Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 2010

[chetak]

I've been thinking about Cold Start.

Let's say Pakistan conducts a major terrorist attack, and the go-ahead is given for Cold Start. Within days, pivot corps strike along the Punjab and Rajasthan borders and wreak havoc among the TSPA formations there, and then come back.

And even before they are back in barracks, ISI assets are mobilized in a number of Indian cities and 5-6 more major terrorist attacks take place. Even if they don't cause that much damage, thanks to heightened security in the wake of the first attack, what will India do next?

Rudradev ji excellent question and I think we need to spare some time to really chew this thing. I am not an expert like others on the forum but here is my 2 cents. Indian formations can kick pakis and still pakis can create more 26/11 type scenarios in India. That is always possible look at Israel & Palestine example for reference. The most important point is cost you are willing to pay for your actions. Example if you murder some one you can be either sent away for life in prison or to gallows so when a person kills some one (in cold blood) he is ready to pay that price. Same is true with TSPA right now they are doing things with impunity where they know that for any 26/11 they pull all they get is slap on wrist and few dossiers. Once TSPA loses some abduls for each 26/11 you have raised the stakes in the game so now they have to take that into their calculation. Same time it hurts their economy and H&D. So they have to plan more details and get an exit starategy. Same is true of India which has to factor loss of lives, escalation of war possibly nuclear etc before it can teach TSPA a lesson so finally for me it boils down to price you are willing to pay.

The alleged excesses of Gujarat would pale by comparison.

A whole lot of jholawallas and jholawallis would also get taken out. To public applause one might add.

[shiv]

We have not yet taught them a convincing lesson about their self delusion that India wont escalate.

That is true. Despite the teeth gnashing anger at this I don't see India doing it. Cold start is no more for a real invasion than warm start. It is merely to pressure Pakistan the way I described. That's all. The only way out for Pakistan is to make the fuse even shorter - less than 24 hours as Altair has rightly (IMO) guessed in his post

So if a Pakistani General knows of an impending terrorist attack on India. He would know he cannot protect paki foot soldiers against an Indian onslaught. He would put one or two nukes on a missile and a f-16 and go for Indian targets. USAF would detect the launch as would IAF from recently acquired AWACS. What happens then?

I have no answer to "what happens then?"

I suspect that India (probably) and the US (also probably) has Pakistani nuclear storage areas under surveillance.

In the case of nuclear war mating 2 warheads would not be enough, but even a "bluff" scenario to "scare" India would require the extraction of warheads from storage and mating with delivery systems - which then need to be kept in readiness.

Here again a person who wants to scare India cannot easily bluff and say "We have nukes ready". They have to show some signs of nukes being ready to deter India. So even nuclear preparations to set up a "short fuse" that is faster than cold start will give warning signs of an impending terror attack.

OK assume that such warning signs are not there, If India does not read these warning signs, Indian forces and GoI may not think like you and just be bluffed by words after a terror attack. They will get forces ready for a cold start attack in 72-96 hours anyway as a "provocation" to see if Paki threats of nukes are confirmed by intel reports. After all even such a provocation without a subsequent attack (and Parakram like downhill ski) may reveal exactly where Pakis hide their nukes.

What cold start has done is to narrow the options that Pakistan has. It has not stopped anything and is not guaranteed to stop anything. It forces Pakistan to bring its nuclear option closer to the surface and play a deadly game of Russian roulette.

And remember that if Pakistan mobilizes its nukes for firing within 48 hours (before cold start) and forces India to do a downhill ski - it hurts India only in terms of the loss from the terrorist attack. Pakistan will go one step closer to letting the world know that terror and Pakistani nukes are linked at least with regard to India. How India can utilise this info on the world stage is not something I want to dig into now.

[Anujan]

Shiv-ji
I think that militaristic way of retaliating against Paki *terror attacks* is a not a viable strategy (however, episodes like Kargil leave us no choice). Not because it wont yield results, but we have shown we are incapable of it. One or many of the following are the reasons (and have been thrashed around in BRF since eternity. Nevertheless bears repeating)

(a) We are not convinced of a win
(b) We are reasonably sure of a win, but think there is some risk towards loss of territory (like what nearly happened during Asal uttar)
(c) We are convinced of a win, but dont want to pay the price (in terms of economy, in terms of number of soldiers & civilians killed)
(d) We are convinced of a overwhelming win, but are afraid the scale of the win will cause them to use nukes
(e) We wish to differentiate between IMs, Ms and Pakis and war will not allow us to do that
(f) We wish to differentiate between Mango Paki and RAPEs. War will not allow us to do that
(g) We wish to strengthen the hand of "moderates civvies" against the Army and Mullahs and war means ultimately the moderates will lose out
(h) We wish to strengthen the hand of Mango Pakis against Mullahs and so slamming a few on Muridke means the mango paki en masse will be become sympathetic to yahoos

Like my Math prof was fond of saying "We have profoundly thought ourselves into deep confusion"

I am 400% convinced Militaristic replies are ruled out. We need other ideas. The "Strong and Stable Pakistan" is nothing but an acceptance of this.

[Brad Goodman]

Sridharan Sir, It's good that we are discussing Cold Start (CS) here after sometime. I have been itching to discuss it here rather then the Military forum, cos invariably the argument there assumes a more Gung ho attitude.

My contention is that CS is inherently a flawed concept and doesn't act as an deterrent at all. I think the whole strategy achieves nothing and creates massive hullabaloo which in longer run the Indian polity will come to detest (like the 'diplomatic offensive' after 26/11).

