Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Aug 05, 2011

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Sep 2011 15:03

sum wrote:Aditya-ji,
Not really since as per Wiki:
The Frontier Corps (FC) (Urdu: فرنٹیئرکور) is a federally-controlled paramilitary force of Pakistan, recruited mostly from the tribal areas along the western borders and led by officers from the Pakistan Army. The Frontier Corps comprises three major subdivisions; FC NWFP (stationed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (fromerly known as North-West Frontier Province) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and FC Balochistan (stationed in Balochistan province). Each subdivision is headed by a seconded Inspector General, who is a Pakistan Army officer of at least major-general rank, although the force itself is under the jurisdiction of the Interior Ministry.[1]
So it was indeed a serving Maj. Gen who met his 72 at the hands of some miscreants.

Nope , note subtle difference, it wasnt an IG Killed but a DIG.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 07 Sep 2011 15:11

Rain pounding sindh and karachi.

Sat picture shows cyclone like formation over southern pukiland

saadhak · Post by **saadhak** » 07 Sep 2011 15:23

^^2 suicide bombers blow up Pak brigadier's house, 20 killed
Indeed it seems that a TSPA senior afsar is enjoying his 72:

Two suicide bombers struck the house of a top military commander in Pakistan's southwestern city of Quetta on Wednesday, killing his wife and 19 other people most of them soldiers.
One of the bombers detonated his explosive-laden car in front of the official residence of deputy inspector general of the paramilitary force 'Frontier Corps', Brigadier Khuram Shehzad, ...

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Sep 2011 15:25

I expect the DIG, FC to be also an Army Officer.

This Quetta suicide bombing was a retaliation for the boastful arrests of the three AQ members that the PA claimed it made.
PS: Thanks saadhak for confirmation.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Sep 2011 15:27

Rudradev wrote:B ) Chinipakis: the remaining portion of TSPA and ISI, plus many elements of the RAPE "political" class (such as Zardari) who are relying on the Chinese to save the day. They are the ones doing their damndest to mortgage the whole Pakistani state as the newest province of China. These, from the Indian point of view, may be the most dangerous... for reasons I will go into later. They are playing for a coup... a two-front war prosecuted by China and Pakistan against India, that will at once humiliate India, make America less relevant, and seize Kashmir in a move that will confer political legitimacy on the leadership claims of the Chinipaki group.

Rudradev ji,

this group is indeed the most dangerous. You're quite correct that Zardari is a vital part of this group.

India is very short on time, and both China and Chinpakis have put their pieces in place. Not just Kashmir and India's Northeast, but also Afghanistan, and the rest of Central Asia is up for grabs. Both USA and India are being forced out of Central Asia and its resources.

It's pathetic that both USA and, for us more importantly, India have been pushed out of the Great Game altogether, and the wizards of Delhi have been terribly outplayed.

Rudradev ji,

My impression is that Chinpakis are taking over possession of Maha-Islampasand Pakis, not directly, but indirectly like using the Maha-Islampasand Pakis like Taliban to drive out America from Afghanistan, and LeT to attack India. The Maha-Islampasands do the whole Jihadi Storm, and the Chinpakis and their Iran-Chinpaki-China Axis pick up all the mangoes that fall off the Great Game Tree.

Let's not forget that even Iran has been helping the Taliban here and there.

On the other hand, Nawaz Sharif, who is close to Saudi Arabia, has been very conciliatory towards Indians lately.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Sep 2011 15:29

Ok good, thats a True Green on Green causualty, the RAPE should experience what they have been developing as a weapon against India. only then can TSP society be made to face the horrors comitted by them in the past.

Narad · Post by **Narad** » 07 Sep 2011 15:38

Rudradev saar, that was truly an excellent thought provoking analysis. Thank you for the excellent write up.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Sep 2011 15:52

It seems that when B. Raman and Bharat Karnad speak of changing India's posture towards the Pakistanis, they make perfect sense.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Sep 2011 16:14

Rudradev, a very good post as usual.

I had posted along similar lines a few days back. It can be seen here. I omitted the three other constituencies that you had mentioned (namely C, D & E) for one reason or another. However, none of them (including the ones that love India) has any love lost for us and would not hesitate to damage us or harm us when an opportunity presents itself. The most potent group is Group A which absolutely detests Group B as a result of c. 2002 and could be the best option to decimate Group A. However, it should not be that we land from fire into the frying pan. But, do we have many choices ? As far as India is concerned, it will always be either A or B and both are sinister and too dangerous for us, the former with a delayed fuse and the latter with a proximity fuse.

As for PRC, apart from whatever reason you have offered for its war-mongering, I find another one too. As we all know, China has major border problems with all the nations surrounding it. it has solved only one such border problem, that with Pakistan. China's usually atrcious and arrogant behaviour has resulted in demands for 'internationally accepted norms of behaviour' from some countries. Increasingly, the rise of powerful China is being viewed with apprehension by the littoral states and others. There is definitely an anti-China nexus forming in the region, though nobody wants to say so openly.

