Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 2011

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Dec 2011 14:01

Sanku ji,

thanks for spelling out the case. I noticed later, that basically I only repeated you!

It seems the piskology of this "to make us feel better" piskological argument against retaliation is itself "to make us feel better" because it presupposes that that is the only reason for retaliating, and if we do not "give in" to that "basic instinct", then we have achieved a great goal in claiming "control over our basic instincts", something far better than what we would have got from retaliating! Complete bliss through and through!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2011 14:42

Sanku wrote: Case in point is what we did to East Bengal, we supported the Mukti Bahini for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukti_Bahini

It was dynamically formed by (mostly) Bengali regulars and civilians after the proclamation of Bangladesh's independence on March 26, 1971. Subsequently by mid-April 1971, the Bengali officers and soldiers of East Bengal Regiments formed the "Bangladesh Armed Forces" and M. A. G. Osmani assumed its command. The civilian groups continued to assist the armed forces during the war. After the war Mukti Bahini became the general term to refer to all forces (military and civilian) of former East Pakistani origin fighting against the Pakistani armed forces during the Bangladesh Liberation War.

How many years did "we" support the Mukti Bahini?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Dec 2011 14:53

shiv wrote: How many years did "we" support the Mukti Bahini?

Supposedly much before 71, in a more more clandestine manner. Let me look for supporting evidence on the net. In any case even if we started in Jan-Feb of 71 (after the 70s election) that is still a year.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Dec 2011 14:54

RajeshA wrote:Sanku ji,

thanks for spelling out the case.

Thanks RajeshA-ji; we certainly are in agreement here.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Dec 2011 14:59

shiv ji, soon after formation of R&AW IIRC.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2011 15:08

Pranav wrote:
shiv wrote:Why would India want to use tit for tat pinpricks on Pakistan that do not deconstruct the state?
So then you suggest an all-out war?

I suggest nothing. I am saying that all out war had been interfered with by the USA in 2001-2 as well as other occasions when war was thought to be imminent. The US's role is powerful and not neutral. It seeks Pakistan's survival as a nation to keep the "balance of power"

If you conduct punitive strikes on a nation such as Pakistan, you must be prepared for war and must be prepared to win that war if it occurs. In the case of Pakistan "winning" a war would, in my view, be the end of Pakistan as a nation state - perhaps split into at least two parts.

Preparing to win a war means considering all possible consequences before engaging in that war. If the chances of failure are high it might be better not to get into that war in the first place. What would constitute "failure" in a war with Pakistan? In my view, survival of Pakistan as a nation state to take aid from donors and continue to attack India would be failure of war aims. Why would that be "failure" if we have "punished" the Pakistani army? It would be failure because the Pakistan army survives like it survived the 1971 war and Kargil. If we have Pakistan attacking us with terror and economic warfare before and after a war, what has the war achieved other than make up poorer and making Pakistan even more dependent on the USA?

Can Pakistan avoid such a fate in a war with India? Imagine India conducts punitive raids on Hafiz Saeed's meeting and kills him. Pakistan then responds with action to provoke all out war, what sort of reasonable guarantee can we have that this war will end with a conclusion that is best for us - that is no more Pakistan?

We can wargame this as much as we want but if we are going to do that it would be a good idea to see that the Pakistanis say about all out war with India. They say that they will sue for peace (UN sponsored, US supported) within weeks and call for a cease fire. Alternatively they will use nukes. These facts make war unwinnable in the time frame we have for it. We will have to prepare to fight that war with Pakisatn to the bitter end, dicing Pakistan into pieces even if it leads to nuclear war.

The bitter truth is that Pakistan has India by the balls and all this blaming of MMS is merely Indians thrashing about in frustration that X is weak, Y as leader would be strong. It is all nonsense. Pakistan has us by the testimonials and with US connivance we are basically tied down. And having been tied down we are being taunted by Pakistanis and criticised by frustrated Indians that we are cowards.

Well we are. People calling for punishment of Pakistan may not be cowards. They may all be very brave people. But India is a cowardly nation that fears the consequences of an unwinnable war with Pakistan. India is not going to be punishing Pakistan anytime soon except the off chance that another Mumbai occurs and there may or may not be some temporary sound and light.

This is called cowardice. The fear of not wining a war with Pakistan is called cowardice. Lots of Indians are unashamed cowards. If you are not one well you have some choices open to you.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Dec 2011 15:14

Rahul M wrote:shiv ji, soon after formation of R&AW IIRC.

Thanks Rahul-M boss

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/geop ... adesh.html

In the first few months after its formation, he gave it two priority tasks--- to strengthen its capability for the collection of intelligence about Pakistan and China and for covert action in East Pakistan.