I humbly disagree sir. The reason being till now with India strike command situated deep inside India made paki jernails always dream that the war if any will always be fought inside India so even if they lose the war which they will since they do not have the economy to continue for more than 1 week they can always point to their awam that they had made inroads into XX square miles of Indian territory and we did not lose on field but on discussion table where the baniya outfoxed us. Now what is happening is with positioning of forces closer to the border there is a good chance that fight will happen on pak sar zameen and that means abduls will be feeling the heat of bofors shells. That has given jernails sleepless nights what if they lose lahore sialkot or some b grade town to Indian Army or least get dents in these cities all their tall islamic claims of being successors of Ghauri Gaznawi will fall flat on face. Their strategic plans are pulled straight out of madarsa history books where they either want to fight in panipat or cross jhelum in middle of night. With IA waiting at the gates these madarsa plans dont work out. Just look at how many paki retired jernails have written about aggressive Indian designs with reference to CS that itself is a testimony that there is a lot of merit to to the idea. Ofcourse the details need to be refined to ensure that the idea works effectively.

[shiv]

Let me just delve into some philosophization about Pakistan, India and terror.

If you look at the "evolution" of violence from Pakistan - it has gradually moved stepwise from actual frontal assaults on India territory to covert, deniable assaults to a war of attrition by pinpricks. We don't like pinpricks - but terrorism for the Indian government was not much more than pinpricks.

On the other hand the potential for violence from Pakistan has increased with Pakistani nukes.

If we were to stop at describing "the story so far" we would say that the actual violence from Pakistan has come down to pinpricks while its potential to inflict damage has risen.

So what of the future? Does it mean that Pakistan, with its potential to cause damage will now be emboldened to escalate from pinpricks to all out frontal assault again. Or will it just hit out with nukes in a a sudden punitive war?

If we seek answers to these question I believe we need to look at Pakistan and ask

1) Who are the various players in Pakistan who may enact the above scenes?
2) What's in it for each of these players? What does each player in Pakistan gain or lose by the following choices of future action:

• a) No further terrorism and aggression
  b) Continuing pinpricks of terrorism
  c) Escalation to all out war under a nuclear umbrella (but this is the same as option 4 below)
  d) Straight nuking of India

[shiv]

I am 400% convinced Militaristic replies are ruled out. We need other ideas. The "Strong and Stable Pakistan" is nothing but an acceptance of this.

Correct. But it has some caveats. I am trying to find out what those caveats are.

[Pratyush]

Shiv-ji

Paki strategy has We can be 400% sure that they are "innovating" now too. We havent jacked up the price for this repeated "innovations" and always seem to reactive in plugging the mentality behind the last attack.

Well said

[Brad Goodman]

My question to all who think we have not given a strong response to pakis is this. Do we have the capacity to go at war with pakis. By capacity I mean following

1) Military Capacity: Needed weapons, spares, manpower & fuel. Reference can be taken from Kargil war where within a week of this localised war we were importing artillery shells, Bulletproof jackets and coffins

2) Economy: Can we foot the bill of the war. How far back does it set in case the war goes on for 1 week , 2 weeks or 3 weeks. Again reference after Kargil conflict BJP had proposed a kargil tax in its budget.

3) Human Losses: Are we ready for military personel losses, Civilian casulties as well as any dent to infrastructure and worst case scenario a nuke on mumbai or delhi or both.

4) International Relations: Not the most pressing reason but how will other countries in Asia and S Asia in particular react to us in future positive negative or dont care attitude.

[A_Gupta]

Let me just delve into some philosophization about Pakistan, India and terror.

Suppose attacks on India by Pakistan are meant for internal political purposes (as opposed to external goals. E.g., having some cross-border firing, infiltration into J&K and some incidents there "to keep the pot boiling" are necessary for the credibility of Pakistani civilian & military govts. in the eyes of some of its important constituents.

Then there may be no constituency for nuclear attacks, some non-zero sized constituency for Kargil-type attacks, and a much larger constituency for the J&K type stuff mentioned above. Then there is the 26/11 type attack and I don't think we have a handle on that.

[shiv]

Suppose attacks on India by Pakistan are meant for internal political purposes (as opposed to external goals. E.g., having some cross-border firing, infiltration into J&K and some incidents there "to keep the pot boiling" are necessary for the credibility of Pakistani civilian & military govts. in the eyes of some of its important constituents.

Then there may be no constituency for nuclear attacks, some non-zero sized constituency for Kargil-type attacks, and a much larger constituency for the J&K type stuff mentioned above. Then there is the 26/11 type attack and I don't think we have a handle on that.

This is possible. I am willing to accept this as one possibility. It is not a popularly accpted possibility on BRF and needs to be enunciated with care and with evidence.

[Anujan]

but terrorism for the Indian government was not much more than pinpricks.
So what of the future? Does it mean that Pakistan, with its potential to cause damage will now be emboldened to escalate from pinpricks to all out frontal assault again. Or will it just hit out with nukes in a a sudden punitive war?

Shiv-ji
I dont think that philosophically the ultimate aim of Pakis was to destroy India (it is a means -- not an end). I think that philosophically the aim is to convert (IM's first, rest of India later) into Pakis. Just like US wants to export capitalism, Iran wants to export its Shia revolution and the Soviets wanted to export communism, the raisin dieter of Pakistan is to export Pakistaniyat.