The only dependable ally that PRC has today is Pakistan. China's influence may be growing in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc but they are too small, powerless and vulnerable to threats from bigger nations in the anti-China alliance. The only two purposes they serve is to help PRC with their natural resources and add to the insecurity of India. Pakistan is a different kettle of fish altogether. China's greed for territory and access to natural resources is insatiable. It does not want to have any settlement of its border disputes with Japan, Vietnam, Philippines etc. except completely on its terms and conditions. It is far too difficult to attack all these countries (even one after another) as it would be costly, can lead to unpredictable situations with other powers such as the US coming to their rescue, or having a tough time with ASEAN which is a significant economic partner etc. Besides, China's irredentism with those countries involves seas, not land.

OTOH, India is perceived as a soft state whose response may take time to materialize if PRC does a 'cold start' on that country. China has always arrogantly believed (like TSP of yesteryears) that Indian military is a pushover. It may therefore be thinking of a swift operation like 1962 but not withdrawing after the assault. Such an operation would manifold increase its stock and force the much smaller neighbours to settle matters more amicably and in best possible terms for PRC. The window for such an operation is limited as India begins to upgrade its military infrastructure in the East and North East, add a strike corps and independent divisions, add new missiles, frigates, SSNs, aircraft and ABM to its arsenal etc. The increasing diplomatic and military synergy among the US, India, Japan, Australia, Vietnam, South Korea, Singapore might also worry PRC. Since time is of essence, there is extraordinary collaboration between TSP & PRC.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Sep 2011 16:19

SSridhar wrote:Rudradev, a very good post as usual.

I had posted along similar lines a few days back. . . . Since time is of essence, there is extraordinary collaboration between TSP & PRC.

Does this mean we can expect War very soon, seems are Elite in Delhi and Media do not seem to appriciate this danger.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Sep 2011 16:36

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Sep 2011 16:43

Aditya_V wrote:
SSridhar wrote:Rudradev, a very good post as usual.

I had posted along similar lines a few days back. . . . Since time is of essence, there is extraordinary collaboration between TSP & PRC.
Does this mean we can expect War very soon, . .

Developments on the LAC, PLA's increasing presence along LoC and even IB, frequent and aggressive incursions into Indian territory, inimical actions such as stapled visas, arrogant slighting of Lt. Gen. Jaswal, challenging IN in international waters, objecting to our PM visiting Arunachal Pradesh, objecting to ADB funding to projects in Arunachal, stalling the declaration of LeT, JeM as terror organizations in the UNSC, transfer of nukes and technology to Pakistan, state-sponsored hacking of official Indian websites and a cyber warfare on us, diverting the waters of Brahmaputra, China's open interference in Nepal to have a government inimical to India installed there, China's refusal to support India for UNSC or even other organizations such as Wassenaar, NSG etc, demarche not to attend Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, positioning of CSS-5 targetting India in the Tibet etc. point in only one direction, at least to me. And, that is a relentless march to war.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Sep 2011 16:58

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... mplex.html

A diplomatic row has flared after the Danish ambassador to Pakistan and his wife were arrested and held while travelling to Osama bin Laden's former hideout.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 07 Sep 2011 17:22

SKumar: You are mistaken in thinking that covert ops within paki stan, against the pakis means turning "criminal". All niti & artha shastras clearly segrigate State actions from Dharma & Rit, which are ristricted to personal, social morality. There are no "criminal" acts between States. If only our current Neta people were as clear about this as were our ancestors. I would gladly take any one of Bhishma, Yudhishtra, Duryodhan, Karna, Arjuna etc. to lead India today in place of the collection of currupt half wits we have.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Sep 2011 17:33

SSridhar wrote:Rudradev, a very good post as usual.

I had posted along similar lines a few days back. It can be seen here. I omitted the three other constituencies that you had mentioned (namely C, D & E) for one reason or another. However, none of them (including the ones that love India) has any love lost for us and would not hesitate to damage us or harm us when an opportunity presents itself. The most potent group is Group A which absolutely detests Group B as a result of c. 2002 and could be the best option to decimate Group A. However, it should not be that we land from fire into the frying pan. But, do we have many choices ? As far as India is concerned, it will always be either A or B and both are sinister and too dangerous for us, the former with a delayed fuse and the latter with a proximity fuse.

SSridhar garu,

I did not quite understand, what you mean by Group A hating Group B? What is with 2002?

However Group B is not out there to decimate Group A, but rather to use it to its own ends.

Yes, Group A would keep on attacking the pawns of Group B, due to the proxy war between Saudis and Iranians through their proxies the Wahhabandis and Sufis/Shias, but the goals of the two Groups is different.

Group A thinks with Islam, while Group B thinks with its head. Group A goal is Islam (and Kashmir and destruction of India), but Group B's goal is even bigger. Group B is fully in consonance with China and Iran.

Group A can be a thorn on the side of China too, but not Group B. That is why China is intent on getting Group B to lead Group A. That is why China has made Zardari as their main interlocutor with TSPA. People were thinking that Zardari owes his position to the Americans. That is wrong IMHO. He owes it to the Chinese.