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... r4805.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2011 15:21

Sanku wrote:
Rahul M wrote:shiv ji, soon after formation of R&AW IIRC.
Thanks Rahul-M boss

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/geop ... adesh.html

In the first few months after its formation, he gave it two priority tasks--- to strengthen its capability for the collection of intelligence about Pakistan and China and for covert action in East Pakistan.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... r4805.html

Sanku I can see no reference to the statement that the Mukti Bahini was supported for years by RAW or anyone else. May I point out a problem in a Mukti Bahini that was supported "for years" but was unknown to anyone till 1971? It is easy to make up a story now and say that india is covertly supporting an insurgency in Pakistan No one knows it yet. It will become known in due course. because the fighting has not started it is unknown.

That of course is as much a concoction as the idea that the Mukti Bahini was supported for years. before 1971.

From the Indian defence review link posted by you

The 1971 war against Pakistan was not a war won by India alone. It was a war jointly won by India and the people of East Pakistan. It would be wrong to project that India was the architect of an independent Bangladesh. India’s role was more as a facilitator than as a creator.

Without the desire and the will of the people of East Pakistan to be independent, there would have been no Bangladesh. Their sacrifices for their cause were immense.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Dec 2011 15:37

shiv wrote:
Sanku I can see no reference to the statement that the Mukti Bahini was supported for years by RAW or anyone else. May I point out a problem in a Mukti Bahini that was supported "for years" but was unknown to anyone till 1971?

Why? That is how covert systems work. It is hardly likely that covert support would be published very openly either (either then or now) -- what we do see is that RAW was tasked in 68 for covert ops inside BD that much is clearly put out.

This may not be technically same as "supporting Mukti Bahini" but that is semantics.

India had been supporting Mujib over a decade for example, yes technically he was not a Mukti Joddha then, but then again he was asking for demands which were more aligned with Indian PoV than Pakistans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Mujibur_Rahman

He was tried in 1968 for allegedly conspiring with the Indian government but was not found guilty.

RAW and before that IB had been actively working on cultivating Bengali leaders and politicians against the "idea of Pakistan" -- these are all various types of support to a Bengali identity that finally culminated in BD.

The overall point which must be kept in mind, and not lost in pisko-analysis charkavhyu is that a eventual decapitating war is always preceded by years of jockeying for position. For which all manners of overt & covert punishments are needed as well as inducements.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Dec 2011 15:48

Many Indians are perfectionists. Their conditions for going to war, or to assassinate some terrorist, etc. should meet all the conditions. There should be no international fallout. There should be no "failure" - in fact nothing that can be construed as failure by some journo anywhere in the world. There should be threat of nuclear war. It should be a clear war. India should not be seen as anti-Islamic. There must be a final solution to the Pakistan problem. We need to have full control over the fallout from war, etc. etc..

We have in fact pushed ourselves into a corner through these preconditions. But all these preconditions are simply to set the bar very high, so high that we and reality never can reach there.

The thing is a retaliation would bring about a change in dynamics. We have to learn to adjust to post-retaliation dynamics accordingly. We cannot plan everything out before we take the first step. We need to go and do wild river rafting more often.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 27 Dec 2011 15:57

shiv wrote:
Pranav wrote:quote="shiv"]Why would India want to use tit for tat pinpricks on Pakistan that do not deconstruct the state?/quote]

So then you suggest an all-out war?

I suggest nothing. I am saying that all out war had been interfered with by the USA in 2001-2 as well as other occasions when war was thought to be imminent. The US's role is powerful and not neutral. It seeks Pakistan's survival as a nation to keep the "balance of power"

If you conduct punitive strikes on a nation such as Pakistan, you must be prepared for war and must be prepared to win that war if it occurs. In the case of Pakistan "winning" a war would, in my view, be the end of Pakistan as a nation state - perhaps split into at least two parts.

Preparing to win a war means considering all possible consequences before engaging in that war. If the chances of failure are high it might be better not to get into that war in the first place. What would constitute "failure" in a war with Pakistan? In my view, survival of Pakistan as a nation state to take aid from donors and continue to attack India would be failure of war aims. Why would that be "failure" if we have "punished" the Pakistani army? It would be failure because the Pakistan army survives like it survived the 1971 war and Kargil. If we have Pakistan attacking us with terror and economic warfare before and after a war, what has the war achieved other than make up poorer and making Pakistan even more dependent on the USA?

