Bharat Rakshak

shiv wrote:

A_Gupta wrote: What was new to me was the idea that the Pakistan Army considers it as a victory if it lives to fight another day. Perhaps it was not new to some perspicuous BRFers. But it raises a problem - it is very unlikely that India can so utterly annihilate the Pakistani Army that it cannot rise again and fight. It suggests then, that the only way forward is to make Pakistan utterly irrelevant. That is a hard thing to do with a country that fights jihad under a nuclear umbrella.

In fact the idea that survival is victory was known to me. It is often stated by RAPEs as well as Paki army types. But not many people outside of BRF seem to know much of what Fair says.

Au contraire doc. All observers are treating this as a war by Pak and see all the steps carried out by Pak as a legitimate means of war, including retreating and coming back again to stab in the back, what have you.
It is our overt lack of acknowledgement of this activity as war that is baffling the four fathers. Please turn the pisko back around, you are good at this!

This is likely a stupid question that I will regret asking. But aside from the dark imaginary fears of the Pakistanis, what does "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" actually involve? What does it mean and how does it negatively or positively affect Pakistani lives?

E.g., I don' t imagine that "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" would mean Pakistan would not vigorously defend its commercial and economic interests. It would still drive a hard bargain on transit facilities for India, in particular, Central Asian or Iranian energy. It would still vote its own way in the UN. It does not mean abrogation of the Indus Treaty, nor an end to the periodically dragging India to the International Court of Justice or whatever to arbitrate on river waters. It doesn't mean renouncing Islam in any way, etc. etc. I don't think it means disarmament on India's terms. I don't think it means amending their blasphemy law or autonomy for Baluchistan.

So just what does "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" mean?

How can Pakistan aquiesce in Indian hegemony. That is like accepting defeat for a country that invents terminology like NDMA for MFN because an existential enemy cannot be a Most Favoured Nation.

One can argue that like inventing NDMA, Pakistan can invent reasons to acquiesce in Indian rise (a more appropriate term than hegemony), and sell it appropriately to Pakistanis; but, the stumbling block is the Army and the jihadists. They are not accepting the NDMA terminology either. Their fear is that Pakitsn may be too well integrated with India for it to wage a battle against it later; India will subsume Pakistan in an Akhamd Bharat (the fears will be more now because of the changed political situation in India); and that, India will demand concessions in areas that Pakistan is unwilling or uncomfortable to allow such as land access to Afghanistan and beyond, for example. Essentially, the raison d'etre for the Army and the jihadist infrastructure would be gone and that is cutting at their very roots. Both India and Afghanistan would be lost for them.

rajpa wrote:

shiv wrote: In fact the idea that survival is victory was known to me. It is often stated by RAPEs as well as Paki army types. But not many people outside of BRF seem to know much of what Fair says.

Au contraire doc. All observers are treating this as a war by Pak and see all the steps carried out by Pak as a legitimate means of war, including retreating and coming back again to stab in the back, what have you.
It is our overt lack of acknowledgement of this activity as war that is baffling the four fathers. Please turn the pisko back around, you are good at this!

That is an interesting viewpoint, but "war" is a difficult definition. We (India) have used the following two terms for ages in describing Pakistani actions
1. "War of a thousand cuts"
2. Proxy war

So we do acknowledge that it is war. It is only an overt military response to that war that is lacking. I have screamed (after many terrorist attacks) that India must impose military war on Pakistan (I just wanted the bast**ds to feel pain), even though I knew full well that the worst of defeats leave the Paki army coming out unscathed - as long as the army survives. I refer to 1971 (the worst defeat yet) and Kargil (a humiliation, if not defeat)

In retrospect it appears that some of the movers and shakers in India decided that military war against Pakistan would not be wise. The commonest explanation for that (on BRF) has been cowardice and lack of spine in leadership - but that lack of spine was both under BJP (Parliament attack) and Khangress (26/11). maybe there was something more than just lack of spine - I don't know. But I do know that Pakistan has access to the latest weapons and up to date intel info from the US - which has helped them kill Indian soldiers more effectively - even in defeat.

I have always stated that the military aid that Pakistan gets should be stopped - and you probably know this as everyone else does because I have said this so many times and had intense arguments about that. The reason, to my mind is simple. The Pakistan army's "courage" in prodding India with terrorism and other irritants even though they know they will not win is simply because it serves the Pakistan army in exactly the way Fair has put in her own words. Hitting India and surviving gives them prestige and honour in Pakistan and redoubles their raisin dieter as an equal and opposite foil to India. So why doesn't India hit them? India does not hit them (probably) because they are not totally weak. They will lose, but they will hurt us and survive, and that is victory for them. The Pakistan army will rapidly make up its material losses from aid and manpower losses from an excess population. If the country becomes poorer - so what - that is the way Pakistanis have always been.

That Pakistan army must be made irrelevant by penury. There is little chance of that in the short term as long as the US aids them. In the longer term, if the Indian economy gets big enough, US support to Pakistan will either be peanuts for India or it will hurt the US to keep aiding them But that is some way ahead in the future. One statement of "wishful thinking" I have made is that if the US becomes weak, Pakistan will also become weak. It is important for India to become strong with respect to the US, but that is a separate issue.