There is a danger that terrorism, (I am afraid) might extract a bigger toll on Indian society than just a few dead. The inability of the Guvrmand to (a) prevent it (b) adopt a fair approach to it means that the ground is fertile for provocation & the non-Muslims might lash out in blind rage, the Muslim youth might get radicalized as a response. Pakis have never stopped trying this -- recruiting Indians for Jihad, training them and providing them logistical support. It has had some successes (JK, Indian Mujahideen, SIMI, South groups like Al Ummah) but largely a failure. However, we cannot adopt a "chalta hai" attitude and hope this holds for a few more years to come.

Preventing terror attacks is one thing -- even if the guvrmand fails at this, I hope the guvrmand is getting its message across and holds us together.

[shiv]

My question to all who think we have not given a strong response to pakis is this. Do we have the capacity to go at war with pakis. By capacity I mean following

This is a dirty piskolgical question bound to cause distress because everyone knows in his heart of hearts that Pakistan does not give a shit about develpment and India will never attack Pakistan to give it a "mooh tod jawab" for Mumbai, Kaluchak and a thousand other terrorist attacks.

And that is what causes distress, anger and a search for scapegoats like "weak MMS". Cognitive dissonance when the reality of fighting as dirty as Pakistan fights dawns on us.

[shiv]

There is a danger that terrorism, (I am afraid) might extract a bigger toll on Indian society than just a few dead. The inability of the Guvrmand to (a) prevent it (b) adopt a fair approach to it means that the ground is fertile for provocation & the non-Muslims might lash out in blind rage, the Muslim youth might get radicalized as a response. Pakis have never stopped trying this -- recruiting Indians for Jihad, training them and providing them logistical support. It has had some successes (JK, Indian Mujahideen, SIMI, South groups like Al Ummah) but largely a failure. However, we cannot adopt a "chalta hai" attitude and hope this holds for a few more years to come.

Preventing terror attacks is one thing -- even if the guvrmand fails at this, I hope the guvrmand is getting its message across and holds us together.

Somehow I want to cross post here a message I posted for Paki "liberals" on Pak Tea House. You have to give me some leeway for the language I have used - I am playing piskology as usual

You Pakistanis are Indians. If you could be Indian and Muslim you would have no identity crisis. The problem arose from believing that Islam would have to play second fiddle to the kafir Hindus who worship penises and cowdung.

Every Indian state is a Pakistan minus the Islamic extremism. Let me correct that – every Indian state has its own trademark form of extremism – not necessarily Islamic. Islamic extremism in India gets fierce competition from other assholes who are as bigoted and backward and I am not referring only to your friends the Hindutvadis. Yes Islamic extremism does give other extremists a run for their money in some states – but unlike Pakistan, no walkover is handed to Islamic extremists in the naive belief that they need help more than other bhenchods.

Technically the law and a secular constitution is above all these fighting Indiots. And the Indian state has managed to maintain a monopoly on violence. The latter is the biggest mistake made in Pakistan. The “state” in Pakistan does not maintain a monopoly on coercive force. This is a fundamental requirement of statehood. Google for “Monopoly on violence”

If anoyne has bothered to read it why do you think Naipaul named his book “India – a million mutinies now”? There are a million mutinies in India – not just anti Shia or anti Ahmedi or anti Kafir. Islamic extremism in India cannot dominate over other angry people clamoring for something or other. And those mutineers do not get free arms from the state to fight the wars that the state (establishment/army) wants to fight.

Pakistan was created to give first place to the Muslims who went there. The same mutinies that happen in India have continued in Pakistan. But because sunni Islam was the dominant group – you guys gave it first place and you have gradually eliminated Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and are now busy eliminating Qadianis and perhaps Shias. That is because Pakistan the state never understood that a nation consists of many people with different viewpoints and beliefs. You guys wanted Islam and now it is still not pure enough.

[pgbhat]

You Pakistanis are Indians.

that is enough to give even "liberal" pakis heart attacks.

[RajeshA]

For the sake of discussion, a simplification of the whole issue of Pakistani terrorism in India:

TSPA & Co. conduct and support terrorism in India to increase their H&D.

If India yelps, India helps. If India growls, then it is not even a bark. If India prepares, India invites all the sundry to come visit Kashmir. If India attacks, nukes go online.

So if somebody can think of a way, that any terrorist activity in India causes TSPA & Co. to lose H&D without the risk of a nuclear exchange, then one would have found a solution to this knotted problem.

Hint: Spoiling Pakistan's image in the West as a country of terrorists, has no correlation with Pakistan's H&D.

[Kanson]

India must be prepared for the escalation into conventional war. The conventional war cannot last for too long. Such a war would increase the pain for the US and that is what we must aim to do. Our response must no longer remain muted or theatre-specific once such escalation happens. Cold Start itself must not be delayed beyond a few hours after a terrorist incident. The response must be very swift to carry the message that India has embarked on a punishment mode. Of course, there will be those who would say that India attacked Pakistan without proof. After having endured wave after wave of terrorism from Pakistan for over two decades, one should hardly talk of proof or listen to such nonsense.

As for a nuclear attack, that would remain more or less a threat. Pakistan may use a TNW but that might result in massive conventional retaliation by India without nuclear weapons. I do not think India will be angered into using nukes quickly. India will also raise a huge diplomatic row but should continue to inflict massive damage on Pakistani infrastructure without budging to international pressure.

Thirdly, India must be prepared to weather huge international pressure just the same way Israel does. India's case is even stronger because it had never retaliated in anger before.

Mumbai episode will be useful in that time, i guess. Dosiers after dossiers are meant to establish the connection of terrorism to state actors. So next time, when there is military action, punishing the state actors including the Army will be considered in that light, i believe.