Can Pakistan avoid such a fate in a war with India? Imagine India conducts punitive raids on Hafiz Saeed's meeting and kills him. Pakistan then responds with action to provoke all out war, what sort of reasonable guarantee can we have that this war will end with a conclusion that is best for us - that is no more Pakistan?

We can wargame this as much as we want but if we are going to do that it would be a good idea to see that the Pakistanis say about all out war with India. They say that they will sue for peace (UN sponsored, US supported) within weeks and call for a cease fire. Alternatively they will use nukes. These facts make war unwinnable in the time frame we have for it. We will have to prepare to fight that war with Pakisatn to the bitter end, dicing Pakistan into pieces even if it leads to nuclear war.

The bitter truth is that Pakistan has India by the balls and all this blaming of MMS is merely Indians thrashing about in frustration that X is weak, Y as leader would be strong. It is all nonsense. Pakistan has us by the testimonials and with US connivance we are basically tied down. And having been tied down we are being taunted by Pakistanis and criticised by frustrated Indians that we are cowards.

Well we are. People calling for punishment of Pakistan may not be cowards. They may all be very brave people. But India is a cowardly nation that fears the consequences of an unwinnable war with Pakistan. India is not going to be punishing Pakistan anytime soon except the off chance that another Mumbai occurs and there may or may not be some temporary sound and light.

This is called cowardice. The fear of not wining a war with Pakistan is called cowardice. Lots of Indians are unashamed cowards. If you are not one well you have some choices open to you.

To add to why I agree with Shiv point is, that for long Indian Masses have been sold by Indian Elite through Media that wars do not solve problems. For Eg. B Dutt , Yasin Malik etc have repeatedly used this saying there is only a political solution and 1947, 1965 and 1971 wars were useless and hence we should agree to Paki demands.

In case of anther war and Paki state survives then this constituency will again use this as psy-ops and going by past experience vast sections of the Indian populace will support giving concessions to Pakis saying War is not the solution.

And if you see over the last 5 years, Pakis have inducted a lot of armaments to their war BVR missiles, artillery etc etc.

There is no point in getting into a war/ war like situation when given the conventional balance, the TSP state survives. It is better to wait until TSP deteriorates and thanks to cronic Islamism makes itself a pest that more people come to see India's stand than take deceive action.

Further, anther problem is Indian Army/ society many still has not seen the rot that has got into paki society. I don't we have the gumption to do the necessary shock treatment which do the correction. Pakis need a Somalia like civil war and resulting human catastrophe before they(along Indian Elites/ population supportive of them) start realizing their past sins and take corrective steps.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2011 15:58

Sanku wrote:
Sanku I can see no reference to the statement that the Mukti Bahini was supported for years by RAW or anyone else. May I point out a problem in a Mukti Bahini that was supported "for years" but was unknown to anyone till 1971?
Why? That is how covert systems work. It is hardly likely that covert support would be published very openly either (either then or now) -- what we do see is that RAW was tasked in 68 for covert ops inside BD that much is clearly put out.

This may not be technically same as "supporting Mukti Bahini" but that is semantics.

Sanku on the topic of semantics and specious arguments, you are quite right in saying that if support was covert, we would not have known about it. I can assure you that I was a daily newspaper reader from 1965 at least (no TV in those days) and the Mukti Bahini were unknown to the public until mid-1971.

Now here's the crunch. If you do not know about covert action, how do you say that action is NOT occuring? It could be happening today, like all those years of support you claim the Mukti Bahini by some other name got. How are you so sure that India is not playing a covert game in Pakistan? How do you find it easy to contrast the "years of nurturing" of the Banglas prior to 1971 with a lack of any action now? If I say "Things are being done in Pakistan today. Insurgents are being supported. Covert war is being fought" and offer you the same sort of proof you have offered about support to the Mukti Bahini for years there should be no reason for anyone to think that India is weak and cowardly. Ultimately this is all maya. We like to have our own beliefs that make us comfortable. You choose to criticise someone today because you believe in the maya that India was supporting the Mukti Bahini for years. You do not want to believe in the maya that India is active in Pakistan today.

Whether we see covert action or not the fact is Pakistan hits us with US support and there is zilch we can do to hit back. If we are doing something covert, it does not make anyone any more happy than any pre-1971 support to the Mukti Bahini.

We may get hit again. We are unlikely to hit back. Not just because MMS is weak. He leads a weak cowardly nation. It's not "someone else" who is weak. Its us. The nation is weak and cowardly no matter who the leader might be. It's these sleazy Indians and their sleazy Indian rope trick army who just caint be capable.