As I see it, India will become more friendly with the US and more cooperative (less competitive) with the US if the US stops propping up the Paki army. Since the US shows no signs of doing that, I see India as inexorably heading towards a competitive relationship with the US in which we build up arms to counter both Pakistan and China and ensure that our efforts are independent of the US as far as possible. This is true even today despite off the shelf military purchases from the US.

Ultimately the Pakistani army will be forced into submissiveness by inability to compete with India. That can happen sooner if the US decides to cooperate.

A_Gupta wrote:This is likely a stupid question that I will regret asking. But aside from the dark imaginary fears of the Pakistanis, what does "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" actually involve? What does it mean and how does it negatively or positively affect Pakistani lives?

E.g., I don' t imagine that "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" would mean Pakistan would not vigorously defend its commercial and economic interests. It would still drive a hard bargain on transit facilities for India, in particular, Central Asian or Iranian energy. It would still vote its own way in the UN. It does not mean abrogation of the Indus Treaty, nor an end to the periodically dragging India to the International Court of Justice or whatever to arbitrate on river waters. It doesn't mean renouncing Islam in any way, etc. etc. I don't think it means disarmament on India's terms. I don't think it means amending their blasphemy law or autonomy for Baluchistan.

So just what does "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" mean?

Let me nitpick your question. The Pakistan army is not worried about the lives or economy of ordinary Pakis. If they did they would stop the adversarial relationship and allow human development more funds and stop competing with India. The idea of not being able to challenge India (or at least appear to do that in front of Pakis) is defeat and "Indian hegemony".

But as per Fair - Pakis will keep on and on attacking Indian interests in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar using terrorists.

As an aside - the Fair video shows how the US aided Pakistan because they thought that Muslims were like Christians, they were good people.

Who are bad people? Bad people attack and kill good people.

if Pakistani Muslims, allies of the US are good people, like Christians (as Fair says) who is killing them?

Modi's Gujarat killed Muslims, and therefore Modi and Modi's Hindutva are bad

That is why the US so readily allowed the legal steps to deem Modi a murderer, ably assisted by the Congress party, and assorted Paki supporters.

The US is not going to live this down easily because the idea that Muslims are fundamentally better than right wing Hindus exists just under the surface in the US.

If Fair says that Pakistan has set up a civilizational war, she is right, but that war has spread out of Pakistan. Unless ther are deep changes in US policy towards the Paki army we are only going to see an adversarial relationship between India and the US. There is even a possibility of India and China moving closer.

Your heard it here first. Sorry. OT

shiv wrote: Let me nitpick your question. The Pakistan army is not worried about the lives or economy of ordinary Pakis. If they did they would stop the adversarial relationship and allow human development more funds and stop competing with India. The idea of not being able to challenge India (or at least appear to do that in front of Pakis) is defeat and "Indian hegemony".

But as per Fair - Pakis will keep on and on attacking Indian interests in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar using terrorists.

Why is that? Why Pakis are so suicidal? Is it because the power base there is with Army and a rapprochement with India will be like taking away Army's raison d'être? If that is true then nothing but a total annihilation of Paki Army will ever bring peace to the subcontinent.

shiv wrote: That is an interesting viewpoint, but "war" is a difficult definition. We (India) have used the following two terms for ages in describing Pakistani actions
1. "War of a thousand cuts"
2. Proxy war

So we do acknowledge that it is war. It is only an overt military response to that war that is lacking. I have screamed (after many terrorist attacks) that India must impose military war on Pakistan (I just wanted the bast**ds to feel pain), even though I knew full well that the worst of defeats leave the Paki army coming out unscathed - as long as the army survives. I refer to 1971 (the worst defeat yet) and Kargil (a humiliation, if not defeat)

In retrospect it appears that some of the movers and shakers in India decided that military war against Pakistan would not be wise. The commonest explanation for that (on BRF) has been cowardice and lack of spine in leadership - but that lack of spine was both under BJP (Parliament attack) and Khangress (26/11). maybe there was something more than just lack of spine - I don't know. But I do know that Pakistan has access to the latest weapons and up to date intel info from the US - which has helped them kill Indian soldiers more effectively - even in defeat.

I have always stated that the military aid that Pakistan gets should be stopped - and you probably know this as everyone else does because I have said this so many times and had intense arguments about that. The reason, to my mind is simple. The Pakistan army's "courage" in prodding India with terrorism and other irritants even though they know they will not win is simply because it serves the Pakistan army in exactly the way Fair has put in her own words. Hitting India and surviving gives them prestige and honour in Pakistan and redoubles their raisin dieter as an equal and opposite foil to India. So why doesn't India hit them? India does not hit them (probably) because they are not totally weak. They will lose, but they will hurt us and survive, and that is victory for them. The Pakistan army will rapidly make up its material losses from aid and manpower losses from an excess population. If the country becomes poorer - so what - that is the way Pakistanis have always been.

