Look beyond Rawalpindi - OpEd by Raja Mohan

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/look-beyond-rawalpindi/716250/0

Two years after the pre-meditated and outrageous attack on Mumbai, India's vulnerabilities to cross-border terrorism remain acute as ever. Despite overwhelming evidence that the aggression was planned and executed from Pakistan in collaboration with its state institutions, there is little hope that Islamabad will bring the perpetrators to justice. There is even less of a prospect that Pakistan might give credible assurances that its soil will not be used to launch future attacks on India. Delhi's security managers can surely pat themselves on the back for being vigilant in preventing a major incident after 26/11. But the next attack might not be too far away. Much work remains to be done on all three dimensions of an effective counter-terror strategy — defence, deterrence and diplomacy. Defence is about preventing acts of terror through better acquisition and assessment of intelligence and effectively dealing with the attack when it does take place. India's handling of 26/11 exposed the pitiful state of India's capabilities on both these fronts. P. Chidambaram, who took charge of internal security in November 2008 itself, was quick to begin long overdue reforms. These included the passing of new anti-terror legislation, the setting up of the National Investigative Agency, establishing multi-agency centres at the national and state levels to better integrate and assess the available intelligence leads, and unveiling plans for the modernisation of the National Security Guard and improving coastal security.

While it marked a good beginning, there is no doubt that the effort to reform India's internal security structures has stalled. India's police personnel remain poorly equipped, under-manned and ill-trained to deal with the expansive challenge of terrorism. If most state governments have refused to rise to the challenge, the Central government has been hampered by bureaucratic battles for turf and political doubts in the ruling party about security sector reform. The second element of our counter-terror strategy is deterrence. Ever since Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons, India has had few options for punitive retaliatory actions against Rawalpindi's support for cross-border terror. Since it was surprised by Pakistan's Kargil aggression in the summer of 1999, the Indian military establishment has struggled to break out of this box.Delhi's talk about a "cold start" doctrine — that might let India conduct conventional military operations below the threshold of nuclear escalation — did draw a lot of concern from across the border and beyond. The Pakistan army headquarters in Rawalpindi is fully aware that India is nowhere near acquiring the conventional military capability to punish Pakistan.

To deter the Pakistan army from facilitating future cross-border terror attacks, India needs to act on a range of fronts. These include more purposeful modernisation of the armed forces to generate some military pressure against Rawalpindi and strengthening India's nuclear arsenal which continues to lag behind that of Pakistan. India must also focus on building up a serious missile defence programme that can introduce some uncertainty into Rawalpindi's strategic calculus. Finally, on the diplomatic front, India has had some success and a lot more frustration. The evidence from 26/11 has helped India convince the international community to recognise the sources of terrorism in Pakistan. It has also opened the door for more substantive counter-terror cooperation with the United States. During his visit to Delhi earlier this month, American President Barack Obama called on Pakistan to shut down the terror networks on its territory, including the Lashkar-e-Toiba. British Prime Minister David Cameron travelling in India a few months earlier was more direct in stating the truth about Rawalpindi's support for terror groups. Yet, Delhi knows the limits to international pressure on Pakistan. Despite giving nearly $20 billion in civilian and military aid to Pakistan during the last decade, the US is still having trouble getting Pakistan to act against groups that directly target American troops in Afghanistan. It was logical then for India to find ways to directly engage Pakistan to bring the Mumbai plotters to book. But all indications are that India is unlikely to get any satisfaction on terrorism from its current talks with Pakistan.

Our interlocutors across the border have no control over the terror machine, which is run by the Pakistan army. The real challenge for India, then, is in finding ways to compel Rawalpindi to change its calculus of support for cross-border terrorism. This in turn means exploring Rawalpindi's own weak points.The ISI's influence over the Pashtuns across its western frontiers is at the heart of Pakistan's success in holding the international community hostage in Afghanistan. It is also potentially the weakest element of Rawalpindi's strategy, for the Pashtuns, including the Taliban, have never recognised the legitimacy of the Durand Line that is supposed to be the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. India must step up its engagement of the Pashtuns and put the question of the Durand Line's future on the international agenda.India must also begin to focus on Pakistan's civil-military relations and step up its support for genuine democratic change. While Rawalpindi's dominance over Pakistan's polity is real, it is no reason why India should not make it a political issue. Further, Delhi must take a more disaggregated view of our neighbour. Instead of negotiating with the civilian government that is sat upon by the army, India must consider a direct engagement with the political parties in Pakistan both at the federal and provincial level. Capacity-building holds the key to India's progress in the areas of defence and deterrence against terrorism.