Unless you can claim allegiance to a brave non-weak land like Pakistan. Or America.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2011 16:01

Aditya_V wrote: And if you see over the last 5 years, Pakis have inducted a lot of armaments to their war BVR missiles, artillery etc etc.

There is no point in getting into a war/ war like situation when given the conventional balance, the TSP state survives. It is better to wait until TSP deteriorates and thanks to cronic Islamism makes itself a pest that more people come to see India's stand than take deceive action.

There is a better solution that that. Get the US out of Pakistan. That will be a major step forward. They are there only to support and help Pakistan. They say so themselves.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Dec 2011 16:19

shiv wrote: Sanku on the topic of semantics and specious arguments,......
Now here's the crunch. If you do not know about covert action, how do you say that action is NOT occuring?

Banglas prior to 1971 with a lack of any action now? If I say "Things are being done in Pakistan today. Insurgents are being supported. Covert war is being fought" and offer you the same sort of proof you have offered about support to the Mukti Bahini for years there should be no reason for anyone to think that India is weak and cowardly.

Not just because MMS is weak. He leads a weak cowardly nation. It's not "someone else" who is weak. Its us.

Unless you can claim allegiance to a brave non-weak land like Pakistan. Or America.

I knew that the discussion would get here

-- now I offer some thoughts of mine. No proofs, only thoughts and beliefs as I see it.

1) WE are not weak, in fact we are stronger than we appear but cant seem to use all that heft (in terms of eventual visible results in many areas including economics) -- the reason I "admire" (no doubt you are aware of my deep allegiance to US of A

) -- is that they consistently manage to punch significantly above their weight (partly mind games or maya) given what a bunch of barbarians they really are -- just like Pakis.

2) OUR strength is some times used well, examples are IG, ABV etc. And good leader even make a virtue of predicament: PVNR. So with the same ship, the captains hand is very visible. And the differences are stark. It takes a special hand to turn a strength to weakness: Shri MMS.

3) Can the covert actions be happening today without newspapers covering it ? Like in late 60s. Yes it can. However even in late 60s there were other indicators -- IGs breathing fire, diplomatic and peaceful support to certain causes etc. So while the knife may not be seen, the shadows are visible.

Today there are no shadows of covert action today . The little there are tell a different story -- so a covert situation is unlikely

3a) The situation between 60s and 201x are not identical; the BD effort needed relatively quiter actions, the current situations demand a more robust and visible approach -- more covert actions --- covert for newspaper but talked about in whispers in unmentionable places, some of which are like BRF and Nightwatch etc.

3b) On covert actions being actually there and me being in the dark -- if I am wrong about MMS being a wimp we will find out soon enough -- when Indian moves to lop of one of the heads of the hydra -- even then, I would be right at least on one count

-- that covert actions are needed and good.

i) So either we are not doing a enough and MMS is a wimp -- in that case I win since I called it right
ii) I am wrong and MMS is actually preparing to hand out one -- in that case I win double since an idiot like me was taken good care of by GoI

I would prefer (ii) but I am fairly certain that (i) is a more correct approximation of reality.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 27 Dec 2011 16:27

shiv wrote:
Aditya_V wrote: And if you see over the last 5 years, Pakis have inducted a lot of armaments to their war BVR missiles, artillery etc etc.

There is no point in getting into a war/ war like situation when given the conventional balance, the TSP state survives. It is better to wait until TSP deteriorates and thanks to cronic Islamism makes itself a pest that more people come to see India's stand than take deceive action.
There is a better solution that that. Get the US out of Pakistan. That will be a major step forward. They are there only to support and help Pakistan. They say so themselves.

That will not happen until the public in western nations are forced by certain events to understand the dangers of Pakistani Ideology. Unfortunately people need to be at the receiving end of the Terror to understand it is not such a good thing to support States where Jihad is an integral part of Foreign Policy and Army. The Sale of BVR equipped F-16 was all about Balance of power and nothing to do with the Taliban.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Dec 2011 16:28

shiv wrote: Can Pakistan avoid such a fate in a war with India? Imagine India conducts punitive raids on Hafiz Saeed's meeting and kills him. Pakistan then responds with action to provoke all out war, what sort of reasonable guarantee can we have that this war will end with a conclusion that is best for us - that is no more Pakistan?

Actually that is some what mistaken. If WE start a war, we might need a solid goal such as breaking Pakistan into two.

If we keep hitting Pakistan is visible ways that it is forced into launching a war out of frustration (if they could remotely think they can launch a war from position of strength they would have already) -- we win anyway

Because
0) In this case our goals are very modest -- we merely need to push back the Pakis while getting a chance to wreck TSPA openly further.
1) We get to wail to all the world about poor bizness minded SDRE bania being hurt by mard-e-momin.
2) In the ensuing confusion we get to land a few more thappads -- increasing our disparity.