That Pakistan army must be made irrelevant by penury. There is little chance of that in the short term as long as the US aids them. In the longer term, if the Indian economy gets big enough, US support to Pakistan will either be peanuts for India or it will hurt the US to keep aiding them But that is some way ahead in the future. One statement of "wishful thinking" I have made is that if the US becomes weak, Pakistan will also become weak. It is important for India to become strong with respect to the US, but that is a separate issue.

As I see it, India will become more friendly with the US and more cooperative (less competitive) with the US if the US stops propping up the Paki army. Since the US shows no signs of doing that, I see India as inexorably heading towards a competitive relationship with the US in which we build up arms to counter both Pakistan and China and ensure that our efforts are independent of the US as far as possible. This is true even today despite off the shelf military purchases from the US.

Ultimately the Pakistani army will be forced into submissiveness by inability to compete with India. That can happen sooner if the US decides to cooperate.

War by TSP is a state of mind. CFair refers to it rightly as a philosophical state of being.

Thousand cuts, proxy war are just the operational means. What is at the core of it - the state of mind of being at war. It is driven by various motives - Islamic, territorial, H&D, mughal history etc.

They have convinced four fathers (incl USA) about their state of mind and made them acquiesce to its point of view. We do not have a corresponding set of narratives that explain our state of mind. Nonviolence is seen as a bit of a copout. The only thing that comes close is to call ourselves a democracy. But that is a weak argument as western democracies are extreme practitioners of realpolitik and they expect us to be playing the same game. So when we say that Kashmir is an integral part of India, it is seen as a game not as a defence of our democratic principles.

So when we fight a war against TSP, it must be to negate the TSP state of mind about war as a means to some kind of Islamic (or otherwise) salvation. It must be also to counter western perception that TSP can actually win this war.

We need counter piskology based on some principles that can be sold easily to the west.

Uttam wrote:
Why is that? Why Pakis are so suicidal? Is it because the power base there is with Army and a rapprochement with India will be like taking away Army's raison d'être? If that is true then nothing but a total annihilation of Paki Army will ever bring peace to the subcontinent.

I think you hit the nail on the head. But I would say - reduce the Pakistan army to military irrelevance - possibly by penury.

rajpa wrote: They have convinced four fathers (incl USA) about their state of mind and made them acquiesce to its point of view. We do not have a corresponding set of narratives that explain our state of mind. Nonviolence is seen as a bit of a copout. The only thing that comes close is to call ourselves a democracy. But that is a weak argument as western democracies are extreme practitioners of realpolitik and they expect us to be playing the same game. So when we say that Kashmir is an integral part of India, it is seen as a game not as a defence of our democratic principles.

So when we fight a war against TSP, it must be to negate the TSP state of mind about war as a means to some kind of Islamic (or otherwise) salvation. It must be also to counter western perception that TSP can actually win this war.

We need counter piskology based on some principles that can be sold easily to the west.

rajpa - India has no Pakistan specific "state of mind"

Pakistan exists because of an India specific state of mind.

So we will (I hope) never ever have a Pakistan specific narrative.

shiv wrote:

Uttam wrote:
Why is that? Why Pakis are so suicidal? Is it because the power base there is with Army and a rapprochement with India will be like taking away Army's raison d'être? If that is true then nothing but a total annihilation of Paki Army will ever bring peace to the subcontinent.

I think you hit the nail on the head. But I would say - reduce the Pakistan army to military irrelevance - possibly by penury.

That will never work. They will continue to beg and get aid from four fathers by convincing them of their "legitimate" need to war with India.

shiv wrote:

rajpa wrote: They have convinced four fathers (incl USA) about their state of mind and made them acquiesce to its point of view. We do not have a corresponding set of narratives that explain our state of mind. Nonviolence is seen as a bit of a copout. The only thing that comes close is to call ourselves a democracy. But that is a weak argument as western democracies are extreme practitioners of realpolitik and they expect us to be playing the same game. So when we say that Kashmir is an integral part of India, it is seen as a game not as a defence of our democratic principles.

So when we fight a war against TSP, it must be to negate the TSP state of mind about war as a means to some kind of Islamic (or otherwise) salvation. It must be also to counter western perception that TSP can actually win this war.

We need counter piskology based on some principles that can be sold easily to the west.

rajpa - India has no Pakistan specific "state of mind"

Pakistan exists because of an India specific state of mind.

So we will (I hope) never ever have a Pakistan specific narrative.

Partially disagree. We must tailor our thinking to have a TSP focused narrative that makes sense to the west.

While we are debating Ms. Fair's talk and the consequences thereof, Pakistan courts quietly free the most dangerous jihadi terrorist, Ishaq Malik.

An Anti-Terrorist Court on Thursday acquitted Malik Ishaq, chief of proscribed Lashkar-i-Jhangvi (LJ) militant group, in three cases relating to terrorism.

Judge Rana Masood Akhtar issued acquittal orders for Ishaq in the cases, saying the evidence against Ishaq was not sufficient for further proceedings. The cases had been registered against Ishaq at police stations in Attock, Hazro and Talagang and he was also previously arrested over charges relating hate-speech and inciting violence.

