Vayutuvan wrote: ↑14 Jun 2026 23:25
Rudradev wrote: ↑13 Jun 2026 22:41
Why not try reading the wealth of information, references, and insights available all around you on this very forum. Bharat Rakshak has been a repository of Pakistan-related observation and analysis, in a security context,
for nearly 30 years now.
(1)
...
Personally, I consider it a waste of time to answer such questions,
(2) but maybe there are souls more generous than myself who could help out.
(1) Thank you for making my point for me. We have been waiting for 30 years for Paistan to implode. It is like Waiting for Godot.
You seemingly assume that the only purpose of an Indian policy enacted with respect to Pakistan is to make Pakistan "implode"-- not sure what that means, but I assume state collapse or fragmentation.
On the other hand, my assertion was that backing secessionist groups like TTP and BLA affects Pakistan by imposing
pressure on enemy resources and degradation of their society
So it's obvious you have shifted the goalposts-- probably because it's the only way your point could be "made".
What I said remains true without qualification. Some examples:
BLA destroys a railway line --> Pressure on enemy resources
TTP attacks a TSPA base, killing personnel and blowing up equipment --> Pressure on enemy resources
TSPA/TSPAF units redeploy to the Durand line to coerce Taliban against supporting the TTP --> Pressure on enemy resources
Heavy-handed retaliatory measures by Paki security forces against ethnic and political groups within Pakistan add to social turmoil, civic insecurity, and declining social trust --> Degradation of society
Involvement of secessionist groups in organized criminal activity --> Degradation of society (plus more opportunities to place Indian intelligence assets)
In sum, every instance of expended resources and greater social decohesion within Pakistan --> degrades what they have available to use against India, and opens up additional avenues for retaliation by India against whatever they try.
And that's what I propose should be done w.r.t. BD as well. Simple no?
Regarding this "implosion" bit, a few questions to ask oneself:
1) Is India actually prepared to deal with the implosion (state collapse/fragmentation) of Pakistan? What will GOI actually do about the crores of imbecile Islamist population who will try to cross over into India after a total collapse of governance and economy?
Many here like to imagine a neat slicing of the cake where KP, Baluchistan, Sind etc. become sovereign states under successor governments whom India can easily manage-- but how warranted is this hope, in reality? Has GOI even been able to ensure friendly governments in all Indian states, let alone neighbouring states like Nepal and SL, that it could hope to ensure this in a heavily Islamized Pakistan's successor states? All this considered, is "implosion" of Pakistan even a desirable end goal, or are there other benefits to be gained by running proxy secessionist groups against enemy countries indefinitely?
2) In 1971, the Mukti Bahini were actually deployed in such a way as to precipitate an "implosion" of sorts-- secession of BD from Pakistan. What are the lessons from that? What are the implications of these lessons for using proxy secessionist groups to (a) actually trigger state collapse vs. (b) continuously pressure enemy resources and degrade social cohesion but not actually achieve state collapse?
(2) Your prerogative ofc. You seem to have made up your mind that this is the best way to destroy pakis and BDs.
"The best way" is your strawman, not my assertion. But I do think it is an effective tool. And you haven't been able to argue why it is not.
It is a matter of geography. We cannot push arms into Paistan rebel groups that easily.
Seriously? There are plenty of avenues to get weapons to Pakistani rebel groups. Just one example, pay the Taliban to supply arms from the massive tranches that the US left in Afghanistan. In fact, how do you think TTP and BLA get at least some of their weapons now?
Then there is the question of the US support for the scum.
Which again is mitigated by sponsorship of secessionist groups. Draining resources means that at least part of the US support gets eaten up. On the other hand, attempting "implosion" of Pakistan (as the desired end state of a finite game) will always be thwarted by ongoing US support, which is another reason not to prioritize it.
Anyway, arguing with you is a waste of my time, too. That said, be prepared to be challenged when you propose something impractical.
It is only "impractical", if at all, to meet the goal that
you assume should be the end state (implosion of Pakistan/BD). With regard to the goals that I specified, the "practicality" is self-evident: BLA/TTP are already achieving them in Pakistan. That is what I propose should be replicated in BD as well.
It would be productive to focus on challenging yourself to read more.
: Hindu man ( Pankaj Shil ) stabbed to death by 3 men wearing burkha . 