So our goal should be to be to hate war and never start it -- but then the peace conditions should be ours, and god forbid if war comes, Pakistan should be so shattered -- that it breaks of its own accord, apparently without our help after the war.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2011 17:07

Sanku wrote: If we keep hitting Pakistan is visible ways that it is forced into launching a war out of frustration (if they could remotely think they can launch a war from position of strength they would have already) -- we win anyway

Sanku its too late in history for that.

In 1947 Pakistan lied and said "india grabbed Kashmir. So we fought"
In 1965 Pakis lied and said "india attacked. So we fought"
In 1971 Pakis lied and said "India provoked, so we fought"
In 1999 there was no war, only a freedom fight in Kashmir by Mujahidden
In 2001 and 2008 Indians lied about Pakistani involvement so that they could attack Pakistan.

Pakistan's alliance with the US is on the premise that india will always attack first. By attacking Pakistan, India makes that prediction come true, leading to a reputation that India is an aggresor nation and Pakistan an aggrieved party that needs help against india. That is what the US is doing.

If the US is kicked out, this particular tamasha cannot continue.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 27 Dec 2011 17:38

Remove heavy guns from LoC: Pakistan

Islamabad suggested that artillery of greater than 120 mm be moved 30 km from the LoC. The LoC divides Jammu and Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

Any idea why Pakistan is suggesting this?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 Dec 2011 18:18

Shortage of green paint in pureland?

Tensions rise between Pakistan's civilian leaders and its military

Pakistan was unlikely to respond to India's forthcoming missile test, because its own program is technically more advanced than India's, they said.

"It is not always a question of whose missiles go furthest. It's more a question of having the capability to control flight path and range," said Maria Sultan, a think tank chief who advises the Pakistani ministry of defense on nuclear non-proliferation.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Dec 2011 18:53

What does this honey-trap woman mean by saying 'controlling flight path & range' ? I could not understand that.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 27 Dec 2011 18:55

I think she reads the post by mortullah ji

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Dec 2011 18:57

RajeshA, we have a good example of what you're advocating - Israel and its enemies, blow for blow. So that is understandable. India following such a policy with Pakistan will certainly achieve something. What is not clear is what exactly that is? And, can just a majority of BRF endorse this policy?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Dec 2011 19:09

Sanku wrote: This may not be technically same as "supporting Mukti Bahini" but that is semantics.

India had been supporting Mujib over a decade for example, yes technically he was not a Mukti Joddha then, but then again he was asking for demands which were more aligned with Indian PoV than Pakistans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Mujibur_Rahman

He was tried in 1968 for allegedly conspiring with the Indian government but was not found guilty.

If the courts that supported the bureaucratic-military elite and allowed them to trample over Pakistan's constitution could not find Sheikh Mujibur Rahman guilty, then it was clearly Pakistani paranoia only.

IMO, if Yahya Khan had convened Parliament and if the Pakjabi elite had submitted to Sheikh Mujibur Rehman as Prime Minister, Pakistan would still be united, no matter what covert action India was or was not taking.

There is the good point about being prepared for opportunity, but in 1971, it was the West Pakistanis that created that opportunity wholesale.

IMO, the current opportunity, if there is one, is a Pakistan-fail in Afghanistan. We are very far from any opportunity in Sind or Balochistan.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Dec 2011 19:13

RajeshA wrote:Many Indians are perfectionists. Their conditions for going to war, or to assassinate some terrorist, etc. should meet all the conditions. There should be no international fallout. There should be no "failure" - in fact nothing that can be construed as failure by some journo anywhere in the world. There should be threat of nuclear war. It should be a clear war. India should not be seen as anti-Islamic. There must be a final solution to the Pakistan problem. We need to have full control over the fallout from war, etc. etc..

But all I'm asking for is what is the goal, what do you hope to achieve?
What is the war aim? How does the action change the strategic landscape? Lastly, can you build a consensus just among BRF about it? (As the person asking questions, I need not be counted in a consensus.)

PS: It is that time of year, when my employer asks employees to set goals for 2012. With that perspective, I notice most of the proposals here would not pass; perhaps they need not, but I thought you should know wherefrom comes my line of thought.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2011 19:18

RajeshA wrote:Many Indians are perfectionists. Their conditions for going to war, or to assassinate some terrorist, etc. should meet all the conditions. There should be no international fallout. There should be no "failure" - in fact nothing that can be construed as failure by some journo anywhere in the world. There should be threat of nuclear war. It should be a clear war. India should not be seen as anti-Islamic. There must be a final solution to the Pakistan problem. We need to have full control over the fallout from war, etc. etc..