Having faced charges relating to killing of more than 100 people, most of them members of Shia community, and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in March 2009, Ishaq has spent around 15 years in jails. He was initially a member of Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), a banned group but later dissociated himself from it for his alleged ‘violent policies’ and formed his own outfit.

The LJ was proscribed by the government as a terror group soon after its inception in early 1990s. After reaching an agreement with Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ) chief Ahmed Ludhianvi, Ishaq joined as second-in-command of the former SSP in 2012.

In Feb 2014, the United States added Ishaq to its list of most wanted international terrorists along with keeping the LJ on a list of international terrorist organisations.

rajpa wrote: Partially disagree. We must tailor our thinking to have a TSP focused narrative that makes sense to the west.

The problem I see with this is as follows.

If you study the "IndiaPakistan" narrative as seen by the west since the 1950s - Pakistan has successfully set itself up in the western mind as equal inheritors of the Raj who are rivals. Every news item about India and Pakistan speaks of South Asian rivals. Military rivals. Religious rivals. Sporting rivals. If one is underdeveloped, the other is merely the same South Asia.

So India has had a tough time breaking out of this equation. It has not broken free totally, but I do not see India going back to a narrative that keeps us complaining about Pakistan no matter how much Pakistan bothers us. Pakistan bothers us because the west has chosen to support Pakistan. We would be beggars to ask the west to change and would relegate ourselves to "equal and opposite" counter beggars to Pakistan's beggary.

i say - screw Pakistan. Challenge the west and make it more and more costly for them to support Pakistan. What is it that the West get from Pakistan? Make it costly for them to get that, whatever it is. No need to try and buy their minds with a clever story. Pakistan has already included us in their story. All round what I say is more dificult, but a much better goal for India.

SSridhar wrote:While we are debating Ms. Fair's talk and the consequences thereof, Pakistan courts quietly free the most dangerous jihadi terrorist, Ishaq Malik.

An Anti-Terrorist Court on Thursday acquitted Malik Ishaq, chief of proscribed Lashkar-i-Jhangvi (LJ) militant group, in three cases relating to terrorism.

Having faced charges relating to killing of more than 100 people, most of them members of Shia community, and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in March 2009, Ishaq has spent around 15 years in jails. He was initially a member of Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), a banned group but later dissociated himself from it for his alleged ‘violent policies’ and formed his own outfit.

Great. I am happy for the Sri Lankans! I wish them luck
Sri Lankan Cricket Board Considering Pakistan's Invite; First Series Since 2009 Attack Could be Possible

Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) is evaluating Pakistan Cricket Board's invitation for a short series in the foreseeable future. (Read: Sri Lanka's Tour of Pakistan Hangs in Balance)

If the Sri Lankans agree to send their team to Pakistan, it would be the first tour by a Test playing nation since the infamous March 2009 attack incident in Lahore where militants attacked the Sri Lankan team bus.

N.Waziristan Taliban Revoke Peace Accord & Tell Locals to Leave - DAWN

The North Waziristan Taliban led by Hafiz Gul Bahadar have formally revoked the peace accord with the Pakistani government, a pamphlet distributed by the group in the tribal region said.

The faction, as the pamphlet sent to media by Bahadur's spokesman Ahmadullah Ahmadi said, is now preparing to fight against what it said was the security forces' planned operation, giving locals until June 10 to leave the area and move to safety.

The pamphlet distributed Friday read that the government had broken the peace accord with the North Waziristan Taliban by launching air strikes with a full-fledged operation being planned for the tribal region.

“The shura mujahideen has decided not to tolerate this aggression anymore and has opted to fight and defend Waziristan,” the pamphlet added.

The group also warned locals to refrain from seeking refuge in government-established camps. Instead, it directed them to move to areas close to the Afghan border whereby they could easily travel to Afghanistan.

The group has also demanded locals to sever all ties with the government and military officials by June 10. It has warned that action would be taken against those who do not heed the militants' warnings, adding that no one would be allowed to go to the military camps and government offices after the deadline.

The group also announced to stop all its operations in Afghanistan after June 10, adding that it would not send any fighters across the border and would focus on defending North Waziristan, calling upon the tribesmen to either leave the area or join hands with the militants.

rajpa wrote:
That will never work. They will continue to beg and get aid from four fathers by convincing them of their "legitimate" need to war with India.

Correct - as long as we see Pakistan as a rival and its aid sponsors (fourfathers) as friends.
We need to see those who aid Pakistan as rivals and aim to make it costly for them. Not easy. Not quick - but heck we are better placed to do that than in 1971.

shiv wrote: i say - screw Pakistan. Challenge the west and make it more and more costly for them to support Pakistan. What is it that the West get from Pakistan? Make it costly for them to get that, whatever it is. No need to try and buy their minds with a clever story. Pakistan has already included us in their story. All round what I say is more dificult, but a much better goal for India.

How do you make it more and more costly for them to support Pakistan, if you do not directly address them as enemy? I am not talking about an old narrative of the 1950s. A new narrative is needed -it could be an extension of what you have rightly mentioned here.