[Kanson]

So if somebody can think of a way, that any terrorist activity in India causes TSPA & Co. to lose H&D without the risk of a nuclear exchange, then one would have found a solution to this knotted problem.

Hint: Spoiling Pakistan's image in the West as a country of terrorists, has no correlation with Pakistan's H&D.

Correct. But it kind of helps in making Pak losse there H&D, if that happens. Only way to make Paki loose their H&D eternally is to nullify the term called Pak. As long as there exists Pak, there is some kind of H&D still sticking that says we are yet to be defeated. How to make that happen?

[RajeshA]

Correct. But it kind of helps in making Pak losse there H&D, if that happens. Only way to make Paki loose their H&D eternally is to nullify the term called Pak. As long as there exists Pak, there is some kind of H&D still sticking that says we are yet to be defeated. How to make that happen?

If the whole international community calls Pakistani Army a terrorist, it does not help, because it is a badge of honor for the perpetrators, a recognition of their success in asymmetric warfare.

TSPA's H&D can be lost only if it is lost in the eyes of the RAPE, the Ghazwa-e-Hind crowd, etc. 1971 was a loss of H&D, especially because it was at the hands of India. An Army like that of Pakistan loses H&D only if they lose at the hands of the Kafir. Everything else doesn't count.

[shiv]

So if somebody can think of a way, that any terrorist activity in India causes TSPA & Co. to lose H&D without the risk of a nuclear exchange, then one would have found a solution to this knotted problem.

Hint: Spoiling Pakistan's image in the West as a country of terrorists, has no correlation with Pakistan's H&D.

The only thing that gives me an idea comes from another post I made on Pakteahouse

It is important for the Pakistani to see unhappiness among Indian Muslims. It is important for the Pakistani narrative to hold up as poster boys, unhappy and disssarisfied, and preferably murdered or raped Indian Muslims.

The Indian government recognised this long ago and indulged in a series of moves that are nowadays called as “Muslim appeasement in India” to make sure that Muslims got as much Islam in India as they desired. But this actually kept them away from modernization and education. Luckily for India even Pakistan did not bother about modernization and education of Pakistanis so they eventually had nothing to show off about.

[Altair]

TSPA's H&D can be lost only if it is lost in the eyes of the RAPE, the Ghazwa-e-Hind crowd, etc. 1971 was a loss of H&D, especially because it was at the hands of India. An Army like that of Pakistan loses H&D only if they lose at the hands of the Kafir. Everything else doesn't count.

US for all its double standards when dealing with India knows the "value" of toxic assets especially when its branded Pakistan (remember Zia!) .Taking a leaf out of their infamous "deck of cards", India can prepare its own deck of cards of Pakistani generals in active duty or otherwise who can mastermind a terrorist attack in India.The H&D loss seeing their photo on a deck of cards is astronomical.Put a bounty on their heads. Paki taliban can be very helpful here. The cost associated with this plan is politically,financially much less than any other possibility.
We dont have to wait for any terrorist attack to happen to make them meet their 72s. Just an offshore bank account properly funded and ofcourse a deck of cards!

[Kamboja]

In re: punishing Pakistan for terrorist attacks --

Why is there not more thinking on the role that the Indian Navy could play? My understanding is that the IN has been significantly adding to its capabilities in recent years, and certainly it is more than sufficient to overwhelm the joke that is PN.

Seems to me that a simple, yet effective, punishment for Paki terror is a naval blockade on Karachi, pure and simple. As it is their economy is so brittle that it is nearing the point of collapse - imposing a blockade would simply nudge it along to its natural death.

I think a prerequisite for this would be establishing (for ourselves, at least) that a terror attack is linked to Pakistan. Another Ajmal Kasab, for instance, should be enough provocation. In addition to a naval blockade, cartloads of dossiers must be provided to Pakis and to 'international community' to indicate that India is not a brutal, hegemonistic power but a reasonable and mature global power.

We should not blindly dash ourselves against heavily fortified land borders in Punjab or Sindh. We should overwhelm them at sea and starve them if they provoke us. This also gives them far less reason to attack us, at least at first, since the TSPA and RAPE are so wedded to the idea of land wars and land battles that attacks at sea will be perceived as less threatening, IMHO.

The only caveat I see to this is that we would be supplying the Pakis with the perfect scapegoat for their sorry economic situation. No longer would the TSPA and TSP Govt need to explain to their angry citizens why there is no food, water, bijli, etc... all can be blamed on Indian Naval blockade. This would temporarily unite aam abduls behind P'land, which is a negative for India. But I think the economic costs to TSP would more than compensate us for that

[Pulikeshi]

^India seems to have come to the following conclusion:
The only option against Pakistan is for Pakistan to run out of options.

There is thus much hand wringing and chest beating when the Pakis' (got to give the devil his due)
pull an option out of their Musharraf even as their soul become more undead every night.

Kamboja:
What is the consequence of starving a man-eater and cornering it?

[RajeshA]

It is important for the Pakistani to see unhappiness among Indian Muslims. It is important for the Pakistani narrative to hold up as poster boys, unhappy and disssarisfied, and preferably murdered or raped Indian Muslims.

The Indian government recognised this long ago and indulged in a series of moves that are nowadays called as “Muslim appeasement in India” to make sure that Muslims got as much Islam in India as they desired. But this actually kept them away from modernization and education. Luckily for India even Pakistan did not bother about modernization and education of Pakistanis so they eventually had nothing to show off about.

shiv ji,

"Muslim appeasement in India" does dent Pakistan's contention, that it has to fight for the rights of Muslims on the subcontinent. The rights of Muslims on the subcontinent are however somewhat 'stretchable'.