In all of this the only silver line for India is that Group A also supports East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), which will cause more problems for a smooth Sino-Pak cooperation. The Chinese at the moment do not know how to touch ETIM, as it is strongly rooted in FATA, and hope that Group B can coerce TSPA to use its Group A alliances to weed it out. But for that Group B has to show that it can deliver on something - and here comes the question of Kashmir and the invitation to the Chinese to come in to PoK. This is where a war with India can give Group B the upper hand over policy making and influence.

That is one vector of attack, India should consider in order to disrupt the Sino-Pak Alliance.

There is another vector, and that is MQM. If PPP-led Group A becomes stronger, then MQM will also suffer in Karachi. So we have to militarily support MQM to get their Mohajir Subba and other forms of secession based on that.

ETIM and MQM are the two cards India can play. And of course Brahmos to Vietnam.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 07 Sep 2011 17:35

Quetta deaths are boring. Pakistan will not lose its pakiness even a bit due to the deaths in any region other than Punjab, Isloo and Pindi.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Sep 2011 17:46

negi wrote:Kanson I have a different take on this; firstly I do not like Mahabharata analogy thrown in every now and then as a mater of fact Kauravas were saints when compared to lunatics on our NW.

What has happened is decades of inaction and lousy pen pushing in name of strategic analysis or whatever one may wish to call it has encouraged and consolidated the so called pragmatic types who might be well versed with facts on ground but their take away from this manthan has been lets continue with talks (which in itself is not an issue); the problem is with every agreement signed between India and Pak it's us who have made a compromise , see for instance the way joint statements have been drafted, issued from Simla>Lahore>Agra>S.e.S every PM of India has bent couple of inches more than his predecessor to accommodate these loonies. What has this chai-pakora session to show in terms of results ? I will rest my case if someone gives me one good reason to continue with talks as against just treat them as any other country. Why this urge to give them a MFN status ? Why this eternal itch to increase people to people contact ? I don't see these dimwits putting half as much effort in connecting rest of the NE to mainland India, then there is this fig aka economics which is raised by some when it comes to dealing with TSP can someone tell me how much money is being wasted on Aman ki Asha, chai-pakora and obviously other gymnastics in the name of confidence building measures ?
I am pretty sure I have an idea or two as to how this money could be better spent.

Everyone talks about TSP's paranoia about India being a threat to it's existence and as to how we need to dispel this myth, my opinion is it's not the loonies on other side who are in dark it's the self appointed experts on this side who have been propagating this myth to support their stance else where in the world would you find a country which has attacked another on more than several occasions and continues to sends terrorists across the border and yet be able to play the victim ?

Leave India, TSP has not shied away from biting it's own master's a$$ and this despite getting millions of dollars of yearly aid; so what is the basis of the trust in the dialogue process ?

As I see things the continuation of dialogue process is in fact a vindication of the Paki strategy of bleeding India by thousand cuts for what it shows to the entire world is one can attack a country , send terrorists across the border and even bomb cities without having to pay a price for it, all it takes is some chutzpah on the aggressor's side and chootiy@p@ on other.

People often ask as to what could have we done ?

There is a lot ; don't have what it takes to pull the trigger ? Fine, let's start with doing away with this SDRE trait of following every treaty signed with TSP in letter and spirit , it's a two way street any way. IWT should be a good start you see the dialogue process would be more fruitful with a gun against TSP's temple , no ? We shall uphold the IWT provided TSP stops meddling in J&K. Please feel free to call me out if what I stated prevents India from becoming a 10 trillion dollar economy.

I'm quoting yours in full to say that I agree with you on every point completely. I don't know anything further can be added or argued against.

Coming to B. R article there are only three conclusions possible: 1. Either he is speaking complete rubbish 2. He is trying to see and say things that we don't know. 3. He is just echoing Gov current approach (or more particularly MMS's obsession)

Coming to the 3rd option, it could be also at the US insistence or both. After 26/11, our policies towards Paks are more enmeshed with American interest.

Maybe the current task towards B. R article is before rejecting it, do we know on what basis/options he tries to advocates such institution/people based contacts to alleviate the Pak Army's fear? {I say rejecting becoz many(including me) couldn't see eye to eye with his approach}

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 07 Sep 2011 17:48

4) It can start a war. It can arm up, invest wholesale in defense R&D, in procurement of foreign weapons systems and manufacture of its own weapons systems. And it can use these weapons systems in the pursuit of other kinds of power... geostrategic power. An additional benefit to this method of monetizing its debt is that it does not lead to civil unrest (at least as long as China can claim victory) but rather, to an upsurge in jingoistic nationalism that strengthens the position of an authoritarian government.

Excellent post . Brilliant analysis . But just one question. Why not just invest in weapons r&d etc? Why start a war? I mean they could keep buying stuff for their armed forces etc. And poakroach arms market is quite big in itself . Because starting a war with India has its consequences without doubt. It ll surely cost them a huge deal India by no means is a pushover .Starting a war to save economy is by no means a good idea . USSR was in the same situation in 80's as China is now. Even then there was a talk about SU overtaking USA economically etc. But what happened after the afghan war?