For instance, we buy weapons from the US, and yet they continue to support TSP.. On the other side, take China - US accepts Tibet/Taiwan/etc as a part of China. Whereas, US supports Japan on Senkaku islands against China. Why?

shiv wrote:Let me nitpick your question. The Pakistan army is not worried about the lives or economy of ordinary Pakis. If they did they would stop the adversarial relationship and allow human development more funds and stop competing with India. The idea of not being able to challenge India (or at least appear to do that in front of Pakis) is defeat and "Indian hegemony".

That is a psychological dimension -- that children face and get over when they find out that Santa Claus is not a real person. But what is the material dimension? Is it simply that "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" means the Pakistani military no longer can commandeer the state's resources? Or is there something more than that?

Maybe stepping back in time might help with my question. Pre-Independence Muslims feared "Hindu hegemony" in a united India. I can immediately point to what material things they might have feared - discrimination in jobs, in admissions to educational institutions, banning of Muslim public religious functions, denial of permission to build or upkeep mosques, etc., etc., etc. I'm not saying that these fears had any basis in reality, but the idea was that "Hindu hegemony" might impact the welfare of Muslims in material ways. (That the "natural order of things has been upset with short, dark, idolatrous, rice-eaters in the halls of power instead of only Allah's chosen tall, fair, meat-eaters" is a psychological thing that one can reasonably expect a sane people to eventually overcome, just like children outgrow Santa Claus.)

What do post-Independence Pakistanis have to actually fear from "Indian hegemony"?

A_Gupta wrote:

shiv wrote:Let me nitpick your question. The Pakistan army is not worried about the lives or economy of ordinary Pakis. If they did they would stop the adversarial relationship and allow human development more funds and stop competing with India. The idea of not being able to challenge India (or at least appear to do that in front of Pakis) is defeat and "Indian hegemony".

That is a psychological dimension -- that children face and get over when they find out that Santa Claus is not a real person. But what is the material dimension? Is it simply that "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" means the Pakistani military no longer can commandeer the state's resources? Or is there something more than that?

Maybe stepping back in time might help with my question. Pre-Independence Muslims feared "Hindu hegemony" in a united India. I can immediately point to what material things they might have feared - discrimination in jobs, in admissions to educational institutions, banning of Muslim public religious functions, denial of permission to build or upkeep mosques, etc., etc., etc. I'm not saying that these fears had any basis in reality, but the idea was that "Hindu hegemony" might impact the welfare of Muslims in material ways. (That the "natural order of things has been upset with short, dark, idolatrous, rice-eaters in the halls of power instead of only Allah's chosen tall, fair, meat-eaters" is a psychological thing that one can reasonably expect a sane people to eventually overcome, just like children outgrow Santa Claus.)

What do post-Independence Pakistanis have to actually fear from "Indian hegemony"?

It is their state of mind expressed using words of the Great Game Era.

"Existential threat", "Security seeking" etc are close in meaning that apply to today's world.

The way to handle this is to accept we are hegemons but put a nice and happy spin on it - "Benign hegemony" - like "the peaceful rise of China"

A_Gupta wrote:
That is a psychological dimension -- that children face and get over when they find out that Santa Claus is not a real person. But what is the material dimension? Is it simply that "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" means the Pakistani military no longer can commandeer the state's resources? Or is there something more than that?
<snip>
What do post-Independence Pakistanis have to actually fear from "Indian hegemony"?

I think this question needs to be addressed in two parts
1. What does the Pakistan army like to describe as "Indian hegemony"
2. What mango Pakis might consider Indian hegemony and the percentage of them who actually fear such hegemony.

As a thought exercise you could say that there could be one or more of the following possibilities at work in Pakistan
a. The Pakistan army raises fears of Indian hegemony and the entire Pakistan population believe them and are with them
b. The Pakistan army creates a false fear of India hegemony because it helps them to corner all resources and power, and people who do not agree are simply intimidated into silence (this factor actually appears in the Fair video)
c. Indians are a threat to Pakistan in that Pakistan may simply become an Indian satellite, dependent on Indian whims for trade and economy and security and Pakistan must fight this because they will lose their hard won freedom as the home for subcontinental Muslims.

I think point C is the only thing that matters. It is "the idea of Pakistan" as 'separate from Hindu India" that is under threat. The funny thing about point C (the "idea of Pakistan" is that it is wholly compatible with points a and b) .In other words all three could coexist in Pakistan side by side so that
I. If India is friendly with Pakistan, getting close to India is dangerous
II. If India is unfriendly, it proves the point that a hard won Pakistan is under threat

This is a "Catch 22" situation. A chakravyuha. There is no way out. Somthing has to go. Pakistan or the Pakistan army. Or India. We have a choice.

rajpa wrote:The way to handle this is to accept we are hegemons but put a nice and happy spin on it - "Benign hegemony" - like "the peaceful rise of China"

+1
Agree

rajpa wrote: How do you make it more and more costly for them to support Pakistan, if you do not directly address them as enemy?

Just grow and become big.