- It is the right of the Muslims to have a Muslim as the leader/king/emperor/calipha of India.
- It is the right of the Muslims to have the Muslims as ruling class in India.
- It is the right of the Muslims to live under Sharia.
- It is the right of the Muslims to convert all Kufr to Islam unhindered.

What else is 'Lal Kile pe Pakistan ka jhanda pheraange!' slogan?

So for TSPA to keep the Pakistani qaum all pumped up against India is not a very difficult task, especially as there are always cases of Babri Masjid, Godhra, Kashmir incidents, etc. to keep the pot boiling for the next 20 years. So propaganda material is not really a problem for TSPA.

The above, I would catalog under "Loss of a true motive". There is still no "Loss of made-up motive". In Islam, there is no dearth of motives for jihad. Moreover there is still no "Loss of H&D", which a Muslim Army only suffers when the Army loses to the Kafirs (People without a book ). Even that sometimes does not cause irreparable damage to the H&D, as the ghazwa can be continued in further battles and wars, either by the same Momeen or his descendants. It has to be a tangible loss.

• Loss of lives is not tangible, as Islam can produce a thousand new mujahids, especially with the high birth rate.
• Destruction of property is also not tangible, as property can be rebuilt, but more importantly there is hardly much property there worth its name.
• Destruction of places of worship is also not that tangible because some Salafist streams of Islam consider even historical mosques and mausoleums as idol-worship. Besides destruction of such places raises only more ire against the destroyer.

The only things that comes to my mind, is

• Loss of Land
• Loss of Followers to another religion

because both losses is a retreat of Islam and any Muslim ruler who allows that, incurs losses to his H&D.

Being a secular country and an appeaser on top of that, India cannot really pursue the second option. Loss of Land is for me the only appropriate strategy. That is why I am of the opinion that, in order to stop terrorism in India, India should 'confiscate' a commensurate amount of Land from Pakistan, regardless of price.

[Kamboja]

Kamboja:
What is the consequence of starving a man-eater and cornering it?

The advantage of a naval blockade is this:

On the one hand, it fuels aam abdul's anger at the increase in deprivation of basic economic goods, rendering more miserable the already crapulent lives they lead. Sure, at first they will blame India but soon questions will be asked: 'why is TSPA, the glorious protector of our nation, not doing anything?' The TSPA, whose only claim to fame is that they are the unifying force and protectors of P'land, will be undermined because they can do little (at sea) to lift the blockade. This might force the TSPA hand into action on land so as to maintain echandee and primacy in Packee eyes, not to mention forestall outbreak of popular revolt by the pious, both within and outside of TSPA.

On the other hand, a naval blockade is a relatively humane, reasonable punitive action. Little obvious bloodshed but plenty of economic pain for the Packees. And if it spurs them into attacking on land, India can take the moral high ground and say to the world 'look, we are simply sailing ships around Karachi harbor. These animals are busy shooting at our boys, which we cannot tolerate.' Then we proceed to hold them off at our border, maintain the blockade, gain international respect (however grudging) for our moral stance, and watch as TSP collapses upon itself.

OK, so some wishful thinking there, but not an inconceivable outcome no?

[Brad Goodman]

This is a dirty piskolgical question bound to cause distress because everyone knows in his heart of hearts that Pakistan does not give a shit about develpment and India will never attack Pakistan to give it a "mooh tod jawab" for Mumbai, Kaluchak and a thousand other terrorist attacks.

And that is what causes distress, anger and a search for scapegoats like "weak MMS". Cognitive dissonance when the reality of fighting as dirty as Pakistan fights dawns on us.

On the contrary Shiv Ji this is the difference we see between India & Pakistan. Pakis are fighting a war without paying any attention to the cost they are paying for it. This is why they have never been able to concentrate on nation building which includes population control, education, medicine, industries etc. They have been obsessed in selling themselves to 3.5 masters just to get money to fight India. This is exactly similar to drug addicts who beg borrow steal money just so that they can get some dope and survive.

We have made a choice where we take blows from pakis on our chin and go back to work. Now I am not sure which is right or wrong strategy but least by building our institutions we have made sure of one thing that Indian federation has not come strong. Barring naxal movement (which again is not territorial but more socio political) we have built a pretty strong nation (within its limits of course but still India of 2010 is better than India of 1950).

So for me it is not being coward or brave it is biding for the right time. This again is very subjective for many people the time has already come or came long ago to teach pakis a lesson but I feel series of unfortunate events like Afghan war, soviet collapse, paki nukes, indian weak economy kept us off balance and now slowly we are rising up. We definately have bigger capacity to hold out in case of war than pakis.

[surinder]

Loss of Land is for me the only appropriate strategy. That is why I am of the opinion that, in order to stop terrorism in India, India should 'confiscate' a commensurate amount of Land from Pakistan, regardless of price.

Well said. In fact, it was the loss of Land in 1971 that has meant that TSP has not waged a full-fledged open war on India. They went for from an overt war to a covert one. Now further loss of Land should be threat that India should use. It is not cheap for India, but I don't see any alternative.

[svinayak]

On the contrary Shiv Ji this is the difference we see between India & Pakistan. Pakis are fighting a war without paying any attention to the cost they are paying for it. This is why they have never been able to concentrate on nation building which includes population control, education, medicine, industries etc. They have been obsessed in selling themselves to 3.5 masters just to get money to fight India.