That will take time, persistent effort and strong political leadership in Delhi. On the diplomatic front, India will have to continuously look for bold approaches to contain the Pakistan army, the main support base for cross-border terrorism against India.

[email protected]
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
India should talk directly with the Pashtuns and encourage them that indeed the Durand Line is a legacy of past imperialism and the policy of Divide and Rule.

And then like Captain Ahab, sit back and see Moby D*ick surfacing and exclaim - That she Blows!

But unlike Captain Ahab's Moby Dic*k, this Moby Di*ck would be a friendly one!
 

roach

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
19
Likes
1
I would say a three-pronged strategy:

1. Draw Pakistan into an arms race that it cannot possibly sustain, given the present state of their economy
2. Tit-for-tat with support to Pashtun and Baloch separatists
3. Development and improvement of the human rights situation in Kashmir
 

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
delhi doesn't have an will nor any foresightedness on how to deal with pakistan/pa or china they are firing in gark without night vision goggles hoping that it would hit the bullseye while our neighbours have 100% night enable vision
 

Tronic

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
1,915
Likes
1,282
Covert strikes against Pak were discussed after 26/11 but seems RAW is toothless.

In the wake of all the uncertainty over how Pakistan would respond, there was also talk about the "deniable option". One which would involve covert operatives carrying out a sensational strike in Pakistan or in PoK. It's learnt that RAW and the Army were specifically asked this question. RAW's response to the NSA stunned all except, perhaps, Narayanan himself who is among the doyens of Indian intelligence. India's premier external intelligence agency admitted that it had no assets in Pakistan to carry out such an action. It was explained that India lost all the meagre local support it had in pockets of Pakistan after the Babri Masjid attack and what little was left, was shut down by a prime ministerial diktat during I K Gujral's tenure.

The Army said it had the ability to carry out commando operations but the government had to be clear what would be the approach if anyone was apprehended. Also, the Army let it be known that it was not sure how Pakistan would react if it found out.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-...ted-a-war-with-Pakistan-that-November/716240/
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
^^ Not just that, a continuous series of political upheavals and crises should disseminate itself. India should position itself such that, any future crises in Pakistan can be taken advantage of. That includes developing key political assets in that country- including at the regional level, where all the action is.

Now that the war has expanded to Balochistan, India can stand to significantly gain by 'orchestrating' chaos.

The way to get at Pakistan is through Islam. 'No one can separate Pakistan from Islam", says the Army chief. That will consign them to their fate.

The Pakistanis are fairly easy to radicalize. And once they become the global 'hub' of terror, truly the war will move out from Afghanistan. I'm hearing through the political grapevine, that a stable government in Afghan is in the offing. That is in fact, all what this 2014 deadline is about.

A very momentous development has happened between Russia and NATO. On the sidelines of Russia agreeing to a 'compromised' NATO missile station treaty, Russia has also agreed to open supply routes to Afghanistan. It will take a few years for the logistics of this to be sorted out, but I believe this was in discussions for many, many years.

Israel is also set to position itself within the subcontinent. A very large delegation is set to visit India in 2011, under the pretext of trade-negotiation, but will include members from the defence community, who plan to seek a vision for a post-2014 world in the subcontinent.

This, by the way, is interesting news:


Milestone 26/11 US suit points finger at Kayani

....

Kayani, who is now the umpire of Pakistan's ruling establishment with a veto on everything from Islamabad's relations with India to the course of the US war in Afghanistan, was the ISI's chief when the Mumbai attacks were being planned.

If the lawsuit is to run its course in New York, Kayani's role in the ISI's deadly plots against India will be exposed: that will make him a terrorist enabler and render his continuance as Army Chief untenable.

Even two decades ago when Washington had absolute double standards on global terrorism, it was then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's acquiescence on paper for the serial bombing of Mumbai in 1993 which got him the boot by then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan.

Khan, his bitter rival, used those documents in a secret court hearing to press the case against the continuance of Sharif as Prime Minister, arguing that Sharif was unfit to rule because he brought the country almost to war with India through terrorist actions.


Although no one will go on record, the latest case is the reflection of a view that has crystallised among a big segment of the American Jewish community that the Pakistani bull must be finally taken by its horns.

....