A_Gupta wrote:This is likely a stupid question that I will regret asking. But aside from the dark imaginary fears of the Pakistanis, what does "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" actually involve? What does it mean and how does it negatively or positively affect Pakistani lives?

So just what does "acquiescing in Indian hegemony" mean?

It is actually an interesting question. Recall that just surviving wars is a victory for Pakistan against India. Correspondingly, then surviving terrorism is a victory for India against Pakistan.

"won't tolerate Indian hegemony" is code speak for "won't tolerate India's existence". The very existence of India is threatening to the Pakis. Several people have remarked about this too. For example Pakis have said that JK is not the end, it is the beginning. On top of that most countries after acquiring nukes (Like France) are comfortable that they won't suffer massive territorial loss anymore and actually embark on a path of friendship with their former enemies. Like France and Germany. What does Pakistan do? It innovates on terrorism by carrying it out under a nuclear umbrella.

There is precedence for this. It is US vs USSR waged through proxies and insurgencies under a nuclear umbrella. US wanted to dismantle USSR and not just ensure its security. Somehow US believed US was capitalism and freedom (like how Pakistan is Islam) and capitalism khatrey mein hai as long as socialist USSR (secular Hindu India) exists. Pakis have learned pretty much the same lesson of Jihad under nuclear umbrella during cold ear in Afghanistan and want to go the same route with India.

They are missing two key elements though. US used other countries population as radical Jihadis. Pakistan, like Kalidasa is cutting the same branch it is sitting on by radicalizing its own population. Secondly US had an economy that could sustain decades of fight with USSR. Pakis don't have that.

...dependent on Indian whims for trade and economy and security.

Pakistan a Ukraine to Delhi's Putin? Is there anything other than a phantasmic fear? Is even tiny Bhutan in that situation?

shiv wrote:

rajpa wrote: How do you make it more and more costly for them to support Pakistan, if you do not directly address them as enemy?

Just grow and become big.

Doc - Like the China/Senkaku example, that in itself is not a strategy - perhaps the way to put it is to grow big but not too big. Or just grow big enough to do the trick

A_Gupta wrote:

...dependent on Indian whims for trade and economy and security.

Pakistan a Ukraine to Delhi's Putin? Is there anything other than a phantasmic fear? Is even tiny Bhutan in that situation?

It is a psychological weapon. It is called putting a gun to one's own head. So far, Pakistan's only effective weapon.

Even when there is no threat, TSP will create an imaginary ogre that holds a gun in their own hands and points it to their head. Eventually, they make a Gollum out of themselves.

A_Gupta it goes back to Dar-ul-Islam(land of peace) and Dar-ul-Harab (Land of war). TSP as an Islamic state is in perpetual state of war. Yet the modern nation-state system treats TSP as a legitimate modern state.
However India is exercising strategic cluelessness as it can absorb the pin pricks, which befuddles the four-fathers. Hence arming the RAT with nukes by four fathers.

TSP is Pakjabi jihadi state created by UK to be their sword arm.

Might have worked in an earlier era but in modern world its irrelevant.

rajpa, one way to make them wear other shoe is cut of the legs or smash it so they can wear a shoe.

I called TSP a kabila with the TSPA as kabila guards.

If you take the big picture even Soviet Union was that.
How did it end?
True economic collpase helped but the final nail in the coffin was the stupid coup which showed the average Russain how mindless the kabila was and discredited the kabila guards.

Same way TSP people have to reject the primacy of TSPA.

They know that and hence cannot accpet any defeat but will spin it as a vioctory for not having been beheaded.

Mrs G hoped that 93K POWS returned to TSP would make regime change like in 1917 Moscow. However it was not same situation as the command structure in TSP was still intact.
And TSPA will always have generals coups and never a colonels coup.

Anujan wrote: It is actually an interesting question. Recall that just surviving wars is a victory for Pakistan against India. Correspondingly, then surviving terrorism is a victory for India against Pakistan.

LOL That is the way we like to see it.

But extending Fair's observations you see that failure of terrorism is not a victory for India, but conducting terrorist attacks is victory for Pakistan.

And if you look back at the history of Pakistan - it used to be conventional war -> defeat in that war -> but victory for the Paki army because they survived. Now it is Terrorist attacks -> little effect on India -> victory for the Paki army because Paki army survives after conducting the attack.

So ultimately, if you see that Pakistan has lost all wars but the Paki army has won, and terrorist attacks have done little to bring India down, but still the Paki army has won So if India has also not lost then who has lost?

The losers are those who are paying the Paki army. The US and China have lost some. The people of Pakistan are losing a lot. In fact both are good outcomes for India, if we ignore our periodic deaths from terrorism.

ramana wrote: I called TSP a kabila with the TSPA as kabila guards.

ramana - the word used by Fair that IMO exactly equals kabila guards is "international insurgents". It is not an army that fights proper army wars - but fights a guerilla/asymmetric campaign and never loses as long as it can run back and survive in its current kabila.

Fair also makes an interesting point in saying that the Brits had a "forward policy" where the NWFP was frontier, Afghanistan was buffer and Punjab was mainland. At other times Indus was border and NWFP was buffer.