They are doing it to save Islam and Izzat of the Muslims of the sub continent and they are the true rulers of the large population in the region. Allah is on their side. Their history says so that they are the progeny of the mogul rulers and hence they are entitled for all the free things they are demanding. All this small issues of education, medicine, industries are not their problem

[Pranav]

Loss of Land is for me the only appropriate strategy. That is why I am of the opinion that, in order to stop terrorism in India, India should 'confiscate' a commensurate amount of Land from Pakistan, regardless of price.

Well said. In fact, it was the loss of Land in 1971 that has meant that TSP has not waged a full-fledged open war on India. They went for from an overt war to a covert one. Now further loss of Land should be threat that India should use. It is not cheap for India, but I don't see any alternative.

It would probably be more fruitful to work on social engineering in TSP, and also on deniable covert actions.

[surinder]

If the whole international community calls Pakistani Army a terrorist, it does not help, because it is a badge of honor for the perpetrators, a recognition of their success in asymmetric warfare.

I disaggree. For all their bravado, TSPians are remarkably keen to be seen in positive light by the world, especially by West, and also by Indians. (This desire for likeability is something that is probably a vestige of Hindu trait in them, but that is besides the point.) Nevertheless, it does hold them, to a certain extent at least. TSP has not enjoyed the international disdain by caused by Shehzaaadi or the London tube boombers. India has exploited this trait quite well also, witholding recognition by threatening to break of diplomatic relations and cutting of rail and bus links at certain times (ABV also cut off over flights). Also note, their desire for "dialogue", even when even they know it is not going to give them Kashmir, is rooted in their desire to be treated as a "normal" "respectable" nation who can sit at a negotiationg table.

I do admit that this tendency alone cannot be sufficient in bringing them back from the ditch of atankvaad.

[Tamang]

Pak sends 'face reader' to receive Nirupama Rao

Pakistan's Foreign Office apparently sent an official known for his ability to read faces to receive Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao on her arrival in Rawalpindi in a bid to find out what was on her mind.

[Brad Goodman]

Correct. But it kind of helps in making Pak losse there H&D, if that happens. Only way to make Paki loose their H&D eternally is to nullify the term called Pak. As long as there exists Pak, there is some kind of H&D still sticking that says we are yet to be defeated. How to make that happen?

Kanson pakis dont care if the world calls then terror walmart or anything they just think west is jealous of them. Their ehendee really hurts when kafir SDRE is more successful than them. Example SDRE gets US visa, SDRE does not go through additional checks at port of entry, SDRE are buying jaguar, SDRE is not in top 10 falied states, SDRE gets chandrayaan, LCA, LCH, Arjun or Param.

[Brad Goodman]

For all those who are bashing Indian response and diplomacy I have a quick comment. Pakis started assymetric warfare against India first in Punjab then in Kashmir followed up then with ULFA along with all other smaller ones in NE. Our objective was to bring some level of peace to this area. Now zoom into 2010 what do we have Punjab is normal most people do not talk about punjab & violence together anymore. ULFA most of its leadership is in jail and NE is relatively quiet. Same with J&K the inflitration and gun battles are fewer and fewer. Now There were two ways to acheive it once was Israeli way where you overwhelm the opposition with your fire power or what India has done (hard to define, some chanakya neeti and some gandhigiri of taking blows on cheeks).

What do pakis have to show in terms of tangible gains for all they have been doing since 1980's. Could they break India? Could they wrest their jugular vien? Could they give a mooh tod jawab for east pakistan?

Yes they can glee when occassional kasab & party wreck havoc on Taj Oberoi or commuter trains are blown up or mast gul burns down charar e sharif and IA gives him a safe passage. Or Azar is freed in IC 814. But these are temporary euphoria that last days or weeks after that when awam looks at the price paid to get some sadistic satisfaction but no real gains to show. Pakis want something similar to partition type gains when every abdul in pakjab & sindh made huge financial gains by looting yindoo wealth / women and goats turning him into lakhpati overnight. All subsequent raids on delhi have returned them nothing to show off.

[RajeshA]

If the whole international community calls Pakistani Army a terrorist, it does not help, because it is a badge of honor for the perpetrators, a recognition of their success in asymmetric warfare.

I disaggree. For all their bravado, TSPians are remarkably keen to be seen in positive light by the world, especially by West, and also by Indians. (This desire for likeability is something that is probably a vestige of Hindu trait in them, but that is besides the point.) Nevertheless, it does hold them, to a certain extent at least. TSP has not enjoyed the international disdain by caused by Shehzaaadi or the London tube boombers. India has exploited this trait quite well also, witholding recognition by threatening to break of diplomatic relations and cutting of rail and bus links at certain times (ABV also cut off over flights). Also note, their desire for "dialogue", even when even they know it is not going to give them Kashmir, is rooted in their desire to be treated as a "normal" "respectable" nation who can sit at a negotiationg table.

I do admit that this tendency alone cannot be sufficient in bringing them back from the ditch of atankvaad.

surinder ji,
You are right. I would like to say however, that particular strain is more pronounced in RAPE, but less so in Islamized Pakjabis and some Pushtun who look upon disdain at the West, and have a particular disdain for Kufr Hindus. They don't care about visas to Western countries. This is a constituency which has been nurtured by TSPA and the madrassas. This is the constituency from which all the Tanzeems get their cadres but it is also a constituency which needs to be constantly fed with stories of Muslim bravery, and how 1 Pakistani is equal to 10 Hindus. It is in this constituency, that TSPA cannot afford to lose face.
This constituency would not accept the alliance with USA either, were it not for the argument that they need the weapons to make Kufr India bleed.

[SBajwa]

Cold Start doctrine assumes that India will be attacking the military (State) installations. While who is stopping Indians to attack LET headquarters at Muridke, Bahawalpur and Muzaffarabad? How about attack on Dawood's house in Karachi?