A press release announcing the case against the ISI acknowledges, however, that "lawsuits against terrorists and terror organisations are extremely challenging. Kreindler & Kreindler has undertaken this difficult litigation (for Mumbai's victims) in order to obtain justice for innocent American victims of terror abroad".

As the lawsuit in the Federal Court in the Eastern District of New York state takes its inevitably long-winded course, several things are likely to happen. One, The White House will use the case to twist Kayani's arms into reining in the ISI and cooperating more with Washington on dealing with the Taliban and al Qaida.

When that happens, India could benefit from its spin-off if New Delhi monitors the US moves and applies its hand on the right pressure points at appropriate times.

....

That the lawsuit is not some amateur attempt by bereaved relatives of the victims of Pakistan-supported terrorism in Mumbai is evident from the plaintiffs' choice of their lawyer: James P. Kreindler was the attorney, whose similar lawsuit in a US court led to a series of diplomatic initiatives culminating in Libya's admission of its role in the terrorist bombing on a Pan Am aircraft over Scotland in 1988, killing all 259 people on board.

Kreindler lists his success in securing a $2.7 billion payment from Libya for the victims of Pan Am flight 103 among his "proudest professional accomplishments", pointing out that it was "the only time any foreign state ever made such a payment to terrorist victims".

....

But if New Delhi works with American Jews in the New York case, the Obama administration will find it that much harder to push under the carpet all it would like do towards insulating Kayani from the case and giving the ISI immunity for its actions against India.

With a mountain of evidence that India possesses about the Mumbai attacks, it has a whip hand in the case, but what remains to be seen is whether New Delhi will cave in to the inevitable pressure from the Pentagon and from Langley, the CIA headquarters, not to expose all it knows as the lawsuit progresses.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101126/jsp/frontpage/story_13223986.jsp
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
INDIA'S PAKISTAN POLICY STRATEGICALLY DISASTROUS

By Dr. Subhash Kapila

Introductory Observations

India's repeat performance of Sharm-al-Sheikh fiasco at the SAARC Summit in Thimphu (Bhutan) last month reinforces the perception that India's foreign policy establishment has yet not learnt any lessons. India's Pakistan policy seemingly continues to be held hostage to the present Prime Minister's fixated obsession for "peace with Pakistan at any cost". In strategic and political realism terminology it amounts to "Pakistan Appeasement".

For the generation of Indians in their sixties and seventies it is galling that they are being reduced to mute spectators of India's 'Pakistan Appeasement' policies. The Indian Prime Minister has not deigned it fit to explain to the Indian people as to what strategic gains accrue to India by his adoption of a "Pakistan Appeasement" policy.

The nagging question that arises in the minds of thinking Indians is as to what impels the Prime Minister to circumstantially submit to external pressure to follow a 'Pakistan Appeasement' policy when India today is strategically and militarily well placed to withstand external pressure from any quarter. India withstood external coercion on Kashmir and Pakistan in the first four decades or so after 1947, when comparatively it was not strategically, militarily or economically strong. Then why now?

With an adversarial neighbor like Pakistan, whose political governance and foreign policy is dictated by the India-hostile fixation and military adventurism of the Pakistan Army, India's Pakistan policy leaves no scope or space for political idealism or the Prime Minister's personal penchant for peace.

While assessing and measuring Pakistan's pledges and assurances on peace, India's political leaders, policy establishment and the tribe of Pakistani apologists should be honor bound to review the horrific visuals of Mumbai 26/11 carnage and mayhem and wanton killings. On those three days the Pakistan Army's surrogate commando attack on Mumbai (akin to New York 9/11), India's political leadership and the state apparatus under their control stood "strategically diminished". The sovereignty and majesty of the Indian state stood trampled upon by the Pakistan Army without a matching response from India. It vividly illustrates what the Pakistan Army thinks of the Indian Republic.

Of the two major determinants of India's foreign policy, namely 'national security' and 'economic security', in the case of India's Pakistan policy, the 'national security' determinant cannot be viewed from the prism of the new found 'mantra' in academic discussions of 'comprehensive national security' where non-military elements tend to crowd-out the basic and fundamental national security requirement.

That the Prime Minister's obsession with 'peace with Pakistan at any costs' persists, if Indian media analysis are to be believed, is reinforced by the factual development of replacing the erstwhile National Security Advisor, Shri M. K. Narayanan, a 'hard-liner' on Pakistan policy with Shri Shankar Menon who shares the Prime Minister's views and was instrumental in both the infamous Havana Declaration (2006) and Sharm-el-Shaikh Summit where the Prime Minister climbed down from India's stated demands and appeased Pakistan.