For Pakistan too, NWFP and Taliban was frontier that kept Afghanistan and Soviets at bay. Now Indus is the border.

But Britain was ruling in Kolkata or Delhi, and ultimately London, and was hardly pressed whether border was further east or further west. Pakis have a strip of land between LOC and India - that is all. Either Pakistan defeats India, or it controls NWFP. If it can do neither - then Pakistan is simply a strip of land between Indus river and LOC.

A_Gupta wrote:It suggests then, that the only way forward is to make Pakistan utterly irrelevant. That is a hard thing to do with a country that fights jihad under a nuclear umbrella.

IMVHO it's very possible. A lot of pakis might buy into all the martial bullshit of standing up to the kaffir, most of them don't gain financially from it. This must be the case even in punjab, which is the fount of anti india sentiment, as cfair points out. Their resistance to financial integration with India is futile. It's only our incompetence in growing our economy since independence that the Pakis have been able to sell the story that they can stand up to us. Even with our current economy, a lot of people don't seem to buy that.

Third Place is an Insult:Pakistan must be Number One
Pakistan ranks third for bomb blasts in the world

LONDON- Between 2008 and 2013, Pakistan saw roughly two major bombings per day, each blast wounding or killing an average of at least five people.The attacks, including the use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), has made Pakistan one of the most dangerous places in the world, according to Iain Overton, policy director of the London-based Action on Armed Violence (AOAV). "One of the major problems is the amount of munitions coming from Afghanistan into Pakistan and the spread of extremist views that causes the use of IEDs as a normalized form of weaponry," Overton said.Pakistan now has the third highest homemade bomb and suicide blast rate in the world, higher than even neighboring Afghanistan. According to a recently published AOAV report, victims of bombs that detonate in densely populated urban areas are predominantly civilian. Overton says bombs used in Pakistan range from pressure cooker devices to small magnetized explosives that attach to cars, suicide-bomb vests and belts, and vehicle-borne bombs which tend to carry large amounts of explosives.Some of the devices are constructed using techniques developed by militants in Iraq and Afghanistan. Analysts say the bombs have a devastating effect on the country, not only demoralizing those who begin to doubt government safeguards, but also inflicting heavy psychological and physical costs.

Curzon, who created NWFP and hived of parts of it to Balochistan and West Punjab, gave a lecture on "Frontiers" in the Romanes series in London. This idea of frontiers is very clearly exposed in that lecture. The next luminary was Oalfe Caroe, who was Governor of NWFP just prior to Independence.

Yes Pakistan has two choices: take over Afghanistan(Strategic Depth) or be strip of land between India and Afghanistan.


This strategic depth has been executed many times in India.
- Humayun's escape to Persia to return after Sher Shah Suri's death
- Asaf Jah, Nizam-ul-Mulk retreat to Hyderabad, Deccan to preserve the Mughal culture there. The British even allowed the Nizam to declare himself independent king after Bahadur Shah Zafar was exiled to Burma.
- The mother of all retreats with Muhammad retreating to Medina and retaking Mecca later.

So this strategic retreat to preserve the meme is a recurring theme in Muslim India.

See how Razakars under MIM has come to power in Telangana now.

Doctor, school principal among seven people shot dead in city

KARACHI: Seven persons including a doctor, school head and a policeman were gunned down in separate incidents in fresh wave of violence in city on Friday, police said.

Cheers

ramana wrote:Curzon, who created NWFP and hived of parts of it to Balochistan and West Punjab, gave a lecture on "Frontiers" in the Romanes series in London. This idea of frontiers is very clearly exposed in that lecture. The next luminary was Oalfe Caroe, who was Governor of NWFP just prior to Independence.

The text of Curzon's lecture: (PDF)
https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/re ... curzon.pdf

Peregrine wrote:Doctor, school principal among seven people shot dead in city

KARACHI: Seven persons including a doctor, school head and a policeman were gunned down in separate incidents in fresh wave of violence in city on Friday, police said.

Cheers

Ahmedi or Shia?

shiv wrote: However.. there is a third option. For no real reason Fair may have made me persona non grata on her Twitter account - I think she got pissed off by my smart aleck but non vulgar replies. But what I wanted to ask her was the idea that I have - that is gradually make the Pakistan army weaker and weaker and weaker. Given Pakistan's economy their military is dependent mostly on aid. That aid will have to stop - particularly US aid. Saudi and Chinese aid IMO are less relevant. Already the Pakistan army is "international insurgents" (International Gorillay?) as Fair says. Push it so far down the path that they have no chance of winning conventional war against even a relatively weak adversary. They will, of course have nukes - but it needs to be made expensive for them. No electricity, no literacy, no human development but an expensive nuclear program and an army that gets no aid but grabs money from the country. This is what Pakistanis deserve and I would not worry too much about the consequences. There are no consequences that I can think of that would be set in motion by a weak Paki army that cannot be done by a strong army - so I can't see why there will be any increased risk of anything. People will argue that they will be more likely to use nukes - but they are already at a stage when they have openly threatened or readied nukes. So we are past that.