Go after "non-state actor terrorists so that diplomats can claim that we are only attacking the bad taliban in pakistan which pakistani state is also attacking and thus we are helping them. actually pre-empt this through media. Start saying now that we will attack all installations of identified non-pakistani state actors in pakistan.

This will be a valid cold doctrine!! Everytime there is an attack in India let loose couple of non-nuke brahmos/prithvis on these "non-state actors"

[Sri]

I think after years of ying and yang, what India Pakistan has achieved is 'Nash equilibrium'. We can safely assume that both India and Pakistan now completely understand each other's equilibrium strategies and we are a point and time where neither India nor Pakistan has anything to gain by changing their strategy unilaterally.

Please understand that Pakistan feels vindicated, happy and content by keeping the Equilibrium. It's India which wants to wriggle out of it, because quite frankly we have better things to do...

Thing is, if our strategic thinkers think that by Cold Start doctrine we our somehow changing the equilibrium in our favour then it's incorrect.

Shiv ji few bytes back gave an illustration of a Paki General sahib having sleepless nights over it. I am sure that would have been the case for sometime. But as soon as Brutus realizes that India is there to only strike and go back and not stay he realizes that it works OK for him, because:
1) If India Strikes Terror camps.... so be it, they are easy of empty and easy to refill... no problems there.
2) India does gain initial advantage by moving faster then Paki defense can organize itself, Indian will still retreat, because Conventional capturing and then setting up bridge heads is not part of the doctrine.
3) While India will retreat feeling that we have bloodied the Paki nose, Brutus will claim that they shooed us away and hence Brutus will qualify by right of precedence to be the next Caesar.

Eventually General Sahib would have figured out that in any case 'All izz well for him' and he sleeping quite well, thank you.

Nash equilibrium can only be changed when there is a sufficient change in payout for either parties to exercise unilateral change in strategy. As in my last post and also stated by Rajesh A. We have to raise the stake and quite frankly claim the rights to Pakjabi elite's land and cease it because it funds / nourishes and instigates hatred against India.

[RamaY]

The above, I would catalog under "Loss of a true motive". There is still no "Loss of made-up motive". In Islam, there is no dearth of motives for jihad. Moreover there is still no "Loss of H&D", which a Muslim Army only suffers when the Army loses to the Kafirs (People without a book ). Even that sometimes does not cause irreparable damage to the H&D, as the ghazwa can be continued in further battles and wars, either by the same Momeen or his descendants. It has to be a tangible loss.

• Loss of lives is not tangible, as Islam can produce a thousand new mujahids, especially with the high birth rate.
• Destruction of property is also not tangible, as property can be rebuilt, but more importantly there is hardly much property there worth its name.
• Destruction of places of worship is also not that tangible because some Salafist streams of Islam consider even historical mosques and mausoleums as idol-worship. Besides destruction of such places raises only more ire against the destroyer.

The only things that comes to my mind, is

• Loss of Land
• Loss of Followers to another religion

because both losses is a retreat of Islam and any Muslim ruler who allows that, incurs losses to his H&D.

Being a secular country and an appeaser on top of that, India cannot really pursue the second option. Loss of Land is for me the only appropriate strategy. That is why I am of the opinion that, in order to stop terrorism in India, India should 'confiscate' a commensurate amount of Land from Pakistan, regardless of price.

Beauty RajeshA-ji! Pls accept my pranams!

Without going into the details of whether it is possible and [sic]secular India will do it or not, I would put the order slightly differently.

• As a secular nation India must ensure that any visible religious desecrations are removed and those places of worship are returned to the original faith. This means ASI relocating Jnanavapi Mosque and Dwaraka Mosque to another place and rebuilding Ayodhya, Kasi, and Mathura temples (and any other visible historical wrongs) and Kutubminar mosque etc.,
• Confiscate a commensurate amount of Land from Pakistan.
• Above two will automatically kick start your point "Loss of Followers to another religion"

[Rudradev]

Rudradev, the Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) since the mid-80s has been launched by Pakistan under its strong belief of quickly escalating it into a wider conflict with nuclear ramifications if India chose to retaliate robustly. This has hampered India in Kargil, in Parliament Attack, commuter train attack and now 26/11. The belief in Pakistan is also that even if an undeterred India decided to call the Pakistani bluff by persisting with its response, the US and others (read China) would intervene to either arrest further deterioration of the situation or come to its rescue. In Kargil, the US conjured up a 'nuclear flashpoint' and intervened and the US president promised to pay more attention to resolving Kashmir. This validated the Pakistani belief. The Pakistani LIC strategy is thus based on three pillars: escalation to conventional war; threats of a nuclear war; international intervention in its favour. These are the three things, IMHO, that India needs to tackle. All of them need enormous political resolve and unity. The ruling and opposition parties must be united and corporate entities must not cry foul as they did last time around. GoI cannot build consensus after the event because the response will unravel quickly and there will be no time. Broad hints must be thrown to these stakeholders now and they must be convinced that India cannot wait for another 20 years to even contemplate a response because our GDP is not enough etc.

As part of securing its LIC flank, Pakistan wants to blunt the Indian Cold Start. That is why it refuses to move its troops from the India borders. There can be no other reason for not moving some of these troops to FATA since the Eastern border has been peaceful for over six years now, save the occassional Pakistani violations themselves. It knows that even a reluctant India cannot keep on absorbing body blows and at some time, it will react through its Cold Start. It also knows that Cold Start will inflict damage, mostly to terrorist infrastructure and possibly to those PA units providing logistical support to the terror camps. PA would then like to quickly escalate that to a conventional war because its troops are still present in the area and quickly thereafter threaten India with nuclear attacks.