Such sequential India's Pakistan policy fiascos extending from Havana to Thimphu raises a fundamental doubt and that is whether India's Pakistan policy formulations has been hijacked by the Prime Minister's Office (Special Envoys, Kashmir specialists and bureaucrats) from the institutionalized process of its handling by the Ministry of External Affairs. One finds hard to believe that India's professional Indian Foreign Service hierarchy would advocate a 'Pakistan Appeasement' policy which strategically militates against India's national security interests.

This Paper intends to briefly focus on why the present Indian foreign policy on Pakistan is strategically disastrous and associated aspects as follows:

*

India's Present Pakistan Policy: Why is it Strategically Disastrous
*

Indian Public's Hostility to Pakistan NOT Limited Only to Mumbai 26/11 Terrorism Attacks
*

India's Pakistan Policy Distortion: The United States Factor
*

Indian Prime Minister's Image Stands Diminished Because of Pakistan Appeasement Policy

India's Present Pakistan Policy: Why is it Strategically Disastrous

India's Pakistan policy perforce in view of the prevailing realities and dynamics in Pakistan has to be based on the Pakistan Army's attitudinal reflexes, compulsive neurotic hostility to India and its relentless pursuit of the asymmetrical warfare of proxy war, terrorism attacks and fomenting insurgencies within India.

India's policy mechanisms and perspectives have to take into account that the "Pakistan Army Factor" will prevail for years to come till such time the Pakistan masses resort to a "Khaki Revolution" to displace Pakistan Army's grip on governance of Pakistan or till such time India takes decisive action to cut down Pakistan Army to size and its imperial pretensions.

In the pursuit of the "National Security Determinant" in India's Pakistan Policy it should not resort to any peace initiatives which emboldens Pakistan Army's military adventurism or which dilute India's 'strategic leverages' over the Pakistan Army more pointedly, and Pakistan as a whole. No initiatives should be taken which project that India is undertaking them under external pressure or which denote India as a 'soft power' incapable of strong responses.

Regretfully, the Indian Prime minister's climb-down from India's stated positions at Havana, Sharm-al-Sheikh and Thimphu do not project the image that India in the pursuance of safeguarding its national security interests would be hard and unforgiving and further that no amount of external coercion by Pakistan's strategic patrons like the United States and China would make India yield to pressures.

Why India's present Pakistan policy is strategically disastrous needs to be viewed from the following perspectives:

*

India's Pakistan Policy politically and strategically reduces India to the deplorable level of Pakistan and as a co equal. Such Indian policy enables countries like USA and China to be meddlesome in South Asia at Indian expense and their propensity not to accord India the strategic respect which is its due arising from its power potential and geo-strategic predominance in the Indian Subcontinent.
*

Indian Prime Minister flip-flops and resiling from its stated stands at every meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister emboldens the Pakistan Army in the continuance of its disruptive strategies against India.
*

The Prime Minister and the policy establishment do not need reminders that after Havana and Sharm-al-Sheikh Indian climb-downs there was no cessation of terrorist attacks against India or decrease in tension on the LOC in Kashmir. Within hours of Thimphu meeting the Pakistan Army was at its old games of firing incidents in J&K to escalate tension on the borders.
*

No amount of assurances by Pakistan Presidents and Prime Minister and their pledges to remove "trust deficit" can sway the Pakistan Army from its compulsive hostility against India.

False hopes of the Indian policy establishment on Pakistan's genuine sincerity have led to the following military distortions in India's national security:

*

India's war preparedness has suffered and slowed down induced by unrealistic hopes of peace with Pakistan, Glaring voids exist in military inventories and which have been taken note of in Pakistan's media analysis and logically by the Pakistan Army too..
*

India's declared withdrawal of 30,000 troops from Kashmir has weakened the Indian Army's counter- terrorism grid in Kashmir. Following this measure more under United States nudging than confidence building with Pakistan, infiltration from Pakistan and firing incidents on the borders continue unabated. Curiously, the Kashmir separatists in Srinagar controlled by Pakistan have resorted to an escalation of disturbances in the Valley.
*

Withdrawal of 30,000 troops from Kashmir has robbed the Indian Army of an in-sector capability of any strike options against Pakistan. Their presence itself was a strong leverage against Pakistan.

Constant repetitions by the Indian policy establishment of India's blueprint of peace with Pakistan at any cost has robbed India the significant strategic leverage of strategic uncertainty in Pakistan Army minds about India's military intentions. Cannot India pursue a policy towards Pakistan of a' veiled fist in a velvet glove'.

