the vast amount of those resources which go towards feeding corruption. Whose failing is that? Pakistan's, or the Indian people, or the GOI?

[Hari Seldon]

Pakistanis realise that India is a difficult governance problem, and understand fully well that if they can force the Indian government to concentrate all its hatred and attention on security issues, other problems in India will (hopefully) spin out of control. So it is not as though Pakis and jihadis hope to invade India (as they imagined it would be possible in the 1960s), but the idea is to change India's focus from poverty, malnutrition, lack of infrastructure and human development to internal and external security. Keep India's borders on attack and keep India's cities unsafe so India sinks more and more and more time, money and attention on security, allowing other things to deteriorate.

The experience of pure, purposeful (and noble!) political will in ensuring that good governance and higher HDI figures in all areas of concern actually help rather than hinder the driving away of persistent internal security challenges of various shades - from ISI agents, myriad soul harvesters, leftie extremists of the Maobadi bent to assorted underworldies and terrorists - can IMHO be seen in play in the crucial border state of Gujrat.

A stellar example of lead by example, if there ever was one. No compromises either on the development/anti-poverty front nor on the security front (no MNS type anti-migrant dramas allowed unlike in neighboring MH, no underworldie influence corrupting government at the highest levels seen unlike in MH, no kow-tow to phoren interests, NGOs, jholawalas and big media seen unlike in Dilli - and all this at the cost of being denied a US visa onlee? Good bargain, I'd say!

The argument that development and security are somehow a zero sum game - i.e. focus on one is == slippage in the other - is as specious as it is dangerous. IMVVHO of course. Arunachal and Ladakh will now finally see development because of a deterioration in their security environments, seems like. Am waiting for the gurkhas of Darjeeling to also see the light and approach the ISi or the PLA for help in getting Dilli's attn, not to mention aid for their lands. Same with the Bodos and the kamtapuris and the what not. Anyway, thats all OT. Back to thread topic.

[sarvadharam]

Self deleted

[Rudradev]

There is a lot of space in between maximalist and minimalist positions to explore options that are partly coercive and partly cooperative, targeted in the right doses towards the right American constituencies.

Rudradev,

In a post several pages away on this thread you had espoused on this point in more detail.

Gaining influence with various stakeholders in the US so that they can act as pressure groups is crucial to wean away the US from its love for the TFTA Pakis. A lot of folks here seem to realise this point. However, I haven't seen too many details of how this can actually be done.

There are ways in which it can be done. The US has interests in a lot of places where India can play spoiler, as pivotally as it has been playing along thus far. Afghanistan and Iran are two obvious ones. Calibrated measures that dial up or down the degree of cooperation in accordance with US policy, are what is called for.

We can't just wring our hands and appeal to better sense, neither can we preach with a moral tone that Dharma is on our side so please get you government to stop helping the Pakis. And surely pointing a few ICBMs at the US is not going to do the trick either.

Actually appealing to better sense has had some effect among the Wilsonian idealists in political terms, and Hamiltonian realists in economic terms. There are constituencies in DC are paying attention to India now who never did before... earlier, they preferred to leave India to the Cold Warriors to deal with. Likewise, a broad public-relations campaign would help gain sympathy from sections of the population at large.

As for ICBMs, I don't think we need to point any at the US. Just developing one and testing it will change the game for sure.

The point is that all these measures and many more have a role to play. We cannot achieve anything by counting on one angle to the exclusion of all others. Just as we cannot achieve anything by being completely, endlessly cooperative... as the recent Afghan conferences have shown, that gets us nothing except our support taken for granted.

What we need is inducements for various American constituencies - big business is one such highly influential pressure group. But to do that we need the economic muscle to make it attractive for them to be engaged with India and not be indifferent. And that brings things back to why economic growth is so important. Just look at how China has the US industry by the b***s, despite rampant theft of intellectual property.

China has had the US industry by the b***s for a long time, since their GDP was considerably smaller than what ours is today. And they have continued to expand their GDP without once giving in on even the smallest security interest.

On this note one should consider Taiwan, the rival that has long been propped up by the West against the PRC. For decades, Taiwan's GDP and rate of growth towered over that of PRC, a differential that has never applied to Pakistan against India. The Taiwanese were also supplied by the West with the latest armaments, all directed against the PRC. Yet, the PRC never made compromises with respect to Taiwan, in order to catch up with Taiwan's GDP or develop economically in its own right. It stood up to the Western proxy, armed itself with enough capability to invade the island if necessary, and still continued with its own economic development in an unflagging manner.

This clearly shows that

(1) it is perfectly possible to develop economically without rolling over and subordinating all ones security and diplomatic interests to the US and

(2) that influence over the US is gained by manipulating an overall combination of factors, not by concentrating on one (such as economy) to the exclusion of all others.