India must be prepared for the escalation into conventional war. The conventional war cannot last for too long. Such a war would increase the pain for the US and that is what we must aim to do. Our response must no longer remain muted or theatre-specific once such escalation happens. Cold Start itself must not be delayed beyond a few hours after a terrorist incident. The response must be very swift to carry the message that India has embarked on a punishment mode. Of course, there will be those who would say that India attacked Pakistan without proof. After having endured wave after wave of terrorism from Pakistan for over two decades, one should hardly talk of proof or listen to such nonsense.

As for a nuclear attack, that would remain more or less a threat. Pakistan may use a TNW but that might result in massive conventional retaliation by India without nuclear weapons. I do not think India will be angered into using nukes quickly. India will also raise a huge diplomatic row but should continue to inflict massive damage on Pakistani infrastructure without budging to international pressure.

Thirdly, India must be prepared to weather huge international pressure just the same way Israel does. India's case is even stronger because it had never retaliated in anger before.

SSridhar, superb articulation as usual of India's imperatives when dealing with Pakistani LIC.

However, the question remains. If Pakistan will respond to a Cold Start type attack by escalating to conventional war (with the hope of raising a nuclear spectre for the international community), then India must be prepared for such a broad conventional escalation even as it enacts Cold Start.

But doesn't that somewhat erode the value of Cold Start (i.e. being able to conduct a punitive strike with only hours of notice?)

I mean, if India has to be prepared for a subsequent conventional escalation by Pakistan, then we will need to have a lot more forces, assets, materiel etc. ready in the theatre than are required for Cold Start itself, and they will have to be ready at the time of launching the Cold Start operation. So doesn't that mean we will have to have a buildup of much greater scale along the IB and LoC... which will take weeks or longer, before we can launch the Cold Start? In that time, international pressure will build up, Pakistani readiness will increase more quickly than ours, all the problems that apply to a larger deployment like Parakram will come into play.

That is what I was driving at by asking what India will do if our Cold Start in response to terrorism, is followed by more Pakistani terrorism. We can count on Pakistan escalating in the wake of a Cold Start, whether conventionally or sub-conventionally or in both ways.

In other words, as you have indicated in your post, Cold Start will not be the end of the story, only the beginning. Given this, how do we make sure that we retain control of writing the rest of the story?

[NikhilB]

RajeshA - Agree with your analysis. Indeed there are only two things that will hurt to TSPA most - land and religion. All other losses - people, property etc - will not bother them and will not deter them from launching next terrorist attack on India.

However we will have to consider what is realistic and practical in our case. Do we really think grabbing land from pakis after every terrorist attack is possible and realistic for us both economically and militarily ? Can we come up with some example say, which portion to target first in case of next attack ?

I think we will have to deal with this in two stages
(1) Find out what hurts most for TSPA (and its allied non-state actors) - RajeshA has already put this brilliantly.
(2) Analyse and bridge the gap from our "current reality" to above "capability" - This means addressing all the questions raised above in case of our cold start (people loss, economic loss, how to deter pakis from waging full war). I think this cannot be done in a day or year, and we will have to work towards this strategy.

Every possible concern in CS doctrine need to be addressed (either resolved or accepted in tolerance) - until then we will just have to "stop talking for 1 year" and keep sending dossiers.

[Abhijit]

RajeshA

The only way to stop terrorism in India, is if India accepts the principle of

LAND for TERRORISM.

Rajesh saar, what is the escalation ladder profile in this scenario?

- pakis launch a terror attack
- India launches cold start, grabs some land after heavy fighting
- the land is small sliver with no population - whatever paki population was there has run away to inner pakiland
- pakis threaten nuke by starting their mating dance
- also for good measure, they launch 5 more terror attacks within a day, killing 1000+ Indians
- unkil convenes UN meeting condemning India, hopefully russkies veto it
- unkil also provides vital battle theatre intelligence to pakis
- pakis launch air attacks, in response IAF pounds sargodha
- paki bombs hit Amritsar (Golden Temple), BARC, Red fort, Jamnagar etc. The refinery (and a lot more stuff is burning)
and n such variations.
What Shiv has pointed out succinctly is still true. we are fighting paki bhasmasur, ably assisted by america, china saudi and uk, japan on the sides.
there is an internal time bomb that is ticking inside India - Pakis can create 5 godhras a day.

The only way to kill pakiland is to let it rot by itself. The other alternatives are all pie in the sky.

- can we build an america-hating society like pakis have done? only then will unkil take us seriously - is it worth building such a society?
- can IM's prove to pakis (not to Hindus, not to Indians) that pakiland is a cancer to Islam (and not the fort of Islam) while IM's are the true inheritors of the prophet's legacy? it is impossible for many reasons.
- can we prepare our own society to take the massive cost of 'aar paar ki ladai'? - very unlikely.

Until then growling (and simultaneously cooing) and sharpening the knives and sharpening the desire to avenge the kaluchaks and mumbais and saurabh kalias is the only way.

JMHO.

[Prem]

You Pakistanis are Indians.

that is enough to give even "liberal" pakis heart attacks.

Require Chinese Restorative Artwork Proofing to make them so and pass the proper peeking plan promptly.
Long time ago we here came to conclusion that Pawkistan was created iby islam and will be destroyed by Islam. Never fight a war in anger , just promote pure islamic piety among the pests ," praying" for best .