India's Public Hostility to Pakistan NOT Limited Only to Mumbai 26/11 Terrorism Attacks

India's public opinion hostility to India's political leadership and political class as a whole was starkly visible on TV visuals of that time. It vividly illustrated the Indian public's pent-up hostility to Pakistan and an enraged resentment against India's political leadership for their supine policies against Pakistan and not inflicting corresponding losses on Pakistan.

The Indian public's hostility towards Pakistan cannot be said to be towards the Pakistani people. It focuses on the Pakistan Army which from 1947 has launched four wars against India, besides continued proxy wars and terrorism against India. No amount of Indian confidence building measures has induced the Pakistan Army to adopt a peaceful attitude towards India.

Mumbai 26/11 was a manifestation of Pakistan Army's emboldened adventurism induced by India's feeble responses to terrorist attacks and constant climb-downs by India's present Prime Minister and his predecessor.

The crucial question that arises here is that can any Indian Prime Minister operate and conduct India's Pakistan policy in a state of 'severe disconnect' from Indian public opinion. More so when in India there is a surfeit of charismatic Indian Prime Ministers.

The record of the Prime Minister from Havana to Thimphu via Sharm-al-Sheikh reflects that the Indian policy establishment is in a state of 'severe disconnect' from Indian public opinion on Pakistan. They are also in a 'state of denial' that Pakistan continues with its implacable hostility towards India and that their posturing for peace is only a veneer to please the United States and in the bargain to continue receiving United States strategic support and military hardware.

India's Pakistan Policy Distortion: The United States Factor

The United States has been a constant distorting factor in India's Pakistan policy. The United States obsession with Pakistan's strategic utility to its regional strategic interests has led it to overwhelmingly mindful of Pakistan Army's demands vis-à-vis India's strategic sensitivities.

India's foreign policies emerged as more strongly 'US-Centric' than ever before under the present Prime Minister. This had a corresponding impact on India's Pakistan policy. Circumstantially, India's foreign policy record for the last seven years indicates that India succumbed to United States pressures to modulate its Pakistan policies oblivious to Indian national security interests. India consequently stood restrained from firm and decisive actions against Pakistani provocations against India's sovereignty.

The Obama Administration has moved further ahead in this direction when it re-invented Pakistan Army's strategic utility to the United States at the cost of eclipsing India's standing as a regional power.

Editorials in Pakistani newspapers reflect that the Indian Prime Minister has been accommodative of United States nudging on Pakistan and could possibly be nudged further on the Kashmir and water disputes.

The strategic impact of this perception on Pakistan's thinking and strategy was visible in the run-up to the Thimphu Summit where Pakistan was arrogantly dictating demands on India.

Indian Prime Minister's Image Stands Diminished Because of Pakistan Appeasement Policy

Dr. Manmohan Singh is a globally reputed economist and a politician with an impeccable record of personal integrity and honesty. He is also known to be self effacing and not being arrogant. These are all admirable qualities in a Prime Minister of India in normal times.

India today with an embattled security environment plaguing it externally and internally calls for a Prime Minister who can navigate India through choppy strategic seas without endangering India's national security interests. This calls for a high degree of political realism, resolute determination and an enhanced sense of strategic anticipation to deal with countries like Pakistan and China. Peace is desirable but not the type which the British Prime Minister Chamberlain brought back from Munch just before World War II.

Havana, Sharm-al-Sheikh and Thimphu, regretfully, do not reflect the above mentioned qualities expected of the Prime Minister today. Domestically, the Prime Minister had never a strong standing. His silence on not articulating what strategic advantages accrues to India from his Pakistan appeasement policy confounds everyone, inviting speculation that he is presumably acting under US pressures.

Externally, a rising India in playing and managing the global power system calls for the qualities stated above in even greater measure. Does the United States takes the Chinese President and Chinese Prime Minister for granted? Is the United States unmindful of China's strategic sensitivities? The United States dare not do so knowing fully well the strategic costs that the Chinese leadership would impose.

Concluding Observations

India as a rising power cannot afford a severe disconnect in its foreign policies between the apex political leadership and the overwhelming Indian public opinion.