Besides they ll surely have to get it done without a security council sanction . However bad we assume the west to be , security council is not crazy enough to authorize any action against India. So illegal war per se has its consequences . Sanctions and economic consequences might be devastating . Already there is a lot of noise in the west to shift production back home. It can very well happen . True China is a big market for western companies and by that means is almost irreplaceable. But the problem here is that Chinese consumers have got no home grown option .

What about fears from Taiwan . SoKo and Japan about a similar action? Would not they start worrying that they ll be attacked next ?
And China is still no where near as powerful as the US is to get away.

Only thing I am worried about is MOD/BABU's/MEA...That they ll not authorise a retaliatory strike upon Chinese invasion.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Sep 2011 18:02

RajeshA, I have explained in my earlier post (the link is there in my recent post) about this. Essentially, circa 2002 unravelled the nexus between the purer Punjabi & Paksitani Taliban (Group A) and the impure PA and its associates (Group B ) as Musharraf was forced to turn against Group A, his erstwhile partners in crime.

Getting PLA into POK has multiple benefits for Group B, apart from what you said. It is Pakistan's calculation also that India might hesitate to attack TSP for fear of provoking PRC, TSPA can be redeployed elsewhere from its eastern borders without feeling naked wrt India, legitimize POK through Chinese presence and activities etc.

MQM card is losing its power in Karachi. My take is that the Pashtuns are taking over Karachi and MQM will retreat more and more in years to come. The Chinese plumping for Gwadar protects them from developments in the Sind. Sind & Balochistan may be a thorn in Pakistan's flesh but do not cause enormous concern to PRC-Pakistan combine. They are manageable. Problem will be if the evil combine senses trouble in the Punjab and Punjab slips into Group A's hands. Group A is assiduously working towards that.

That's why I believe that AQAM is our best bet. The evil & unholy alliance of PRC-TSP is assuming a directly menacing proportion for us to think of AQAM.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 07 Sep 2011 18:18

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/world ... an.html?hp

At least 20 people, including a senior army officer, were killed on Wednesday when two blasts were detonated by separate suicide bombers in southwest Pakistan, police officials said.

The attackers targeted the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force commanded by army officers, stationed in Quetta. At least 30 people were injured in the explosions.

The attackers targeted the house of Brig. Farrukh Shehzad, the deputy inspector general of the Frontier Corps. One bomber detonated his vehicle outside the house of the officer, a witness told AAJ TV, a private television news channel.

Soon after the first attack, another attacker entered the house on foot and started firing before detonating his explosives. Brigadier Shehzad was wounded and his wife was killed, according to initial local news reports. A colonel, Khalid Masood, was also killed in the attack.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Sep 2011 18:19

Rudradev wrote: B ) Chinipakis: the remaining portion of TSPA and ISI, plus many elements of the RAPE "political" class (such as Zardari) who are relying on the Chinese to save the day. They are the ones doing their damndest to mortgage the whole Pakistani state as the newest province of China. These, from the Indian point of view, may be the most dangerous... for reasons I will go into later. They are playing for a coup... a two-front war prosecuted by China and Pakistan against India, that will at once humiliate India, make America less relevant, and seize Kashmir in a move that will confer political legitimacy on the leadership claims of the Chinipaki group.

............

4) It can start a war. It can arm up, invest wholesale in defense R&D, in procurement of foreign weapons systems and manufacture of its own weapons systems. And it can use these weapons systems in the pursuit of other kinds of power... geostrategic power. An additional benefit to this method of monetizing its debt is that it does not lead to civil unrest (at least as long as China can claim victory) but rather, to an upsurge in jingoistic nationalism that strengthens the position of an authoritarian government.

There you have it. Starting a war is likely considered a good option, given the prevailing economic situation, by a powerful faction within the ruling establishment of China. The US and West do not care if China starts a war with India; it will damage two of their biggest competitors. And Pakistanis of Section B, above, very much want this to happen and want to participate on the Chinese side.

What do China gain by attacking India than attacking Taiwan? Pak already submitted themselves to China and gave them blank foreign policy cheque to deal with India on Kashmir. I mean China already have Pak in their orbit. If they want to monetize debt by war, is it not Taiwan poses as an easier and juicier target, closer to home crowd, compared to India?

The ONLY thing that would make the Chinese hesitate in starting a war with India would be India's possession of a credible nuclear deterrent. And what has Bharat Karnad told us, between the lines, about that?

In summary, I am guessing that the GOI has understood all this. It understands that the danger of a two-front aggression by China and Pakistan is not just real but imminent. It has calculated that we cannot win, and that we cannot count on external help to win. It may have calculated (ref: Karnad) that we do not even have a credible nuclear deterrent to prevent this from happening.

How you like to fit in Def. minister diktat/direction to DRDO to test Agni-V before this year end, in your calculus. Does it show as weak India giving up on matching to Chinese bellicose attitude?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Sep 2011 18:28

I am taking rudradev ji's excellent summary of the situation - and focusing on the key :

D) An even smaller number of Paki elite who are, not pro-India, but at some level hope that India can sort things out and save Pakistan's skin (since the alternatives are all worse.) These are your Chaighar type Paki liberals, who still hate India and Hindus, who still justify the creation of Pakistan, but all said and done feel more affinity for India than for China, Ummah or America.

E) A substantial number of Pakis who do NOT belong to the traditional echelons of power, i.e.TSPA/ISI Top-Brass or RAPE; and who still hold out the hope that Pakistan as they once knew it can survive all this. Of all the categories this is the ONLY social class which actually has a vested interest in the survival and success of Pakistan as an *independent* nation state when all is said and done. They consist of a petit-bourgeoise (not-exactly-middle) class, ranging from shopkeepers to professionals and bureaucrats to smaller landowners who are not quite big enough to be RAPE or "political class" in the Zardari/Sharif mould.

This class analysis of Paki society is broadly correct. But the problem lies in India's supposed espousal of this last two sections D+E. A to E are more classifications of the overt face of the Paki rashtra, or the superstructure - and are not exactly reflected in the base, or base of societal power.

The base of the rashtryia power of pak is divided into three constituencies - the feudals, the army officers, and the Dawaist mullahcracy. The military has long been forced to give up the real role of state power to the Dawaist mullahcracy, by which the states intervention or role vis-a-vis regular governance and social support of its common citizens - has been conceded to the Dawaists. The feudals and the army officers have long made their compromises and their mutual sponsorships [feudalization of army officers by giving estates] - but from the mid-80's the real public face of the rashtra has been taken over by the Dawaists at the mobilization level.

India, as always chooses the wrong social class to pin its hopes on. The feudal-military complex is the power on its way out. It will split into two - one allied with the base of Dawaists, and the other into a smaller faction looking for allies in the middle- petit-bourgeoisie. The problem with relying on this middle and "enlightened" elite in Islamist societies - lies all around us - in Afghanistan, in Iran, in BD. In each case, the Islamist society and its training/conditioning methods had ensured that this middle+enlightened section remains fundamentally weak, so that their moves become adventurist and unsustainable before the base backlash.

In fact such adventures are carefully used by the mullahs to start dismantling the remaining superstructure of formal state power, and then wipe out the adventurists to capture supreme state power. This was how Iran changed hands - its initial anti-Shah move was started by this urbane leftist/liberal peti-bourgeois and "enlightened" feudals/elite. Thsi was how AFG was delivered into Islamists.

By backing such a sectional combo, India might actually enhance mullahfication of the state completely.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Sep 2011 18:54

Marvi Sirmed tweets:

Important lessons that I learned in last two weeks: 1- Right wing hawks and Maulvis are two different things.
2- We have to work with maulvis in order to get them understand us.
3- Being rash goes against our own argument. Being logical makes us strong. Thank you all for being my teachers.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 07 Sep 2011 18:59

Before talking seriously of the Chinkeze going to War, consider their past behavior in these matters. Last one was against Vietnam, almost a replay of India, 1962. Went in, stayed a while, then withdrew. PLA is no great fighting force. They have little or no combat experience. There is just so much one can get from "art of war" book. Besides, India with nukes will get them jittery about all their glittering progress in SE chin going up in smoke. Too much to risk, and for what? Suppose they decide to take Arunachal by force and hold it. Will a war decide that permanently to their satisfaction? No. Not just that, war between India and the chinks will draw in the US. For very sure. A huge opportunity like that will not be missed by the yanks. Great possibility of levelling chunks of their debt. That is a nightmare scenario also - for the chinks. Last time, had they not utilized the Cuban missile crisis as cover (US was really otherwise engaged), JFK would have hit them in 62. They already have central asian energy resrves almost sewed up. What would they get out of going to war with India and its battle hardened forces? not much. Help pakis & peel them away from the Americans - ya, like the pakis are a great asset, like they have been for the US. Pakis are not players. Like Iran or India or the chinks. pakis otoh are just horse sht on the hiways of international relations. If the chinks want the responsibility to scoop them up full time, they are welcome. In sum, India-chink war will draw in the US- a war is all the more necessary to get the US economy out of its tank. It will destabilize the chinks entire southern flank - read Tibet. It might give Taiwan the opportunity to declare independance while the PLA is bogged down elsewhere. Lot of down sides. I dont see an upside big enough for it to make it worth while for the chinks. But, having said all that, it is nevertheless absolutely imperitive that India be prepared for that eventuality. Get some Tibetan mountain divisions going into training & production as a start.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 07 Sep 2011 19:09

brihaspati: just a small necessary correction to your post about mullah's role in '47. They were adamantly opposed to partition & creation of paki stan. The Jamaat -e- islami -e-hind, the main mullah led org in India, wanted no part in creation of paki stan, for good reason. It would divide the umma poulation and weaken it. Paki stan creation was entirely driven by feudal muslim interests, and churchil's skewed strategic views. But the mullah were opposed to it till the end. But once it was created, the mullahs did their best to get into its driver's seat, and have kept at it ever since.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 07 Sep 2011 19:11

Also, will the world, including the UN, allow a non-democratic, and that too aggressive expansionist state like China, to simply walk in and assume control of a democratic, pluralistic state like Arunachal( and India by extension)? Can't see it happening. Particularly with all the freedom/democracy stirrings taking place in West Asia. India has by far the better values and more compelling case- and the intelligent and thoughtful people in the world can see that. Even an obnoxious, repulsive jackass like Eric Margolis has intimated that so called "Little Tibet", Ladakh, has more freedom, openness and democracy than Chinese Tibet.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 07 Sep 2011 19:13

Parsuram ji

only deobandi mullah opposed partition.. deobandi is wahabi of India. Now slowly, wahabandi school is emerging in gandhaar and kekay.. the barelvi mullah and ahmadi mullah demanded partition. like ahmadi, barelvi will soon pay as they find out that they are less green and pure in the land of greenest and purest wahabandis..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Sep 2011 19:26

parsuram wrote:brihaspati: just a small necessary correction to your post about mullah's role in '47. They were adamantly opposed to partition & creation of paki stan. The Jamaat -e- islami -e-hind, the main mullah led org in India, wanted no part in creation of paki stan, for good reason. It would divide the umma poulation and weaken it. Paki stan creation was entirely driven by feudal muslim interests, and churchil's skewed strategic views. But the mullah were opposed to it till the end. But once it was created, the mullahs did their best to get into its driver's seat, and have kept at it ever since.

No, onlee a small section of the Deobandis were against. Look at the role of the main Islamist formations - including Deobandi regional satraps - in the Pakjab area that led to '47. Barelvi's were prominent, Aga Khan was prominent, the general wahabist sections -Deobandi or Barelvi- even Ahmadyias. It was more about region than Deobandi or not. One also has to understand the logic given by anti-Partitionist mullahs. They would lose control over the Islamist movement, and correctly recognized the possibility that the Islamist movement would have a greater chance of conquering the whole of the subcontinent if they remained within a single state. But there were regional inter-fights within the mullahcracy - not really any ultimate conflict over aims of supreme Islamic dominance.

Moreover I am talking more about the post formation transitions within Paki power bases - in fact from Zia onwards - although the process was evident from Ayub's times.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Sep 2011 20:32

Let me ask a question to all the learned mualanas here. And I would request for an answer strictly from strategy POV:

- what does pakistan gain by doing, or getting others to do, what happened in Delhi today and, what has happened in past at other places? The reason I ask is because, there seem to be three objectives in these events and while at least one, or two, of them are met in each such attack/bomb-blast, the third seems to be elusive and which IMO, questions the very basis of this strategy. Let me elaborate:

1. The first objective is that of cat's paw in this game - the foot soldiers of HUJI/SIMI/LET and other such alphabet soups. These men, and women, brought up on diet of islamism and all that, don't want anything else but destruction of India/Kafirs and return of caliphate. We all now about this kind. They come dime a dozen and are willing accomplises in these acts. They get to kill kafirs and if in the bargain, they get killed, they have their much promised 72 to keep them occupied.

2. Pakistan/Army/ISI objectives (Tactical) - Please note that I've deliberately written Tactical. These blasts or one off Mumbai style assaults, are being used to address some immediate or short term requirement. For example, the need to mount Mumbai attack has been much discussed here as a means to release the domestic steam vis-a-vis various tanzeems, get India to make some threatening noises and thereby, get the Kabila together.

The blast today in Delhi and demand to release Afzal Guru can also, imo, be seen in the same light - there is likely to be a proposal in J&K Assembly for mercy petition of AG. Now, by doing this act and linking it to AG, they have assured that no such petition will be entertained - what with the general public mood after this act. This can be used as a measure to antagonize the Kashmir public (as if we need it in first place) and we're set for more trouble.

3. TSPA/ISI Strategic Objective - that of bleeding India by thousand cuts, keeping it off balance and weaking it to a level where it does not pose treat to Pakistan. TSPA has used, and continues to use, many means towards this end. On one end of spectrum are organizations like LET, which is an extension of TSPA by all means except for the uniform. Then there are those which are fighting in Kashmir like HM, HUM etc. Employment of militancy in J&K is a strategic objective which for all practical purpose is lost as IA has throtelled the insurgency in the state.
A good example of use covert ops is by Indian intel agencies in pakistan which forced them to halt/scale down their actions in Punjab. I have not seen any such gain for Pakistan.

While ISI would have liked to wreck havoc in rest of India and work upon more actively on the Hindu-Muslim faultline, the same has not happened and unlikely to happen anytime soon. Yes, I know people here will point to local support for SIMI plus the usual support base/radicalization in certain pockets (like bhatkal) etc, but one swallow a summer does not make. And given the size of Indian muslim population, this support base is nothing.

There is another problem with conducting too many such attack - while a blast here or there gets lost in the din of everyday life in this country, too many such attacks (or grand ones like Mumbai) will have serious political repurcussions for the incumbent political party. And there is a reason why - too many such attacks and the GOI will be forced to act in some way as the domestic pressure will be too much. So, inspite of capability, it cannot do more than what it is doing.

Which brings me back to the central question - what does ISI/TSPA gain from these acts? How are these acts helping Pakistan? Or, have these attacks been reduced to a level where they meet tactical and short-term needs only?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Sep 2011 20:33

SSridhar wrote:RajeshA, I have explained in my earlier post (the link is there in my recent post) about this. Essentially, circa 2002 unravelled the nexus between the purer Punjabi & Paksitani Taliban (Group A) and the impure PA and its associates (Group B ) as Musharraf was forced to turn against Group A, his erstwhile partners in crime.

Thanks for the clarification. I got a bit confused about what was meant.

SSridhar wrote:That's why I believe that AQAM is our best bet. The evil & unholy alliance of PRC-TSP is assuming a directly menacing proportion for us to think of AQAM.

SSridhar garu,

I am curious! Did you mean the above in active mode by India or in the pray mode?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Sep 2011 20:43

Rudradev ji,

I have one question: In which category do the Baluchi separatists and MQM belong? Or do they in your opinion not have a category?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 07 Sep 2011 20:49

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hreat.html

PIA Plane from Slumbad to Manchester lands in Istanbul because of "Bomb Threat"

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Sep 2011 20:50

http://asiancorrespondent.com/64435/que ... -capacity/
Quetta blast: Taliban can do whatever they want whenever they want.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 07 Sep 2011 20:52

RajeshA wrote:Rudradev ji,

I have one question: In which category do the Baluchi separatists and MQM belong? Or do they in your opinion not have a category?

Rajesh A ji, the five categories A-E that I described, were not categories of Pakis in general; they are categories of Pakis who have the potential to exercise or influence central political authority over the state of Pakistan as it exists today i.e. A-D are "ruling elite", while E is a petit bourgeoise group that contends to become part of (or replace) the present ruling elite. So, MQM and Baluchi Separatists do not fit in any of the above, since they neither hold nor can realistically aspire to that sort of power.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Sep 2011 20:55

SSridhar wrote:MQM card is losing its power in Karachi. My take is that the Pashtuns are taking over Karachi and MQM will retreat more and more in years to come.

I think in the last couple of years there has been a change in the composition of Group B. PPP has joined it. I think, Group B is being led today by Zardari himself. With PPP, Sindh has joined up with Group B.

In earlier days, we used to consider Sindh as a province, which could have secessionist tendencies. It is not in that column anymore. Sindhis are now fully Pakistanized.

However we used to consider the Mohajirs as true Pakistanis. That is changing. Mohajirs under MQM have moved away from the idea of Pakistan in the last years.

Earlier Sindhis were 'pro-India'. Today MQM could be considered 'pro-India'. Pro-India of course to be understood in a diluted form. So we may have to change our perspective accordingly.

Pashtuns have indeed migrated to Karachi in large numbers, but there have been reports of Pashtuns being forced to leave Karachi due to the violence. MQM are giving the Pashtuns at least as much as they are taking.

IMHO, it is premature to write off MQM, especially as MQM could be India's only real card in the game. Instead we should be bolstering MQM with all the weapons they need to strengthen their grip on the city.

SSridhar wrote:The Chinese plumping for Gwadar protects them from developments in the Sind. Sind & Balochistan may be a thorn in Pakistan's flesh but do not cause enormous concern to PRC-Pakistan combine.

Sindh, as mentioned, is actually no thorn for Pakistan any more. Sindh is now Pakistan, or at least Sindhis now are. They hardly have any secessionist sentiments anymore.

Baluchis are clearly secessionist, but only a thorn. Just a thorn, because Indians are not providing them with any support.

In my view, Mohajirs can win the war in Karachi and vie for their own Sooba, a movement which can be made secessionist.

Sure Mohajirs strength comes from their hold over Karachi, or as in your opinion, their previous hold over Karachi. In that way, they are just a thorn. But their true worth is in providing connectivity between India and secessionist Baluchistan through Southern Sindh, thus cutting off Pakistan completely from the sea.

SSridhar wrote:They are manageable.

Only if India retains her hands-off policy. If India decides to intervene by providing Mohajirs and Baluchis with money, shelter, training, arms and guidance, that can change.

SSridhar wrote:Problem will be if the evil combine senses trouble in the Punjab and Punjab slips into Group A's hands. Group A is assiduously working towards that.

China can work quite well with Group A, were it not for ETIM.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 07 Sep 2011 21:01

Atri wrote:Parsuram ji

only deobandi mullah opposed partition.. deobandi is wahabi of India. Now slowly, wahabandi school is emerging in gandhaar and kekay.. the barelvi mullah and ahmadi mullah demanded partition. like ahmadi, barelvi will soon pay as they find out that they are less green and pure in the land of greenest and purest wahabandis..

