somnath wrote:You give too much credit to Pakistan for success..For many years, Kashmir had no real insurgency problem, nothing material to impact mainland India in any case..The Kashmiri insurgency started in 1990...For many years, the Kashmir (as well as the Punjab) insurgencies were ringfenced, localised affairs..Therefore to say that Pakis succeeded in pushing us back is giving them too much credit for success...
Let's be clear about what's going in Kashmir. It is jihadi terrorism, not insurgency and it has been going on since 1947, not since 90s only. Of course, in some other cases in India, there are insurgencies that has been helped by Pakistan. Be that as it may, Pakistan has been successful in managing itself
vis-a-vis Bharat. At what cost to itself, is something else. It thinks any cost is worth paying for the destruction of Bharat. OTOH, India has always felt that it would be able to evict the Pakistanis from Kashmir, either diplomatically or militarily and retrieve any lost situation. That is why a long rope has been given to Pakistan without forcing the issue even when opportunities presented themselves. The overall Composite Index of National Capability (CINC), that is based on such things as quantity of iron&steel produced, military strength etc, has been consistently at a 4:1 ratio in favour of India at a minimum and even reaching a 7:1 ratio at times and yet India was unable to translate such a superiority into a tangible resolution of its conflict. Under normal circumstances, the preponderant state, in this case India, should have been able to set the course for the conflict and probably should have brought it to a quick conclusion. Usually, the conflict prolongs, interminably in some cases, only when the two opposing states are equally poised. The status quo power, India, has generally tended to leave the revisionist power Pakistan to set the agenda for the conflict and has been merely reactive, thus defying the generally accepted principles of conflict resolution. Pakistan entered into alliances solely with the intent of bringing down India. That's why I consider the Pakistani policy as tactically successful.
somnath wrote:The type of islamist terror we face today is a reflection of the global islamist contagion, and is clearly a very different challenge...
No it is not. As I said, the mistake that we generally make is that terror in Kashmir started after 1989, after the Geneva accord, when the out-of-job mujahideen had to be gainfully employed and Pakistan decided to replicate the Afghan paradigm in J&K. The jihad in J&K started in 1947 and has seen several phases, with the earliest ones being just covert Pakistani operations until the latest phase that started after 1989 aided by availability of men, material and funds and the nuclearization of Pakistan. The sub-conventional war, being waged by Pakistan might have acquired sophistication and induction of multi-national terrorists after circa 1989, but it has nevertheless been going on since Independence.
As for the 'global islamist contagion', it bit the J&K jihadis only in 2002 or thereafter. Of course, LeT, JI, HuM and JeM had close collaboration with Al Qaeda and these groups were extensively operating in J&K as well but there is no known 'operational collaboration' between these groups and Al Qaeda as far as J&K was concerned earlier to 2002.
Despite all these, localised or jihadi, India has continued to carve a bigger niche for itself - so I find all this "without getting rid of Pakistan there is no hope" type of philosophising quite out of place...
These are your words,not mine. When I say 'Things are not fine for India and have indeed been steadily getting worse.', the context is very clear. It is with reference to security situation in India.
...Making Pakistan the cornerstone of our strategy doesnt do that...And gives Pakistan far more respect than it deserves...
the 3and a half friedns of Pakistan only prop it up, they do no more..Each of them engage India at a very different level..We need not brnig our level down to Paksitan's!
When India attained Independence, it set for itself certain goals, the most important of which, was to provide a decent standard of living to its millions. In spite of various problems, flaws in approach or circumstances beyond its control, I believe that India has never lost sight of that goal. Pakistan also set a goal for itself, destruction of India. Therefore, Pakistan is certainly not the 'cornerstone' of our strategy, but, it is certainly causing us problems on multiple fronts because for Pakistan, 'India' is the conerstone. Whether we like it or not, we therefore have to perforce deal with that country. To pretend it is not so, is incorrect. It, therefore, needs to be tackled.