India's policy establishment today also cannot just get away by keeping India's foreign policy formulations in the dark and away from public scrutiny. India's dramatically growing middle class today is more alive to India's foreign policy and national security issues, as the blog-sites debates would illustrate.
  • When it comes to China and Pakistan which figure heavily as threats in Indian public perceptions and India's national security planning, the Indian public will be in no mood to accept compromise and appeasement.
  • India needs to re-calibrate its present Pakistan policies and base them on a format of political and strategic realism, rather than political idealism in pursuit of the elusive peace, which realistically is nowhere on the horizon from the demonstrated compulsive hatred of the Pakistan Army against India.
  • (The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email: [email protected])

    Subash Kapila's View


  • He is a retd Brigadier of the Army, was MA to Japan.

    His takes are independent view with great insight.
 

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
^^ tronic u posted it i was just going to do this.

but its alarming to see that our planners are careless and they donot have any assets in pakistan . how can that be true , arent apkistanis are corrupt people or our RAW is more corrput which consumes its amount meant for spending it on safety of india. i can coclude only following things
1>paper is lying , u cannot declare this things in paper
2>raw is lying to PM
3> PAKis are more patriotic then indian
4> I K Gujral as pm was fool who made him pm of this country and is manmohan is sleeping cant he start new cells in pakistan.god plz send indra gandhi .

it alarming u donot have any assets then what are u going to durning war time . just firring in air :angry_10::angry_10:

and yes when i read this article i was quiet surprised that our leadership was asking question to 3 defence chief what would be possible pakistan ans to our attcks on it

common hell this people were shouting form deep of their throats that any possible military attribution by India on Pakistani soil would be dealt military

common if this attitude of our policymakers remains that "full-fuledge war would never occur in todays world" then this is stupidy. day one pakistanis would get their conventional weapons parity over india they would attack us with fullforce and then no one would come to defend us no america, no russia, we would surely loose and pakistan wont lessen to anyboody untill they had captured whole of J&K will help from china

:angry_10::angry_10:
 
Last edited:

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
India should talk directly with the Pashtuns and encourage them that indeed the Durand Line is a legacy of past imperialism and the policy of Divide and Rule.
Even if we cannot talk directly to them. We should give statements that are sympathetic to the cause from time to time and keep the pot boiling so that it may soon spill over.

India needs to start distinguishing between different sub-nationalities in Pakistan. We should engage Balochis, Sindhis, Seriakis, Pakjabis and Pashtuns individually. Right now, we are caught in a trap where we have accepted that the opinion of Pakjabis(particularly the elites) is same as the rest of Pakistan.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Even if we cannot talk directly to them. We should give statements that are sympathetic to the cause from time to time and keep the pot boiling so that it may soon spill over.

India needs to start distinguishing between different sub-nationalities in Pakistan. We should engage Balochis, Sindhis, Seriakis, Pakjabis and Pashtuns individually. Right now, we are caught in a trap where we have accepted that the opinion of Pakjabis(particularly the elites) is same as the rest of Pakistan.
Actually talking to the Pashtuns is an option. I do not know if we are at it, but the Pakistanis feels we are at it including other groups like the Baluchis and that is why we have Consulates in Afghanistan.

To give statements would, in my opinion, expose us to incessant barrage from Pakistan as to how we are trying to destabilise Pakistan and all that, and the end result would not be in our favour, except to show solidarity.

Run Silent, Run Deep would possibly yield results without the muck soiling our skin!

Just my view.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Actually talking to the Pashtuns is an option. I do not know if we are at it, but the Pakistanis feels we are at it including other groups like the Baluchis and that is why we have Consulates in Afghanistan.

To give statements would, in my opinion, expose us to incessant barrage from Pakistan as to how we are trying to destabilise Pakistan and all that, and the end result would not be in our favour, except to show solidarity.

Run Silent, Run Deep would possibly yield results without the muck soiling our skin!

Just my view.
Despite our careful positioning over the years, everyone perceives India and Pakistan as rivals who are trying to destabilize each other. And I dont see how that perception can be changed. The perception is so entrenched that our humanitarian work in Afghanistan is equated with Pakistan terror operations. Hence, we should not worry about our clothes getting muddied, as our clothes are already tarred. In any case, we cannot play games if we are afraid of some harsh words.

The reason I propose the use of public foras is that it readies everyone for impending consequencies. Secret talks are, of course, important. But that is one part. The periodic public statements will send ripples, create new players, new dynamics are set in motion and it create insecurity among the established players(establishment of Pakistan). All this can be done by a simple statement by some junior minister. If the heat gets too much, some senior minister can backtrack. This arrangement gives us a lot of leeway to play lot of games using public fora even without direct contact. If we notice, the modus operandi of Chinese vis-a-vis India is quite similar to this approach.