True enough, but the deoband group had disproportionate presence, as they always push & shove their way up front. And you are right about the bareli & qadian groups getting their orifices filled. Particularly the qadianis. Could not have happened to a nicer bunch of jerks. they thought pakis would award them kashmir

brihaspati- quite right, and post partition, right again. Being from the Punjab, I visited Qadian- the home of founder of the Ahmadi sect. Zafarullah Khan, paki amb to UN and their prize debator at the sec. council Kashmir debates was one with a huge mansion in Qadian. I was so pleased with how things turned out for the dam qadianis.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Sep 2011 21:11

Rudradev wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Rudradev ji,

I have one question: In which category do the Baluchi separatists and MQM belong? Or do they in your opinion not have a category?
Rajesh A ji, the five categories A-E that I described, were not categories of Pakis in general; they are categories of Pakis who have the potential to exercise or influence central political authority over the state of Pakistan as it exists today i.e. A-D are "ruling elite", while E is a petit bourgeoise group that contends to become part of (or replace) the present ruling elite. So, MQM and Baluchi Separatists do not fit in any of the above, since they neither hold nor can realistically aspire to that sort of power.

Rudradev ji,

If we are however given only these 5 ideological categories, and told to build an Indian policy around these categories, one would see that India hardly has any options.

However if one sees Pakistan, not just ideologically, but as groups with their own agendas, then India can develop many more strategies.

I think many Mohajirs have moved towards asking themselves whether Pakistan was the right choice. If we want we can build up MQM in the form of Hezbollah. Should TSPA try to intervene in Karachi, they could meet a situation similar to Israelis. The fact that Mohajirs are spread out in all fields in Pakistan, makes them a far more dangerous and subversive enemy for Pakistan. MQM has proven in the streets of Karachi that they are a strong urban force.

If Southern Sindh falls, then Baluchistan may be a much easier territory for Indian tanks. The tussle in the North would mean little if Pakistan loses its access to the sea.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Sep 2011 21:22

rohitvats wrote: Which brings me back to the central question - what does ISI/TSPA gain from these acts? How are these acts helping Pakistan? Or, have these attacks been reduced to a level where they meet tactical and short-term needs only?

Repeated attacks erode whatever trust people have in the government and helps erode the Indian system - part of the death by a thousand cuts. It seemingly reduces national cohesion.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Sep 2011 21:25

rohitvats wrote:
Which brings me back to the central question - what does ISI/TSPA gain from these acts? How are these acts helping Pakistan? Or, have these attacks been reduced to a level where they meet tactical and short-term needs only?

The answer IMO is about self preservation. TSP exists as a state based on two factors. That it is not India and that it is a state controlled by its military. If one takes these two factors out or weakens them, then TSP weakens, in the eyes of its rulers. Since its dreams of conventional thrusts have not borne fruit, terrorism is the only play the TSPA has been left with.

TSPA has to keep itself relevant, in order to control its populace and state apparatus. Their relevancy is directly related to a threat posture from India. As long as this threat posture is alive TSPA will find her relevant. TSPA is also helped by India's unwillingness to escalate issues and in this act her political leadership is an accomplice as India's political leaders are willing to play with the needs of security of her own populace, which is forgiving and still largely uneducated and naive. The IA's conventional military threat postures against TSPA further strengthens this feelings of threat. These military options of the IA are not exercised due to a lack of political strategy to deal with its aftermath.

What TSPA gains from these terrorist acts is self relevancy and India's unwillingness to seriously counter act further emboldens them to continue, in its strive to keep the threat alive.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 07 Sep 2011 21:35

Rajesh A ji (and all others who commented on my post http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1159770 ):

Please note, the ideas and view of the situation that I have articulated in this above-linked post, are not MY personal view of Pakistan or MY ideas for resolving the Pakistan problem.

They are my view of the GOI's current thinking on the Pakistan problem, in terms of the actors involved and the solutions available. I wrote them down in an effort to answer a question Shiv posed some pages ago. To paraphrase: "what are we all missing, when everyone from MMS to B Raman to Bharat Karnad is talking about WKK solutions and a need to assume a less-threatening posture w.r.t. Pakistan?"

Simply put, I do not think the GOI has either the imagination or the means to explore the kind of solutions that Rajesh A, Rama Y etc. advocate over here on BRF. What they have the capacity to do, and how they rationalize it, is what I tried to speculate on in my post. Far from perfect, of course, but that is the GOI we have. They recognize these five actors in the Paki establishment and their strategy (or "tactic" more appropriately) is to unify D and E as a hedge against B (and a little less so, A.)

Things like MQM, Baluch separatists etc. don't seem to play a role in the GOI's designs at all. Maybe that's because GOI doesn't think they CAN do anything meaningful to help such entities. Or, maybe it's because GOI doesn't WANT to help such entities, because they think that even a successful endgame for MQM/Baluch separatists (i.e. breakdown of Pakistani state) is NOT a good thing for India, given the disastrous aftermath (economic collapse, influx of refugees, lawlessness etc.) that it will create. You and I may or may not agree with GOI on this, but I believe that this is what the GOI is thinking, and that is why we are getting the same kind of message from MMS, Nirupama Rao, B Raman and Bharat Karnad.