We may be wowed with our US$1.3 - US$1.4 trillion economy but as I pointed out in a previous post, it does not really cut it in terms of global influence. We need to grow bigger and whether we like it or not the only way we can do that in the fastest possible manner is to have a continuous growth in excess of 7-8 per cent over this decade. Once we cross a certain threshold - I mentioned the US$4-US$5 trillion figure which I came to after seeing how China is now behaving after having reached that level - we should be on a different footing in dealing with the US. Solve the US problem and the Pakis are reduced to what they actually are, barking street dogs - they lose their US-gifted Rottweiler fangs.

Amit, I'm sure you see the slippery nature of this argument. It has no strategic merit at all.

In 2001, less than $1.3 trillion GDP was fine for China to stand up to the US in ways that our present regime would never dream of doing.

Today we say: $1.3 trillion GDP isn't enough for us to stand up to Pakistan (let alone the US). It isn't enough for us to consolidate our strategic, diplomatic and security interests even in our own near abroad. Instead we must do exactly as the US says, and pursue peace with Pakistan at any cost, at least until 2015 or whenever we have a $4-$5 trillion GDP (as China has now).

Let's say we do this (at the incalculable price of sacrificing our national interest even within the confines of our own neighbourhood). Let's say we continue along the path MMS is taking now and wait to develop a $4-$5 trillion GDP.

When we have it, what then? Will we look at China's $10 trillion GDP and say "well, $4 or $5 trillion doesn't really cut it in terms of global influence. Let's just make more compromises and count on losing another six or seven thousand Indian lives to terrorism every year until we hit the $10 trillion mark"?

This makes no sense to me at all. India is not a corporation, not a cash cow with shareholders to answer to. India is a nation, a nation of people whose interests must be secured for generations to come. For all their ruthless corporatism the Chinese have never lost sight of the difference.

If we lose sight of the difference... as MMS has evidently done... then we may close the gap with China's GDP but we will never, ever be able to match them in the many arenas outside of globalized economic competition which are at least equally important. If not more important... because the global economic system is by no means immune to total collapse.

I suspect at least a section of the Pakis realise this. And hence this desperate attempt to provoke India into a major confrontation. One may not like the way MMS is conducting foreign policy vis a vis the Pakis but one reading of all the signals could be he's trying to do a holding operation - keep the Pakis interested in extracting concessions (without making any tangible ones) while the Indian economy grows and military acquisition take place as fast as possible within the Indian system.

There is no question of a confrontation. Previous governments have exercised coercive diplomacy against Pakistan (and the US) without ending up in a confrontation, yet leading to very tangible national security benefits.

The Pakis may want a confrontation, and the US may want us to avoid a confrontation at all costs. The answer to this is not to listen to the US and avoid a confrontation at all costs, in pursuit of some GDP dream. It is to squeeze the US so that they guarantee our interests, economic and political and military, in exchange for our avoiding a confrontation. Basic baniya logic, but apparently Oxford washes it right out of one's brain.

A "holding operation" is fine as long as the Indian people don't have to pay the price for "holding", with life and limb and property and the lives of their loved ones.

If the MMS government can guarantee the safety of the Indian people by internal security means alone, and without yielding any concessions to the Pakistanis, well and good. If it cannot guarantee the security of the Indian people while maintaining its "holding operation" then the "holding operation" has failed and must be replaced by a strategy that imposes retaliatory costs on those endangering the Indian people... no two ways about it.

After Pune the pressure may be confined to small pockets of interested citizenry like BRF and the strat/intel community... but an incident at the IPL or Commonwealth Games will result in massive, widespread popular outrage against the government. A realization that this is going to keep happening while the GOI continues to do nothing but maintain a "holding operation". That wouldn't be very good for economic development, among many other things.

On the last point, I hope you do notice that despite the UPA govt being depicted as a wimp in terms of security, investment in missiles, submarines, ships and aircraft all seem to be going apace - even though in the very inefficient way such things are done in India. There has been no waffling, IMO.

I would not agree with this assessment.

Here's the thing. Military acquisitions and R&D are not handled, day-to-day (or even necessarily year-to-year) by the government. They are managed by the bureaucracy. Which is why they proceed at the chalta-hai snail's pace of all things managed by the bureaucracy in India.

This is why it can take years for anything to happen. The nuclear submarine ATV program was begun by the NDA government in leasing INS Chakra from the Russians but has only borne fruit today. Missile research, LCA development, Arjun development all proceed at their own pace no matter who happens to be the government of the day. If any of these programs meet their milestones during a particular government's tenure, it does not necessarily mean that the government of the day should get any credit for it.

Of course, the government *can* if it wants, change things. The PM (along with his MOD and COAS) can take personal interest in accelerating defense acquisitons and if he does, it will have a dramatic effect. The MRCA could be decided on and purchased within weeks if MMS decided to move on it.