Also direct contact is difficult to establish and the other party would want to make sure that we are a dependable ally. This trust can be established by our public statements.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
I have a few thoughts on this topic as well...

(1) India does not and should not have a problem with the Pakistani people themselves. They are fed a load of propaganda everyday but even those who want to have friendly relations with India are sideline by PAKMIL. So the people themselves wether Pashtoon, Balochis, Sindhis or even Punjabis and SEraikis are an asset in that sense.

(2) The PAKMIL elite has ruled Pakistan for more than half its lifetime and lost half of their country in that period. Even now it is very clear that the real power is with the ISI and Kayani. This aspect has to be made very clear to the PAkistani public though different means

(3) PAKMIL always uses the crutch of Islam to say that they are the savious, this narrative has to be overturned. There is nothing Islamic in what they have done and how they perform. Particulary in the way they have upturned the rule of law in their own country. Shady deals with the CIA on drone strikes and US agents in FATA or Quetta can't be done without KAyani's approval. Then why is the civilian govt. blamed. The Pakistani public has to be guided to the right direction.

(4) Once the Pakistani public realises that the military/intelligence elite is the main problem and overturns its hold, India will have to lend credible support and might even have to go in with a Marshal plan type move to maintain the momentum and strengthen the democratic forces in Pakistan.


This is a longshot and may take many years but this would probably be the best scenario outcome if it happens
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
ejazr said:
India does not and should not have a problem with the Pakistani people themselves. They are fed a load of propaganda everyday
That is the problem,
Because they're fed a lot of propaganda, therefore they become an enemy, India should then have a serious problem with Pakistani people !

Unless the propaganda is stopped and the revisionism in their history books rectified, not point in peace talks. An alternative would be strong counter propaganda, however judging from the Indian Express reports RAW doesn't have any more assets in Pakistan :special25:
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
That is the problem,
Because they're fed a lot of propaganda, therefore they become an enemy, India should then have a serious problem with Pakistani people !

Unless the propaganda is stopped and the revisionism in their history books rectified, not point in peace talks. An alternative would be strong counter propaganda, however judging from the Indian Express reports RAW doesn't have any more assets in Pakistan :special25:
Exactly, the average Pakistanis are a problem. Yes, the problem can be dealt with, but that does not mean that the problem is solved now. It only means that there is a solution. But the solution has a pre-requisite: Pak Mil has to be made irrelevant. That pre-requisite is not easy to be met.

The alternative is divide and rule(or as the ancients called Bedha of Sama, Dana, Bedha and Danda). The Pakistani populace is not a homogenious group. It can be broadly divided into sub-nationalities. These sub-nationalities must be engaged by us individually. And the fact that all these groups are suppressed by the Pakjabis, helps us make our 'division' easy.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
Again on the Pakistani public.

If you go through the recent PEW global survey in Pakistan which had polled people mainly from Punjab and Sindh. 53% considered India as a threat. This was LESS than the percentage of Pakistanis who considered US as a threat at 70+%. In otherwords, Pakistanis considered US as a bigger threat than India

Moreover, quoting from the report.
Roughly seven-in-ten (72%) say it is important for relations with India to improve and about three-quarters support increased trade with India and further talks between the two rivals.

Its not impossible really to persuade Pakistani public opinion if you see that these were the polled numbers in 2010 even after loads of TTP attacks. Eventually people do make sense of what is going around them. The idea is to make sure that GoI makes an effort in countering propaganda. Just sitting with their hands folded and saying "Oh they're fed propaganda, so we can't do anything" is unacceptable. Countering propaganda doesn't have to be press coferences denying stories at the Indian high comission every day.

It would be things like
(1) People-to-people contacts on cultural level on TV, music dance e.t.c.
(2) Trade incentives targeting particularly the poorer section of the Pakistanis so that they only benefit rather than the landlords or industrialists
(3) Covert funding to journalists or TV channels cirtical of PAKMIL, they don't even have to false criticism, but just highlight of blatant failures of PAKMIL like Kargil, Bangladesh, 1965, 2008, Lal Masjid e.t.c
(4) Exposes of PAKMIL cooperation on drone strikes, american troops in PAkistan including Quetta.
(5) Lobbying international HR groups to visit Balochistan, NWFP, FATA, Gilgit e.t.c
(6) GoI making offers of developmental nature publicly with things like helping flood aid, education, medical assistance e.t.c. These offers may not be accepted but by publicly stating them they can create good will
(7) Having a publicly stated surrender policy for intelligence agents of ISI, army officers e.t.c. somthing along the lines the US CIA had for soviet dissidents. The idea would be that these agents will be given a new idenity and life as long as they can provide sufficent intelligence info and were willing to turn it over to India to live a better life outside Pakistan. Even if no one turns over, just having this policy will cause consternation within the ISI/Army

There are more thing that can be done in that vein but the main aim is to target the PAkistani public to show that there is no enmity with the populace but only with the elitist elemenst in the ISI/army who have been a source of problem to the Pakistani public as well.
 
Last edited:

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
To add to my original post, RAW should (but it can't :special10: ) try to place a few agents in their Urdu daily newspapers. No point in infiltrating DAWN/Tribune etc, only the Punjabi elite reads them
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Again on the Pakistani public.

If you go through the recent PEW global survey in Pakistan which had polled people mainly from Punjab and Sindh. 53% considered India as a threat. This was LESS than the percentage of Pakistanis who considered US as a threat at 70+%. In otherwords, Pakistanis considered US as a bigger threat than India

Moreover,
Roughly seven-in-ten (72%) say it is important for relations with India to improve and about three-quarters support increased trade with India and further talks between the two rivals.

Its not impossible really if you see that these were the polled numbers in 2010 even after loads of TTP attacks. Eventually people do make sense of what is going around them.
Frankly, it does not matter what those people think as long as they dont take decisions. PA takes the decisions and people directly or indirectly support them. PA can easily whip up the passion if they wish to within a short time. Aftermath of 26/11 was ample evidence to it.

So, what people think is a question that we need to take up, after we have dealt with PA. Right now, people's thoughts and opinions dont matter unless they support India against PA.

So, instead of seeing pakistan as one single unit. We should divide it into manageble chunks. This approach must be first utilised atleast in our foreign relations.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
ejazr said:
Again on the Pakistani public.

If you go through the recent PEW global survey in Pakistan which had polled people mainly from Punjab and Sindh. 53% considered India as a threat. This was LESS than the percentage of Pakistanis who considered US as a threat at 70+%. In otherwords, Pakistanis considered US as a bigger threat than India
I think it's the effort of the PAKMIL to show US as the bogeyman, to hold together the country (anti-india isn't working well for them )

Roughly seven-in-ten (72%) say it is important for relations with India to improve and about three-quarters support increased trade with India and further talks between the two rivals.
Yeah that's what they said about the US too



64% want better relations with US.... :special25:


Come on dude, how would one answer a question like "Do want stuff to improve in the future?". Difficult to say 'no' to that !
 
Last edited:

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
^^^^

PEW survey was conducted by a local Pakistani survey company, and if you check out people from Pakistan I think it would be an accurate reflection. The question specifically is about bilateral relations should improve or not. Its a specific questions and those people who feel that they have no stake in having good relations with India and that hostility is the only option would obviously choose no.

The US single-handedly helped Pakistan maintain parity for the past 50 years. IT helped it with the latest American weapons in its fight against Soviets. During the Afghan war it was the same again. It had a higher per capita income and growth rate than India for most of the initial years thanks to American help. And Reagan even turned a blind eye to the Pakistani nuke program which was being built with the help from China. And ofcourse they continue provide billions of dollars in military and economic aid.

India on the other hand was told that it had usurped "Kashmir", was responsible for the loss of East Pakistan, is stopping its waters and possibly is involved in funding attacks by the TTP. And ofcourse that although the US can be reconciled with but the "Brahmin dominated" India can never be our friend.


AND Still US is considered a bigger threat than India, and more people want to have better relations with India than US. Besides what I am talking about is over many years, decades. Germany and France committed suicide TWICE and took the whole of Europe with them and now they are more or less reconciled with each other with open borders and single currency. US and UK had a 100 year enmity with the war of independence, the UK funding the southern rebels and so on. Then beginning with the 20th century views began to change and pragmatism developed. Mortal enemies started calling the fight between themselves as a fratricide or fighting between brothers. So its not entirely utopian to say that the PUBLIC can be an asset in tackling PAKMIL. Its all about how you look at the issue.

There should a policy for the puppet GoP, a policy for the power behind the scenes army/ISI and then a separate policy for the public at large.
 
Last edited:

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
^
I'm not saying peace is impossible, it can be done. But as you said we need to dominate in the counter-propaganda department
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top