We have in fact pushed ourselves into a corner through these preconditions. But all these preconditions are simply to set the bar very high, so high that we and reality never can reach there.

Rajesh you are wrong. You just have not read about military planning, good and bad. There is plenty of material, but your interests and reading are clearly different. There is no other way to plan war.

It is easy to talk war and retaliation when you ignore the fact that you are sending some men to their deaths. How many men you keep sending and for how long and to what end becomes a political problem. So this rhetoric about "perfectionist" and "self defeating" is just that - rhetoric to post a contrarian argument and one ignorant of military planning at that.

That is not to say that leaders have not thought the way you think. But they lose wars. the US has lost many wars in this way but has glossed over them. Vietnam, was a great example. Afghanistan is one more. But let me just point you to a quote from a book that I posted in the mil forum in another context.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1217301
From SLA Marshall's famous book "Men Against Fire" - page 19

There is one controlling truth from all past wars which applies with equal weight to any war of tomorrow. No nation on earth possesses such limitless resources that it can maintain itself in a state of perfect readiness to engage in war immediately and decisively and win a total victory soon after the outbreak without destroying its own economy, pauperizing its own people, and promoting interior disorder

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 27 Dec 2011 19:27

shiv wrote:
Sanku wrote: If we keep hitting Pakistan is visible ways that it is forced into launching a war out of frustration (if they could remotely think they can launch a war from position of strength they would have already) -- we win anyway
Sanku its too late in history for that.

In 1947 Pakistan lied and said "india grabbed Kashmir. So we fought"
In 1965 Pakis lied and said "india attacked. So we fought"
In 1971 Pakis lied and said "India provoked, so we fought"
In 1999 there was no war, only a freedom fight in Kashmir by Mujahidden
In 2001 and 2008 Indians lied about Pakistani involvement so that they could attack Pakistan.

Pakistan's alliance with the US is on the premise that india will always attack first. By attacking Pakistan, India makes that prediction come true, leading to a reputation that India is an aggresor nation and Pakistan an aggrieved party that needs help against india. That is what the US is doing.

If the US is kicked out, this particular tamasha cannot continue.

Saar,
but the tamasha continued because US wanted the tamasha to continue i.e. Pak's lies were accepted as truth by US because it wanted to do so. So, even if India restraints itself, the narrative will not be changed by the US or Pakistan unless one of them wants to change it. Similarly, even if India goes aggressive(and proves the narrative), India is losing nothing because the image of India as aggressor nation has already been woven.

If tomorrow, it suits them, then the same Pakistan and US will portray India as a docile nation even if India behaves aggressively.

In short, India's behaviour(passive or aggressive) has nothing to do with the image created by US or Pakistan. The image was created to suit their needs and objectives. They will say and do what suits them. By taking their talk seriously, India would not be doing any favour to itself.

So, India needs to act aggressively or passively depending on its own calculations of its own needs and aims without giving too much credence to the biased voices of other nations.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2011 20:33

johneeG wrote: Similarly, even if India goes aggressive(and proves the narrative), India is losing nothing because the image of India as aggressor nation has already been woven.

I think my words will be misunderstood no matter how many times I say them. This is not just about "Log kya kahenge" but about providing diplomatic, financial and military support to Pakistan merely to keep "aggressor nation" India in check. That is the problem. I am not talking about the reputation. I am talking about the consequences of the reputation.

All you need to do is go back 10 years to 2001. What did Bush want? What did Pakistanis ask for, and get, in return? Talking aggression is one thing. But being aggressive with Pakistan when the US has actually interfered using its intel , military and diplomatic capability is something that India has wisely shied away from. Each time India fights a war with Pakistan, we lose something financially and get bracketed with Pakistan. Pakistan regains its material losses for free. Pakistanis have used this to tie India down to a subcontinental equation. India is growing out of it by not wasting itself in a war with Pakistan.

But even war with Pakistan becomes easier if the US quits and quits helping Pakistan. And the US might quit if Pakistan turns sufficiently anti-US. Pakistan will be in deep doodoo vis a vis India without US support. And the US will not be able to manipulate Pakistan to mould Indian policy. Getting the US out of Pakistan would be a win win for India.