Shiv saar, I am a newbie at figuring out Pakistanis, so I crave your indulgence right off the bat. Now, the Pakistani military has, for all its sins, a considerable amount of political power. Let us imagine that they are made weaker and weaker to the point that they can no longer even think of a conventional fight against India. But if you weaken their fighting powers, you will also weaken their political powers. They will lose prestige, and more and more, become a laughing stock in their own country. But the question remains - what will take their place? If the Pakistani military is weakened to the extent that they can no longer influence politics, won't the Lashkari types take their place in politics as well? Now, from India's point of view, this is no big deal. After all, whether we are dealing with a bunch of uniformless terrorists or uniformed one, it is irrelevant. But the US is getting some benefits from the Pakistani Army/ISI for its largesse to the uniformed terrorists. How are we going to sell to the US that it is in their interests to weaken the military? How do we sell to the US that the arrival of the uniform-less terrorists is not such a bad thing? And if they come to power, what will they demand from the US? After all, putting a pistol to one's own head is not a strategy owned by the Army. Won't the Lashkari Jihadists also put a pistol to their own heads and demand baksheesh from the US? What will be the net benefit for us, in that case?

nageshks wrote: But if you weaken their fighting powers, you will also weaken their political powers. They will lose prestige, and more and more, become a laughing stock in their own country. But the question remains - what will take their place? If the Pakistani military is weakened to the extent that they can no longer influence politics, won't the Lashkari types take their place in politics as well? Now, from India's point of view, this is no big deal. After all, whether we are dealing with a bunch of uniformless terrorists or uniformed one, it is irrelevant. But the US is getting some benefits from the Pakistani Army/ISI for its largesse to the uniformed terrorists. How are we going to sell to the US that it is in their interests to weaken the military? How do we sell to the US that the arrival of the uniform-less terrorists is not such a bad thing?

As I see it, we sell the US nothing, and give away nothing either.

This is a vague replay of irresistible force versus immovable object. The US keeps buttressing the Paki army (whose sole aim is to hurt India) and India simply thwarts every effort no matter how much aid the US provides to the Paki army. In fact this is pretty much what has happened from 1947.

What this has resulted in is EXACTLY what you have said - i.e. a gradual reduction of Paki army political clout and increase in jihadi clout. The US tried to sidestep this using fake assumptions based possibly on Paki promises. The US thought that Pakistan could really pull off the act of nurturing India specific jihadis while preventing jihads in general from hurting US interests. In fact jihadis under Paki guidance were expected to promote US interests like freedom and democracy. This has failed because jihad is not a Pakistani idea - it is lifted from Islam and probably the Quran/hadith/sura.

If C.Fair is to be believed - the US thought Muslims are good just like Christians until 2001 (9/11) They have started having other thoughts after 9/11. That means that it is entirely to our advantage to ensure that the US keeps getting attacked by Pakistani jihadis - and this in fact is just what has happened. the US has responded by paying the Pakistani army more (after 9-11) thinking that this will stop jihadis from attacking US interests. But the US has not realized that the Pakistani army itself is a jihadi force. The Paki army was the best specifically anti-India jihadi force in the world with enough discipline to avoid attacking the US, but after they lost all wars against India they have preserved themselves by letting Lashkars do the job. And the lashkars are now out of control.

The Lashkars cannot be controlled as long as the Pakistan army is training and funding them as autonomous "non state" forces to hit India. The Pakistan army will not stop training or funding them as long as they have the money and the incentive - which comes from US aid and US arms. If the US thinks the Paki army is good we (India) cannot convince them. But we can ensure that the Pakistan army continues to feel very threatened by us so that they keep on funding and arming Lashkars. Those Lashkars will attack anyone - including the US. This will be a vicious circle with no end - but we have no other option.

The fear that has been expressed is that after the US leaves Afghanistan, the Paki army will simply prevail and things will return to the bad old days. There is an interesting thing here. For India "bad old days" is from 1947, For USA, bad old days is after 2001. If post US withdrawal Afghanistan goes so far out of control that training camps sending jihadis to attack Europe and US targets - I think it will be a good thing for India. It will teach the US that the problem lies in propping up the Pakistan army. Of course jihadis will attack us as well. But we have been fighting that since 1947. The US only opened its eyes after 2001. And they looked in the wrong direction.

We should not convince the US. Let jihadis attack US interests and do the convincing. All we need to do is to look after ourselves and not solve any problems for the US. The US has never ever been interested in solving the jihad problem that India has faced from 1947. They are not about to start solving Indian problems now. But if that jihad hits the US - it's a good thing (for India) to have the US and jihadis hitting each other

Peregrine wrote:Doctor, school principal among seven people shot dead in city

KARACHI: Seven persons including a doctor, school head and a policeman were gunned down in separate incidents in fresh wave of violence in city on Friday, police said.

Cheers

Malsi in good Mood today in Pakistan. Jummeh Ki H &D is protected for a week now.

For those BRFites who might wonder how jihadis, who were allies of the Pakistani army and created by the Paki army went out of control, watch this great Mickey Mouse cartoon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHTnJNGvQcA