Bharat Rakshak

shiv wrote:

KLNMurthy wrote: Again, I am not sure why these statements of mine are apparently being seen as controversial. If you have a different opinion of MMS as a leader, that's one thing, but why (seemingly) object to my having an opinion on his leadership at all?

If I am reading you wrong, please do correct me.

Fair enough. It's not about you. MMS's incompetence and pusillanimity is a big theme on BRF. My only problem is with anyone imagining that removing or replacing MMS will have a big effect on Pakistan. I don't believe that's going to happen merely by change of Indian leader. In fact that view only means that MMS is a powerful leader who manipulated things so well for the US and Pakistan, that the Pakistan problem would never be solved and he held 1 billion Indians at bay while doing that. I think this MMS MMS MMS MMS as the biggest hurdle in solving Pakistan is like barking up one single tree imagining that the thing up there is the cause and solution to India's Pakistan problem. MMS is just another incompetent incumbent who will come and go in the long term pursuit of a solution to Pakistan.

As I indicated in an earlier lengthy post, I don't care about changing the behavior of Pakistan at this juncture, nor do I expect MMS to pull it off. It is well-nigh impossible. I am more interested in a leader who is able to change the attitude and behavior of Indians. I want the Indian leadership to be rude and unfriendly to Pakistan, and speak harshly to them at all times. I want the leader to explain to Indians why that is the right thing to do.

SSridhar wrote:As for KSA, there were many other countries that helped Pakistan in 1965 & 1971 like Indonesia, the UAE, Jordan et al. Why, the US is the single important reason for Pakistan's wars and terrorism against us and the British created Pakistan. Today, we have cordial relationship with all of them. Contexts change. The Saudis have made uncharitable comments about us in the OIC but after the mid-90s, their approach towards India has changed. The art of diplomacy is to convert as many to our PoV as possible, I suppose. India's robust growth helped in no uncertain terms either, and that is true with KSA.

In war when a nation goes out to help like this, it is an act of war. No question about it. The question then is, what can you do with this provocation.

How a nation responds to this act of war determines what its adversaries & friends conclude about it. This action of the nation then form in the minds of others an image, or a model to explain this nations's behaviour. This affects the credibility with which our defence offence postures are accorded. This affects subsequent security & safety since others then react based on these assumptions. In short, not responding, or responding weakly, then invites further such acts of war.

shiv wrote:If MMS is a traitor then all his party men have to be traitors to protect him. But if his party men are traitors the opposition must be traitors to not even speak about it. If the entire government - ruling parties and opposition are traitors why are we cursing only one man or one party? If the "ruling class" is a separate class like "Baniyas" or "Vokkaligas" what were they when they were college students 25 years ago and what are their classmates in college saying about them? I have no answers and can't find out unless I ask.

Nice.

In any given population there will be those who are amoral and psychopathic. What happens is that the "traitors" at the apex systematically promote those who will serve their interests. For example Maino promoting Navin Chawla. There are also people who may not be traitors but are morally flawed and have no understanding of the larger scheme of things. They make no effort to analyze the forces that are at play. In fact they suffer from a kind of Stockholm syndrome, seeking approval from the very forces that want to destroy them. Malhotra would call this a lack of "Purva-Paksha". One example is Vajpayee, who promoted Brajesh Mishra and consistently bailed out the Maino clan.

KLNMurthy wrote: Looking at the comments sections in the paki papers, abbotabad and mehran are not being held against the army at all. It is all the US's fault, and the abduls look to TSPA to put the US in its place. US is cooperating in this charade.

Yes, but the army is being asked to retain its honor and kick out the US. That is what i find really amusing. Is the army going to retain the US in Pakhanaland and still prevent the US from attacking the Paki Taliban and Haqqani faction and still give the TSPA goodies? Or is the army going to somehow actually kick the US out and earn US ire and find itself with zero support against the cowardly kafirs of India?

They will want it both ways. So let's see..

Pranav wrote:

shiv wrote:If MMS is a traitor then all his party men have to be traitors to protect him. But if his party men are traitors the opposition must be traitors to not even speak about it. If the entire government - ruling parties and opposition are traitors why are we cursing only one man or one party? If the "ruling class" is a separate class like "Baniyas" or "Vokkaligas" what were they when they were college students 25 years ago and what are their classmates in college saying about them? I have no answers and can't find out unless I ask.

Nice.

In any given population there will be those who are amoral and psychopathic. What happens is that the "traitors" at the apex systematically promote those who will serve their interests. For example Maino promoting Navin Chawla. There are also people who may not be traitors but are morally flawed and have no understanding of the larger scheme of things. They make no effort to analyze the forces that are at play. In fact they suffer from a kind of Stockholm syndrome, seeking approval from the very forces that want to destroy them. Malhotra would call this a lack of "Purva-Paksha". One example is Vajpayee, who promoted Brajesh Mishra and consistently bailed out the Maino clan.

And Sanku blames poor li'l me for piskology!

Thanks for reinforcing some logic and proportion Jaspreet.

MMS has sailed into the dragon's lair and tweaked its tail; in Vietnam on board an ONGC vessel. He has approved two more mountain divisions as well as activating forward airfields and is basing both Sukhois and Brahmos in the mountains. He is cultivating strategic alliances with the US and of less importance Japan and Australia.

This is not a timid man.

Both India and the US are forced to operate with restraint with Pakistan. I don't believe it is due to nukes-I think it is clear that there will be no Haj for a several Strontium half lives if Pakistan is foolish enough to use nukes. A more deniable and thus pernicious and likely fear is the activation of sleeper cells in India, the US and Europe. I don;t know how these societies can inoculate themselves against low level but chronic terrorism. This threat is akin to a chronic disease stressor in an organism-the psychiatry of terrorism is a virgin field. It induces a breakdown of culture, mores, tolerance of diversity, liberalism and causes economic dislocation.

The threat of terrorism is the perfect terror weapon.

Jaspreet wrote: The other possibility is that don't want to disagree since doing that may incur the wrath of the queen. And because she wins them elections she's all important.

And many people are not bothered by the fact that elections are conducted in a manner that is even more opaque than those conducted by Saddam or Gaddhafi. It is a failure of imagination.

Another possibility is that there's far more information available to the PM and possibly to the leader of the opposition for them to know that the kind of violent solutions that BR yearns for aren't practical. Perhaps
(a) There are too many shortcomings in India's preparedness

Lack of preparedness is because defense of the nation is hardly a priority

KLNMurthy wrote: Well. What we have here is a failure to communicate, as the saying goes.

Well. You forced me to login again.

Sometimes it is useful to remind ourselves that we are in a "blind men and the elephant" kind of situation. It is extremely hard for the blind men to listen to each other and consider it in a positive light, taking time out from proving one's own correctness (which is also important and valuable), and find a consensus. Even then, the consensus will be some weird beast, not an actual elephant.

The sense in which I accept we are blind men is that we know little, even access to the intelligence department of a major government would leave us with far less than 20/20 vision.

It could be a challenge to even agree on terms and their meanings. Words like "goal" (implicitly good), "cowardly" (implicitly bad) might connote different things and hold different values to different people. Shiv has ably pointed out that "cowardly" isn't necessarily a bad thing at all times.

Well, English is probably not the first language for most of us. "Goal" I hope is value neutral; a robber has the goal of robbing the bank and getting away. "Cowardly" is implicitly bad, yes, but there is the word "prudence" which might look the same (or "discretion is better part of valour").

Let me point out that "goal" is nothing sacred either. In fact, I contend that at the present juncture, focussing on "achievable, valuable, goals" wrt TSP is doing us actual harm. I used the term "sleight-of-hand" previously. Let me spell this out a bit:

First failure to communicate. Write down all your goals. Some of them are achievable, some of them are feasible only after feasibly improving your capabilities, and some of them violate the laws of physics.

You don't know where you are unless you do this.

The way I see the AVG (achievable, valuable, goals) logic going is this:

* We should think of some action--military, diplomatic, trade etc.--that we can carry out against TSP that will either
(a) force TSP to do something useful for us; e.g., hand over Dawood Ibrahim, torture-and-kill Kiyani, disband ISI, give up POK etc., OR
(b) does nothing to influence TSP behavior but mainly sends a message to the world in general and to our self-image that we cannot be messed with, without attracting consequences. e.g., targeted assassination of Dawood, bombing terrorist camps, cold start, doing something with indus waters, etc.

So far so good.

* Whether it is action of type (a) or type (b), we should clearly define a concrete goal, calculate its potential risk or costs, and consider our capabilities etc. in a rational way, and then come to a decision as to what to do, if anything.

So far so good.

* Very quickly, the calculation leads up the escalation ladder to either
(i) TSP attacking us with nukes, or in an alternative chain,
(ii) US putting a crimp in our development goals--denying tech, issuing "travel advisory" during Parakram, increasing our cost and risk by aiding TSP etc.

You lost me. Just for example - I don't see how an all-out offensive on the diplomatic front (if that is what we want to do) leads up the escalation ladder.
E.g., on the trade front, I don't see delaying of permits to work in India for any corporation that also wants to work in Pakistan by six months leads up the escalation ladder (and Indian bureaucracy can always claim "security" as the issue) leads up the escalation ladder.
E.g. I don't see downing another Atlantique as leading up the escalation ladder.

Yes, there are various actions that do lead up the escalation ladder, but there is a huge universe of actions that doesn't.

The only reason you assume that the actions we want lead up the escalation ladder is because you are on BRF, where wet dreams prevail over hard thinking.

But let's continue with your story:

(i) and even (ii) are, very sensibly, determined to be unacceptable risks and costs at the present juncture.

So determined.

* We therefore conclude that we can't really do anything meaningful right now that we are comfortable with. We withdrew from Parakram, we didn't hit TSP after 26/11. Jingos shout that it is cowardly etc., but (the reasoning goes) that is childish thinking (it is even more childish if we whine that US would have been more macho about it); we are actually merely being prudent and sensible.

Again, you lost me. Even if hitting Pakistan today, say militarily, is not feasible today, the situation can change with additional capabilities.

A good analysis would, for instance, say that the upside of doing xyz to Pakistan is sufficiently good that even though we don't have the capability today to do it, we should develop it. It is here that a creative imagination is called for.

Or such analysis might say, this should never happen. And we understand that and abandon it.

I don't see either happening here.

* So far, so good; most reasonable people can probably accept the broad outlines of this line of logic.

I've outlined my caveats so far.

* Now comes the sleight-of-hand, leap of logic, whatever: Since we can't do anything meaningful wrt TSP right now, might as well be friends with them. This is a major qualitative leap in the thinking, which constructs, out of whole cloth, the delusion that there is no fundamental incompatibility between the survival and prosperity of TSP--as presently conceived and constituted--and that of India.

I thought the whole first article on every avataar of the TSP thread explicitly spells out why this leap of logic is not justified. Should we make it required reading with a quiz afterwards for all BRF newbies, before they are allowed to post?

In specific terms, this fiction, which is ultimately untenable, precludes a whole range of options.
- keeping diplomatic and trade relations to the barest minimum.
- stolidly, repeatedly, and loudly demanding that TSP do the following:
1. hand over Dawood et al's head on a platter.
2. Hand over heads of the torturers of Kalia & his men on a platter.
3. Behead Kayani in the middle of Hira Mandi
4. Stop teaching hatred of India and Hindus in their schools
5. Remove separate electorates from their constitution, as well as the requirement that the head of govt be a muslim.
6. Declare officially that Jinnah was a genocidal criminal against humanity and use his mazar as a toilet.
7. Declare March 25 every year as a day of Atonement, when each female citizen of TSP will personally slap a soldier of TSPA, like Rakhi Purnima but different.
8. And oh yes, please vacate POK ASAP.

The whole range of options is precluded for discussion only because the main refrain is "destroy Pakistan", and none of the above result in that outcome.

Of course, our goal-oriented sages will cleverly jump on this list and point out that TSP will do none of these things, but that only matters if you care about achievable goals in this context. I don't. Rather, my goal at this time is to simply confine my communication with TSP to these and similar words.

So after all these words you've spelled out this goal of India taking certain actions. It is certainly achievable. Everyone of them is based on actions entirely on the Indian side. So great, do an analysis on BRF, let all the clever people pick holes in it and improve the proposal, and then let's think about writing it up for various outlets.

I just want to keep saying these words, and for the time being, not that much more to TSP and the world. (I will also inflict opportunistic pinpricks on TSP, while repeating these demands). TSP and the world will make fun of us, call us SDRE, smelly Hindu banias, purveyors of "literature", even try to cajole us by saying, "but why don't you want to talk, we are brothers only." Or maybe just mock us, remind us of their nukes. Or maybe continue or increase terrorism. I wouldn't be moved by any of this; just stolidly keep repeating these demands and telling them I will discuss nothing but these demands.

The estimation of possible consequences, costs, etc., are part of the analysis that should be done.

What is the actual harm to us, then? It is in the wholesale adoption and internalization of the delusion that our nature and destiny are not incompatible with that of TSP. We must accept the incompatibility, and do what we can at this time about it. What I have listed above is just words--which are as powerful or as powerless as words can be. When we put away our natural enmity with TSP (the existence of which enmity I have reluctantly accepted after decades of resisting the concept), we lose our essence as a people, and we won't prosper in any meaningful or sustainable sense of the term. That is the harm I see.

No, where the complication begins is that the hostility with TSP is interpreted as a hostility towards Indian citizens of the Muslim faith. It is when Indians do that, that they being to lose their essence as a people. As a simple matter to gauge this, how hospitable is BRF to Indian Muslims? If it can't be done here, it can't be done in the larger society. People on this board don't have the heart or discipline or both to be able to be hostile to TSP without turning their anger elsewhere as well. That is why "accepting the incompatibility" is so hard and so fraught with consequences.

P.S. There is a school of thought that holds that we are just biding our time with TSP--Bhima eating while Bakasura is hitting. I like that, but I worry that Bhima is forgetting that Bakasura is to be killed--or to shift the scene a bit, in the ultimate battle with Duryodhana, Bhima needs Krishna tapping his thigh to remind him that he is not there to enjoy a fair fight, fought in respectful rivalry, but to fulfill his destiny by destroying the moral antithesis of the Pandavas.

When I wrote the Bhima-Bakasura thing, what was on my mind was that even a casual look beyond the glittering image that the media likes to provide or the self-congratulatory complacency of the noveau rich reveals an India that could miss this historical opportunity to pull itself out of the morass. That is all I should say on the TSP thread. The point was that Pakistan, if we allow it to be, is a distraction; a possibly fatal distraction. The problem posed by Pakistan is not in the top ten that India needs to solve.

In a fresh salvo, US blames Pak for Nato air strike
The writer has posted comments on this articleTNN | Dec 29, 2011, 05.44AM IST

(Posted in full)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 287253.cms

WASHINGTON: Any hope that the US military would temper its aggressive approach towards Pakistan as a matter of courtesy or tactical need in Afghanistan was again laid to rest this week when the Pentagon insisted that it respected all "rules of engagement" and "international law of conflict" during the border spat in which Nato forces killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Washington came close to casting the incident an act of war. "You misbehaved and provoked us and we shot you. If you do that again, the response will be the same" might well be the summation of the US investigation report into the incident.

Pentagon spokesman captain John Kirby said the report was delivered to general Kayani on Sunday by a US officer in Islamabad, who explained the findings to the general. "We wanted General Kayani to be able to see the entire thing," he said.

But aghast Pakistani officials , evidently stung by the blunt and unapologetic tone of the report, plus its content being leaked to the American media beforehand, told a wire service that no such report had been delivered to Kayani, not any briefing was given to him personally.

"The report was delivered to the concerned department (of army headquarters ) but not to the chief," one official was quoted as saying.

The report was unsparing in its defense of US tactics while largely blaming Pakistan, despite some acknowledgement about misunderstanding and miscommunication evidently aimed at allowing Pakistanis to mollify their inflamed public opinion.

I love this sort of stuff. Someone else giving me glee by shafting the porkis with no obligation.

A lot of debate going on about what we should be doing. But wheter by default, accident, or the slim hope of design, that RAW actually instigated the Afghans into phyrring at the porkis means 24TFTAs=240 SDREs is a good outcome at Sala whatever.

Why I did this equal is because having followed the '65 and '71 wars closely, and having quite a few drinking buddies who mattered in the business of defence, one thing stood out. Boosting the Porki ego into believing that a TFTA = 10 SDRE was injurious to the Porkis health.

I would think our soft approach does encourage that.

While the thought has entered the Yanqui cranium that they have been guboed rather than vice versa, I for sure know that they must be mulling over the information we shared with them ever since 9/11 happened, which they shrugged off at their peril. Sure that no terrorist attack has happened since on their soil. But how many of their own have died in Afghan? Isn't losing a life anywhere in the world == to losing a life anywhere else?

What did the Yanquis do about Daniel Pearl? Was it an embarrassment for the Yanquis too, that he was uncovering unpalatable facts?

And as for humint is concerned I bet MMS and remote don't have a clue about details as to what is happening. I would strategically think that humint assets belong and are spread all over in various agencies, especially with so many agencies tasked with defending our borders and our assets in Afghanistan.

And as far as I am concerned, my POV is do what we want covertly and use others to accomplish our covert designs.

Our own bunch of non-state actors.

Pakistan military caused disaster called Kargil: Daily

The last thing that Pakistan needs at this critical juncture is institutional infighting, said a Pakistani daily as it reminded the military that "its definition of national security led to the loss of half the country in 1971 (and) led to a disaster called Kargil".

An editorial in the News International said that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's remarks about a "state within a state" caused quite a sensation in political circles.

"It looked as if the premier's indirect reference to the military and the ISI was a challenge to the establishment," it said.

Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani's statement the very next day about the army being cognizant of its constitutional obligations and responsibilities was welcomed by the prime minister.

Gilani later also made it clear that there is no clash between the government and the military.

"Some analysts have called it a 'retreat' by the federal government even though it was only logical that the prime minister would accept and welcome the army chief's positive statement at face value.

"But it is important to read between the lines... Tensions may have been defused but there are some questions that were left unanswered."

The editorial went on to say that General Kayani's statement the other day referred to national security and how no compromise would be made on this issue.

"In Pakistan, 'national security' has always been defined by the military even though in any modern democratic state, it is defined by the government in consultation with its subservient military.

"The military in Pakistan considers itself a state within a state and uses the jihadist networks to defend its national security paradigm," it said.

The editorial added that it would not be wrong to "remind the military that its definition of national security led to the loss of half the country in 1971, it led to a disaster called Kargil, and the same 'national security' is now responsible for the kill and dump policy being pursued by our military in Balochistan".

The Kargil conflict between Pakistan and India took place in 1999.

"It is time to allow the democratic government to define what constitutes national security instead of making one blunder after another... The last thing this country needs at this critical juncture is institutional infighting," the editorial said.

^^^^^^
Funny tid bit. Next day groper did downhill ski and said that when he said state within a state he was referring to the defense secretary and not to the army at all

A typical TFTA talk.

That Pathan-ni sounds awfully sophisticated and Indian like. I guess maybe I am just prejudiced to dismiss these people as unsophisticates.

chetak wrote: [Imran khan] was never a friend of India's and will never ever be. . .

He does have jihadist inclinations, but we cannot dismiss him as another yahoo. There are two questions that arise ... (1) can he win an election and on the basis of that exercise authority personally (2) will he abstain from looting the treasury.

If the answer to both questions is yes, then he may, at least temporarily, impede the natural trend towards decay and dissolution. Now the existence of TSP is fundamentally based on flawed premises and he will not be able to change that. But the terminally diseased patient may get a second wind and prolong his own misery.

A Paki article below

Pakistan, India must prevent 'tripping of nuclear wire': Report

Whenever Pakis start the peace buggle like this, it means a tactically brilliant plan is in the offing.

ArunK

#1
There is also the "non-state" actor sponsored by the state who could try and cross the red line. What do you do in that case?

"non state actor" This shows you don't know about a paki and pakistan
we had already told the world that we will respond if the said non state actor try to cross red line

#2
Americans continue to die. How does it matter where they are being killed? The point is I do not see an end to this war even after 10 years. We are still in Square 1. The US is spending an *insane* amount of money to continue with this war. India will be bankrupt if it gets stuck in a swamp like Afghanistan.

Let me say it simple - Its US war, they had taken their war to enemy's gate. they are dieing for their country. We are helping a war torn country.
It's not India's war, when it come to us we will decide it.

#3
I agree that Israel has no choice but to fight the way they have been fighting so far in order to survive a true existential threat to their survival as a nation. They have so far managed to killed off Palestinian/Arab terrorism ver 1 through ver 5 either directly, through peace making or through allies. But they still face ver 6 & ver 7 [Hamas & Hezbollah] who are getting stronger and their killing power getting more lethal.

After three wars no Arab country dare to attach Israel. And if Israel attack hamas or hezbollah very few cry fowl for few days and forget. Their attitude yielded very little damage, but see what damage we are receiving, google it for 5 years find how many life lost in Israel and check the same for our country also

#6
Let us take Afghanistan as an example. Bollywood, Indian hospitals, schools, roads and buses has done a thousand times more for India there than military power. We have seen how much damage the iron fist has caused in Kashmir and the North East. Look how that has been exploited all these years. Look at how the Soviet Union collapsed once the economy collapsed. All those years of ruling with an iron fist vanished into thin air overnight.

Iron fist - Sorry to ask are you a paki or educated from deaf and dumb fora

#7
I am not sure you understood what I meant. Pakistan should be destroyed by breaking it into pieces along ethnic lines. Pakjabi arrogance almost guarantees it. It requires us to play our cards correctly.

#8
Our military is currently very vulnerable to external pressures. That will be the case till our defense industry develops or our alliances develop. Until that happens it should be primarily defensive in nature. Witch means we cannot initiate an offensive operation against the Pakis. We can only react defensively. God knows that they have given us many reasons.

#9
Agreed. Our strategic vision is not yet articulated. That is the first step.

ho am I started answering to non sense. Can any one put this off

shiv wrote: Of course the US does not want out, but if it the US does go Pakistan will be deep in doodoo without US aid. Pakistan's anti-India stance will lose its greatest supporter. In my view China is not going to step right in and support Pakistan in the way the US has done. I say that because the US's ability to pressure India is vastly superior and vastly more sophisticated than China's ability to do that. Apart from anything else - US equipment will start degrading soon enough requiring continued US support or else. So you can expect Pakistan to start looking at making the relationship with India less risky.

If the US has a "vastly superior and vastly more sophisticated ability to pressure India" then what does that have to do with China's not stepping in to support Pakistan?

shiv wrote: ... China is not going to step right in and support Pakistan in the way the US has done. I say that because the US's ability to pressure India is vastly superior and vastly more sophisticated than China's ability to do that. ...

China *normally* does not give money to Pakis. They finance projects -- which means that the people who make money from the Projects are Chinese companies *and* the Pakis have to pay back the loan. Also, any "aid" -- given relatively rarely -- to the Pakis is in Chinese Yuan. This is not a freely convertible currency.

Anujan wrote:^^^^^^
Funny tid bit. Next day groper did downhill ski and said that when he said state within a state he was referring to the defense secretary and not to the army at all

Very highly developed sense of self preservation. After all he has risen to fairly high levels in the paki food chain!!

Should live to grope another day.

ArunK wrote: .. to the Pakis is in Chinese Yuan. This is not a freely convertible currency.

and the loan in most cases is to buy Chinese maal not Western maal. So no 16 but 17 only!

shiv wrote:

Pranav wrote:
"shiv" >> If MMS is a traitor then all his party men have to be traitors to protect him. But if his party men are traitors the opposition must be traitors to not even speak about it. If the entire government - ruling parties and opposition are traitors why are we cursing only one man or one party? If the "ruling class" is a separate class like "Baniyas" or "Vokkaligas" what were they when they were college students 25 years ago and what are their classmates in college saying about them? I have no answers and can't find out unless I ask.

Nice.

In any given population there will be those who are amoral and psychopathic. What happens is that the "traitors" at the apex systematically promote those who will serve their interests. For example Maino promoting Navin Chawla. There are also people who may not be traitors but are morally flawed and have no understanding of the larger scheme of things. They make no effort to analyze the forces that are at play. In fact they suffer from a kind of Stockholm syndrome, seeking approval from the very forces that want to destroy them. Malhotra would call this a lack of "Purva-Paksha". One example is Vajpayee, who promoted Brajesh Mishra and consistently bailed out the Maino clan.

And Sanku blames poor li'l me for piskology!

Ok Shiv you win.

But then again maybe not.

Let me try and take the questions -- would a traitor (your words) -- be propped up by other who are not traitors? I believe that Pranav had a point (which he spoiled by going way too far) -- it is -- that people do not necessarily have to make a binary choice on a single parameter.

MMS has not been choosen for his stance on Pak land
MMS is not judged by his stance on Pak land.

As long as he can maintain status quo on Pak, while making sure the other intrests which have placed him on the Gaddi continue to be served appropriately -- there is no reason for the institutions of GoI, Congress political party and the populace to rise up.

We (on BRF) happen to value a particular approach to national policy making a lot -- I am under no illusions that a PM of India who does not share that vision will necessarily run afoul of the system.

DESPITE ALL THE ABOVE --

People, the institutions have repeatedly tried to check MMS and his is acts.

We see a beaurcary with large parts in open revolt (CAG, Current Army chief, retired scientists etc etc) on many a strategic issues

1) Sachar mess with IA
2) Nuclear deal
3) SeS
4) Antrix-Devas scam in the making at PMO.

So yes, for sure a large number of people have been speaking quite openly about it. I have in person heard conversations by very senior GoI members and Opp party members with choicest words of MMS.

What more do you want ?

A joint rally by Swamy, G P, Anna, Baba Ramdev, Sushma Swaraj, Jaya, Mamata Di, Gadakari et al at Ramlila ground passing a open line motion that "MMS is a tratior"?

Even that might come to pass.

Paklurks should count their blessings, MMS is as low as it gets in terms of leadership, a few more years, and their goose is cooked. Has to happen, force of history. MMS wont be around forever to protect them.

A true friend

Agreements worth $700 million signed by Pakistan and China provide the hope that the government is finally realising that in the present day world of hostile and indifferent Western powers and the US, our survival lies in further strengthening our friendship with this time-tested friend. The agreements including repairing of KKH, a currency swap agreement and the setting up of power plants were signed in the Prime Minister’s House and were witnessed by Mr Gilani and State Councillor of China Dai Bingguo. Mr Dai’s statement that China favoured Pakistan’s efforts for regional stability is an expression of its desire to let us play our part in the Afghan peace process with the approaching US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The history of bilateral relations proves beyond doubt that China is a friend that believes in helping us grow economically and militarily as a self-reliant country. Consider its help in the energy sector, nuclear field that includes the Chashma nuclear power plant. Besides, it is also expanding trade ties. Because of its help, we are now indigenously manufacturing the J-F 17 Thunder aircraft that is considered a formidable fighter jet. There is likewise, Gwadar seaport, a source of pride for us. The list of projects is virtually endless and it all shows that China is a country that genuinely wants Pakistan to develop into a prosperous and stable country. At the same time it strongly believes in non-intervention in our domestic affairs.
However, until and unless Pakistan reassesses the cooperation in the so-called war on terror, its financial dependence on the IMF and World Bank {So directly or indirectly on the US} due its own mismanagement and plans, reforms to stabilise its economy, the foreign policy shift required will not be able to effectively come about {So they admit they are tied to the Americans and the Chinese for all their good intentions are unable or UNWILLING to help} . It is in Pakistan’s interest if it moves closer to Beijing, while keeping the US at bay. During the past decade, despite the tilt towards the Americans, their repayment in suspicion, drone attacks and accusations have driven Pakistan away. The Chinese have helped without asking for anything in return, reminded us of how friends behave. The US could do well to take a leaf out of China's book in its dealing with Pakistan.{Wah! Wah!. while there is no mention of repayment, it still talks of currency Swap and the whole deal is quoted in $ Wah! Wah!}

Pranav wrote:

shiv wrote: Of course the US does not want out, but if it the US does go Pakistan will be deep in doodoo without US aid. Pakistan's anti-India stance will lose its greatest supporter. In my view China is not going to step right in and support Pakistan in the way the US has done. I say that because the US's ability to pressure India is vastly superior and vastly more sophisticated than China's ability to do that. Apart from anything else - US equipment will start degrading soon enough requiring continued US support or else. So you can expect Pakistan to start looking at making the relationship with India less risky.

If the US has a "vastly superior and vastly more sophisticated ability to pressure India" then what does that have to do with China's not stepping in to support Pakistan?

Nothing. China is welcome to "step in", but it will never get as far as the US and its inroads into Pakistan if any, will not pressure India the way the US can. My opinion. Ask for an explanation and I won't give any.

Altair wrote:
A typical TFTA talk.

This was very good. I enjoyed that.

The interesting discussion of how MMS is preventing India from either "teaching Pakistan a lesson" or, even better, "solving" the Pakistan problem is just looking at one side of the problem. I know Shiv, A_Gupta and other have alluded to this but let me try to put it all together.

Let's assume that there's a snap general election and someone with a strong pair (you can guess who'd be the BRF favourite! ) becomes PM. Now let's assume that tackling Pakistan is the No1 issue on the list of to dos (that a very, very big assumption, but let's just put that aside).

Now this "patriotic" PM with a pair of irons wouldn't be getting up on his chariot and single handedly defeating the TSPA hordes. He'd have to depend on the same set of resources that MMS has at his disposal - but which he refuses to use - to tackle the problem. He'd also have to take into consideration the same set risks and options that MMS would need to take.

This brings us to two sets of issues IMO.

Issue A:

* Is our Army, Air Force and Navy and other sundry assets like intelligence, equipped - both in terms of manpower and hardware - to strike a strong blow to Pakistan while still keeping things under (India's) control?

* Is our diplomatic power capable of controlling the fallout? Do we have the dollars and supply chain to sustain around a war for about 3 weeks, the minimum I reckon we'd need to finish this problem once and for all.

* Do we have the geo-strategic muscle to ensure China remains a mute spectator. And if not can we fight a two front war?

* Do we have the capability to ensure that things don't escalate out of control in the case of punitive strikes. That is the way the US ensured that the Pakis remained pansies while they took out the old man with a long beard?

* There are more issue but I think these are IMO the main ones we need to tackle first.

Issue B:

* How does the PM ensure that things don't get out of control and spiral into a nuclear exchange?

* How does the PM ensure that if things do go nuclear then India and Indians - that is the Indians who live in India and not NRIs - can survive this war and rebuild.

* How does the PM get the popular mandate that would be required to wage this final war? Getting a mandate for punitive strikes would be easier if there's another major terrorist strike. But again it becomes of question of making sure such a strike does not go out of control. For example what would our response be if a Babur were to strike in, say Ambala, in response to some Bhramos strikes on terror camps/facilities?

* Again there a more issues here, as everyone would agree, but let's keep it to these broad ones.

Why don't we have a discussion on these issues and see if we do get a patriotic PM with b*lls he or she would have the tools as well as options to either teach Pakistan a lesson it wouldn't forget or even better engineer a final solution to our Paki problem.

We can call MMS or anyone else a traitor only when we are sure that he has the tools and options needed but chose not to use them. On the other hand, if we cannot to convincingly show that all the necessary elements are in place to solve/tackle the Paki problem militarily then calling MMS a traitor or weak is nothing but political sloganeering.

JMT.

Yes MMS is strong rest of India is weak.

We are hopeless we can not do anything. Run run, grovel. What a bunch of sissies.

Same ol as excuses trotten out by Nehru in 62 -- but not used by LBS in 65.

Sanku wrote:Yes MMS is strong rest of India is weak.

We are hopeless we can not do anything. Run run, grovel. What a bunch of sissies.

Same ol as excuses trotten out by Nehru in 62 -- but not used by LBS in 65.

One of the reasons why I keep coming back to BRF. Where else can you get better entertainment.

But I guess you learn something new everyday. I was under the impression that in 1962 our foe was not Pakistan as was the case in 1965. I guess my version of history is not the same as other versions.

amit wrote:

Sanku wrote:Yes MMS is strong rest of India is weak.

We are hopeless we can not do anything. Run run, grovel. What a bunch of sissies.

Same ol as excuses trotten out by Nehru in 62 -- but not used by LBS in 65.

One of the reasons why I keep coming back to BRF. Where else can you get better entertainment.
.

Correct, there would be no entertainment if you did not come back.

Today we have a historic opportunity to try and win over Afghanistan and put TSP under pressure from all sides. A strong ANA is already giving sleepless nights to GHQ due to their vast and open border thats pretty much undefended. Now instead of spending on Kashmir, TSPA has to divert its money towards defending its northern borders. In the meantime, jihadi's instead of fighting in Kashmir will have to be turned back to face ANA up north or else these 'unemployed' jihadi's will cause problems internally.

The TSPA by nature is split, Kayani is trying to win loyalty within the TSPA. TSP is 120 days away from default and is on life support. Going to war now would provide TSPA with a new lease of life. TSPA wanted a war in 26/11, US wanted a way out - convenient for 26.11 to happen. By not going to war, it forced US to deal with TSPA.

MMS is looking for a permanent solution and to tie up TSPA and jihadi's away from India. However, covert action should have been the best response to 26/11, alas govt didnt want to give TSPA an excuse to go to war with us.

There should be a separate thread where people could post their priceless chanakian theories.

abhishek_sharma wrote:There should be a separate thread where people could post their priceless chanakian theories.

I swear.

Sanku wrote:Correct, there would be no entertainment if you did not come back.

I know every performer needs/loves an audience.

But enough of this, too much audience participation distracts performers into making silly mistakes/observations.

Please carry on.

Members of this forum are expected to provide evidence when they write something negative about this govt. This evidentiary burden is suspended when chanakian explanations are provided. This asymmetry is a sign of very high levels of honesty.

Err, can we get back to anal-yzing Papistan now? Rather than one another's psyche, err, piske??

The way some ex-perts in Indian media have been praising the TSPA and attacking the ANA calling it a Tajik / Uzbek army that is not representative, is a bunch of warlords and their gangs and so on...(strange they never comments on the ethnic make-up of TSPA particularly its officer corps, and the fact that it is just a bunch of jehadi terrorist barbarianss in uniform), it is clear a strong ANA is not in the interest of Beijing and its friends, including TSPA. So they are going to do all possible to prevent that...wonder what's the GOI plan on that beyond training which is at best symbolic.

abhishek_sharma wrote:Members of this forum are expected to provide evidence when they write something negative about this govt. This evidentiary burden is suspended when chanakian explanations are provided. This asymmetry is a sign of very high levels of honesty.

Boss if you're comment is a response to my post, then let me explain. I'm not asking for evidence, I'm asking for a discussion. I hope you understand the difference.

Irrespective of whether a PM is a traitor/coward or a super-patriot I guess we can all agree that the incumbent would need a set of tools to achieve an objective of either punishing Pakistan or in finding an end solution.

I've mentioned a few things that I think need to be in place. It's not a complete list but an attempt to highlight the major issues.

I see less discussion going on, on whether these tools (and others that I'm sure I missed) are in place for any PM to move against Pakistan. You may be the best sniper in the world but you can't take out your target if you don't have a rifle.

Asking for a discussion on these issues instead of name calling and equating 1962 war with a more powerful enemy with the 1965 war with Pakistan is not asking for evidence. It's asking for a rationale discussion from which all of us can learn.

even if India did not support the northern afghans and herat afghans, wouldnt Russia, some of CAR states and Iran provide them moral and diplomatic support if for nothing else than to keep the pakiban and pashtun hordes off their borders?

amit wrote: Boss if you're comment is a response to my post, .

It was not directed at you.

>>Indian economy could not help its BPL population in the past 60 years even though it created ~50 $billionaires. Its soft power did not earn it UNSC seat. Indian Knowledge is becoming unknown to its own population.

Not true. In the last 15 years itself , an estimated 300 mill have been uplifted fro poverty to a more sustainable life. During independence India had a life span of 35 years , extremely poor social indicators. Things are improving.

>>The drone strikes ensured that US did not have a single terror attack since 9/11.

Not true . there have been several attempts . 2 being noteworthy .

The time square bombing attempt failed , not because of the drone strike , but because the wannabe bomber was an idiot. People in ny were scared shit. The ones in Manhattan especially were shivering . THE ATTACK WAS DIRECTLY LINKED TO PAKISTANI TALIBAN. . They even released a video .

Likewise the plot to blow up the north west airlines a few moths before this . The bomber succeeded in getting the bomb into the aircraft. The drone stikes had no role again.

US Had its share of luck .

The best hope is that TSPA itself would be scared of Pashtun dominated Afghan army - because that would invariably look east and say "Hey that's ours too!" Even if Taliban took control and gives TSP unofficial guarantees in exchange for support, that cannot last forever.