If Pakistani fear of India is great enough Pakis will stick to the US no matter what. If Pakistanis stop fearing India they will feel emboldened to oppose the US and ask the US to get out. To a small extent, the future of the subcontinent is in Indian hands now. And no. China won't step in.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 27 Dec 2011 20:57

Hakeemulla-saab

Your central premise is that Unkil is always siding with the terrorists in Pakbarianistan and hence getting Unkil out is gonna help India. Isn't that a bit against the current fact on ground? Unkil seems to be tiring of TSP and its shenanigans and hence having them around makes sense, since they will be in our corner or at least not help TSP.

Also if Unkil is out, a vacuum never exists, tallel will step in. Why do you so conveniently assume that it wouldn't? If Unkil goes with tail tucked behind, let us start learning how to eat noodles with chopsticks rightaway. In fact the triumphant pro-TSPA noises made by tallel's poodles in India in the yellow media seems to indicate that is very much in the horizon..they are licking their hands in anticipation of payoffs..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2011 21:09

Suppiah wrote: Unkil seems to be tiring of TSP and its shenanigans and hence having them around makes sense, since they will be in our corner or at least not help TSP.

Also if Unkil is out, a vacuum never exists, tallel will step in.

Suppiah as a people we have confidence in America and failing that we have confidence in China. I am just introducing a wild-card that everyone baulks at talking about. India. It is India who will step in. We don't need unkil. No need to believe this but this is what I think will happen.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 27 Dec 2011 21:41

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... igs26.html

Allah works in mysterious ways

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 27 Dec 2011 21:52

Tejas!!

My uncles use to hunt the wild boars up in Himachal and all along the Aravili hills!! No wonder all the pigs from indian side have migrated to be close to their relatives.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 27 Dec 2011 22:11

But all I'm asking for is what is the goal, what do you hope to achieve?

I don't know why there is so much fascination in folks for only a Punitive response to events. Even in the JLKB the policy reform aspect gets trashed in favor of the punitive. I notice most times people support a major punitive move that would humiliate than a move that would help reform and reduce risk to ourselves and possibly correct the problem in the long term.

That does not mean that Pakistan is in any move to reform, but our foremost aim from the beginning should have been to be consistent in policy and demand. These come from a sense of conviction that perpetuates to long term gains. They end when someone has less conviction and arrogant to believe in one's own Pappi Jhappi charms than the cold logic of reason.

Even the US wouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan if the Taliban had handed over Osama and some key AQ people after 911. We have known the prime reason why we are targeted from Pakistan is the PA/ ISI combo that has a free hand in things outside Civilian control. Insisting on that civilian control over PA/ISI should have been a prime focus of ours throughout. But we went on harping 'Non interference in internal affairs' as Mantra and followed an awkward policy of PJ (Pappi Jhappi) leader after leader.

So we remained in a limbo..neither consistent on what policy reform we demand within Pakistan, nor strong willed enough to take the punitive measures. Basically we should have been very consistent in demand of very simple doable things, including lobbying 3.5 friends on them. We didn't and the confusion can be seen on this board even as of today. JMT/

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Dec 2011 22:16

tejas wrote:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... igs26.html

Allah works in mysterious ways

Known to most Pakistanis simply as pigs but to scientists as Eurasian wild boars, the animals are natural residents of Pakistan's plains and hills. They generally feed on anything from grass and roots to small animals, but Islamabad's boars tend to prefer trash.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 27 Dec 2011 22:18

Aditya_V wrote:Remove heavy guns from LoC: Pakistan

Islamabad suggested that artillery of greater than 120 mm be moved 30 km from the LoC. The LoC divides Jammu and Kashmir between India and Pakistan.
Any idea why Pakistan is suggesting this?

New Silos being constructed by PA very near to the LoC?

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 27 Dec 2011 22:21

tejas wrote:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... igs26.html

Allah works in mysterious ways

At one point the Pakistani army was also called to the rescue and slaughtered 10,000 pigs in a single operation

Apparently PA is very good in slaughtering. This is one skill Pakistanis have mastered.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Dec 2011 22:41

harbans wrote:
But all I'm asking for is what is the goal, what do you hope to achieve?
I don't know why there is so much fascination in folks for only a Punitive response to events. Even in the JLKB the policy reform aspect gets trashed in favor of the punitive. I notice most times people support a major punitive move that would humiliate than a move that would help reform and reduce risk to ourselves and possibly correct the problem in the long term.

That does not mean that Pakistan is in any move to reform, but our foremost aim from the beginning should have been to be consistent in policy and demand. These come from a sense of conviction that perpetuates to long term gains. They end when someone has less conviction and arrogant to believe in one's own Pappi Jhappi charms than the cold logic of reason.