However, doing this requires two things of the PM. He has to
1) Make his mind up on what will be bought, how much will be spent, what the deadlines are: and take full responsibility for those decisions. Then step on the accelerator.
2) Make very, very sure that the process of acquisitions is entirely above board and *entirely free from corruption*. This is very important as it can mean (and has meant) the collapse of governments, if corruption in multi-million dollar defense deals comes to light.

So the military acquisitions process can be speeded up exponentially by the GOI's direct involvement. In that the MMS government hasn't taken the necessary steps to modernize the armed forces, it has instead allowed the acquisitions process to take its own appallingly slow course. By allowing the default situation to prevail, it is very much "waffling".

Of course, the NDA government before it "waffled" equally... but at that time, we were considerably ahead of Pakistan's conventional capability and enough of a match for China's, so it wasn't a matter of such urgency. Now Pakistan has been armed to the teeth by the US over the last 5-6 years, and China has been spending unprecedented amounts of money on modernizing its military too.

Since the 1960s, the only GOI that has actively prioritized jumpstarting the military acquisitions process has been the Rajiv Gandhi government. Of course they were sloppy about kickbacks and such, and lost re-election largely on account of the Bofors scandal.

[Sanku]

Paki aim is to destabilize India, not by drawing away Indian resources from governance to security, but by simply eroding people's confidence in their government and creating fissures in the society.

Anujan I don't see the difference between Indians losing faith in government and government failing to meet the expectation of people.

As you can see from reactions on here (not echoed in India in general) continued terrorism from Pakistan is causing shrill cries that the government is a failure and that it should punish Pakistan. Don't you think the reactions we see on this forum are exactly what Pakistan is hoping for when you say "eroding people's confidence in their government". So random and continued acts of terror are having just the effect that Pakistan wants - of destabilizing India and pressurizing the Indian government to pay more attention to internal security. This has costs and India has managed to keep these costs within limits that development expenditure has not been affected greatly.

But if there is a massive increase in terrorism, or if we were to wage overt war would we still be able to spend what we are now doing on development?

Well shrill cries defending the govt when calm measured arguments laying out the complete failure of GoI are given are actually better.

Meanwhile there are lovely arguments like "My neihbour raped my wife for me to stop going to work every day and making money by fighting with him. There fore I will ignore the rape totally and carry on as if nothing happened, after all I have decided the cost is bearable right?"

Meanwhile yes, Pakistan wants Indians to lose faith in GoI and yes it has been successful, because Indian and not Pakis and are normally not delusional (barring some class A exhibits) -- and hence will not have confidence in the Govt when there is no reason to do so.

So Pakistan shows us that GoI is "nikamma" (useless)
GoI's "goals" are elsewhere and can not care less thus letting Pakistan succeded
The avg Indian sees this and mentions it.

And guess whose fault it is? The avg Indians for not being loyal enough to be confident of the Govt hook line and sinker without any reason for that belief to be anchored in reality.

[RayC]

Well shrill cries defending the govt when calm measured arguments laying out the complete failure of GoI are given are actually better.

Meanwhile there are lovely arguments like "My neihbour raped my wife for me to stop going to work every day and making money by fighting with him. There fore I will ignore the rape totally and carry on as if nothing happened, after all I have decided the cost is bearable right?"

Meanwhile yes, Pakistan wants Indians to lose faith in GoI and yes it has been successful, because Indian and not Pakis and are normally not delusional (barring some class A exhibits) -- and hence will not have confidence in the Govt when there is no reason to do so.

So Pakistan shows us that GoI is "nikamma" (useless)
GoI's "goals" are elsewhere and can not care less thus letting Pakistan succeded
The avg Indian sees this and mentions it.

And guess whose fault it is? The avg Indians for not being loyal enough to be confident of the Govt hook line and sinker without any reason for that belief to be anchored in reality.

I laud your nationalistic sentiments, but since the INC has been voted in with a large majority, your views are not shared by the majority. Unfortunate as that it maybe, you have to concede to that. You are the vocal minority that has to sit under the banyan tree. Rajiv Gandhi?

The reality that you talk about is not what Manmohan feels. He is wrong, right? What can you do about it? It is a democracy we live in.

The INC is failing us internally (terrorism and price rise) and externally too (appeasement; heard Brajesh Mishra interview on News X?). India having voted Manmohan can only grin and bear it! Lets now await the Budget.

Pakistan wants to destabilise our system by trying to divide us.

I say stand firm overtly as a peaceful nation and soft power if you wish. But, fight a guerilla as a guerilla. Hit them where it hurts..........covertly that is!

[Anindya]

Looks like an interesting point of view...

Impose a terror tax on Pak cricketers

http://sify.com/news/Impose-a-terror-ta ... 7jgafi.htm