Even the US wouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan if the Taliban had handed over Osama and some key AQ people after 911. We have known the prime reason why we are targeted from Pakistan is the PA/ ISI combo that has a free hand in things outside Civilian control. Insisting on that civilian control over PA/ISI should have been a prime focus of ours throughout. But we went on harping 'Non interference in internal affairs' as Mantra and followed an awkward policy of PJ (Pappi Jhappi) leader after leader.

So we remained in a limbo..neither consistent on what policy reform we demand within Pakistan, nor strong willed enough to take the punitive measures. Basically we should have been very consistent in demand of very simple doable things, including lobbying 3.5 friends on them. We didn't and the confusion can be seen on this board even as of today. JMT/

Great, you have outlined some desired outcomes:

1. Civilian control over PA/ISI in Pakistan
2. Agreement from the 3.5 friends on civilian control over PA/ISI in Pakistan.

The idea is I suppose that civilian control over PA/ISI will lead to less
aggression from Pakistan. (Some here will dispute that, but let that go for now. But eventually, why this outcome is in Indian interests will have to be spelled out in more detail.)

How to achieve them - less clear, please add, correct -

1. Consistency in demanding these in all diplomatic forums.
2. Make these pre-conditions for talks with Pakistan?
3. Include as part of strategic dialog with US, Europe, etc.
4. Influence on IMF, World Bank, etc., to make aid to Pakistan conditional on this.
5. Possible punitive measures?

IMO, to give the Pakistani civilians a chance, there needs to be quiet on the Indian military front, otherwise the Pak. army can assert itself as the defender of the state, and unite jihadis around itself. So that would rule out punitive measures. IMO, PM MMS policies, wittingly or unwittingly, are thus helping with this goal.

In any case, this is the kind of analysis I expect BRF to produce - what kind of outcome should India be seeking, and why; and what actions to help produce that outcome; what changes in policy are needed. Then try to find a wider audience for these ideas.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 27 Dec 2011 22:43

WRT TSP and retaliation, concrete goals are needed for concrete actions, true. But the sleight-of-hand here (as well as in India at large) is that we take the ready unavailability of beyond-debate concrete goals (a physical impossibility in any case) and magically turn that into an outright repudiation of taking on a hostile attitude towards our asuric enemy and instead adopting an appeasing attitude which is, in fact, a product of cowardice. The giveaway here is that our energy goes to debating away concrete goals and not at all for positively developing such goals, starting with a sense of moral responsibility to assert our national soul by destroying our enemy--who is not just our "rival" as westerners write and many of us believe, but is in fact our moral antithesis.

@shiv I think I understand your rhetorical reasons for talking about cowardly Indian nation etc. But MMS and the ruling clique have the primary responsibility for setting the tone for national cowardice. Yatha raja tatha praja. You were alive in '65 and I believe you can attest to the fact that under SDRE Lal Bahadur Shastri Indians as a whole felt strong, confident, and morally sure-footed in confronting TSP, when we were in far direr material straits than today.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 27 Dec 2011 22:46

tejas wrote:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... igs26.html

Allah works in mysterious ways

The author was talking about 2 legged ones or 4 legged ones? it kanphoojed me more

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 27 Dec 2011 23:04

It is striking to note what Najam sethi is saying that India is where it is due to its democracy. Lol for me India is where it is due to just two things a it's people's own desire to succeed and its education system. Nothing else worked in India the way it should till I decided to fly out for further education in 2003.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 27 Dec 2011 23:12

How to achieve them - less clear, please add, correct -

1. Consistency in demanding these in all diplomatic forums.
2. Make these pre-conditions for talks with Pakistan?
3. Include as part of strategic dialog with US, Europe, etc.
4. Influence on IMF, World Bank, etc., to make aid to Pakistan conditional on this.
5. Possible punitive measures?

Gupta Ji, all the above points you make are apt. Our goals should never be solely linked to the punitive aspect. That is just one way to reform a recalcitrant entity. Incentive, pressure, coercion, lobbying, derision all are of import. But what must stand out is the consistency of approach and demand. What we really need and ask for..

For instance there are a few instances which really stand out: 93 Blasts where Dawood planned and escaped; The 99 Hijackers; The murderers of Rupin Katyal, and the main accused behind 26-11. For starters it is impossible to get hold of anyone of these without civilian control over the PA/ ISI. But there's a good chance that with a civilian dispensation and world pressure the ability to keep these murderers openly in Pakistan would greatly reduce.

There will be no progress in talks with a dispensation that no one knows who exactly is in control. That was what Kargil and the talks with NZ should have shown clearly. Even as Vajpayee talked peace, Musharaff plotted war.