PAKISTANI RANT: AFTER BANGLADESH, IS BALOCHISTAN’S DISINTEGRATION NEXT ON INDIA’S LIST

Discussion in 'Pakistan' started by Lions Of Punjab, Jun 14, 2015.

  1. Lions Of Punjab

    Lions Of Punjab Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    887
    Location:
    Ahmedabad, India, India
    [​IMG]
    Inset: Dr. Allah Nazar is a political activist fighting for an independent Baluchistan in Pakistani

    by Usman Ali Khan

    I heard what my ears would never want to hear again – Narendra Modi’s acceptance of India’s lethal plan in the disintegration of East Pakistan in 1971, and its threat to destabilise Pakistan through terrorism. Clearly the statement was aimed at fanning hatred against Pakistan in Bangladesh.
    This also proved that the specific aim of creating RAW in 1968 was to subvert the people of former East Pakistan and prepare grounds for the creation of Bangladesh for the training of over one million Mukti Bahini.

    The controversy grew even more after his minister of state, Rajyavardhan Rathore, made a controversial statement on June 10th stating that India will enter any country, mostly focusing towards Pakistan, which harbours groups of terrorists or individuals with ill intent towards India, and they will strike wherever they want to.

    India needs to revisit and re-evaluate its statements, in order to avoid tensions brewing any further, since our army and nation have deep regard for their motherland. According to a global survey from WIN/Gallup International, Pakistan ranks significantly high in the ranking of countries where people are willing to fight for their country.

    Even the Myanmar situation comes off as a baffling one. A day after their confession of the Myanmar adventure, matters took an ugly turn when Myanmar rejected assertions that Indian armed forces entered their territory in pursuit of rebels. Regardless of whether they did it or did not, a few prominent journalists in top Indian media houses commented that Indian troops and the Indian government failed to respect the sovereignty of a country like Myanmar.

    Reacting to statements from the ruling camp post-Myanmar operations, AICC spokesman Anand Sharma said,

    “There should be sobriety and maturity. Jingoism and boastful claims are not going to help the operations of India’s Special Forces.”

    It gets more worrisome when the Indian defence minister stated that that his country will use terrorists to counter terrorism. India, I feel, has not come to terms with the existence of Pakistan and keeps hatching conspiracies to undo it. The enormity of the statements given by India is a serious issue. We have heard of ‘rogue’ states, ‘failed’ states and ‘terrorist’ states. What kind of nation does India want to become?


    The excerpt below is from a speech made by Modi, which adds a whole new dimension to the debate.

    “Arrey mian, Hindu aatankwaad? Arrey mian, Musharraf tumhe maloom nahi hai Hindu kabhi aatankwadi nahi ho sakta. Lekin mian, agar tumhare paap ke karan ya tumhari harkato ke karan koi Hindu agar iss raaste pe chal gaya aatankwad ke, toh Mian Musharraf, kaan khol ke sunlo, jab Hindu aatankwad aaega na toh duniya ke nakshe par Pakistan ka namonishan mit jaega.”

    (A Hindu terrorist? Pervez Musharraf, don’t you know that a Hindu can never be a terrorist. But, listen up Musharraf, if a Hindu ever becomes a terrorist because of your doings, Pakistan will be wiped off from the face of the earth.)




    It is worth noting that India was the first country in South Asia to introduce the concept of cross-border terrorism in 1971. RAW is used as an instrument to apply state terrorism, indulge in false flag operations, psychological warfare and espionage, destabilise and topple neighbouring governments, and browbeat them into accepting India’s hegemony.

    A simple question that needs to be answered is – what else is state-sponsored terrorism?
    The facts are clear enough. Mr Modi’s statements are a clear indicator towards the deep-rooted terrorism they use to destabilise their neighbouring countries. It’s a pattern really, how successive Indian governments have dealt with sponsoring terrorist activities and labelled Pakistan as the perpetrator time and time again. Terrorist attacks from the past decade have only sown seeds of hatred towards Pakistan and acted as a barrier in India’s foreign policy dealings with Pakistan.

    Before writing and promoting an anti-Pakistan book in India, American analyst and author Christine Fair said in 2009.

    “Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity. Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Balochistan.”

    Another US analyst, Laura Rozen, explained the India-Taliban nexus,
    “While the US media has frequently reported on Pakistani ties to jihadi elements launching attacks in Afghanistan, it has less often mentioned that India supports insurgent forces attacking Pakistan. The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there.”


    The recent inopportune and highly provocative statements depict that it may be time for the world community to determine whether Indian hegemonic policies are the problem or a solution to the issues of peace and stability in the region.

    Ultimately, change for the better in South Asia and India can only come when its politicians and people wake up, stir and fight for a genuine democracy, not a government that acts as a terrorist puppet.
    The conclusion is obvious. Since 1990, India has been dubbing Pakistan as a country indulging in cross-border terrorism solely because of its support towards Kashmir’s cause. We don’t want to witness another 1971 debacle. For long, Islamabad has been alleging that intelligence agencies from India have been active in supporting a Baloch separatist movement. India has truly bled Pakistan by its proxy wars.

    Let time be the healer, a complete break in ties would give tormented minds in the neighbourhood some diplomatic solitude to ponder over.

    http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/2...ochistans-disintegration-next-on-indias-list/
     
  2.  
  3. Lions Of Punjab

    Lions Of Punjab Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    887
    Location:
    Ahmedabad, India, India
    India, Pakistan, again


    [​IMG]

    FORGET the loons and the kooks, the puff-chested braggarts and the incorrigible denialists, and ask yourself this: what is the Pak-India relationship really about?

    At its core, as defined in the present era, stripped of hype and hyperbole, denuded of posturing and silliness, what is it that Pakistan and India need of each other in strategic terms?

    Not trade, not normalisation, none of the aspirational stuff — what can the two of them simply not ignore about the other?

    For India, it’s pretty straightforward: avoid another Mumbai. That means, can’t ignore the anti-India lot, LeT and the like, sloshing around in Pakistan.

    From an Indian perspective, anti-India militancy in Pakistan has to be the baseline — no state, government or security establishment can possibly ignore it. Nor should they. Nor will they.

    For Pakistan, you have to probe a little more, but it comes into view all right. It’s not Kashmir, at least not Kashmir in the conventional sense described here.

    The K-boat sailed a long time ago and nothing more will be wrested, at the negotiating table or on the battlefield, than roughly the four-point solution of the Mush era.

    So, unfinished business or not, what we’re lectured about or not, Kashmir is hardly a strategic core, whose presence or absence directly determines the very course of the country.

    At most Kashmir is an institutional core — allowing the boys to justify their exalted status and internal predominance.

    So, what then? It’s the Indian war machine, specifically, its conventional capabilities. It’s the only thing that’s unsustainable — the threat of a chasm between the conventional capabilities of the two countries.

    The Kashmir dispute we can sustain, water we can probably keep squabbling over, no-trade status we can continue, people-to-people contact we can ignore, but there’s an inherent divergence in the conventional capabilities of us and them that folk here gloss over with a little lie.

    That lie is this: the wider the conventional gap grows — as India plays catch-up with and overtakes Pakistan in various aspects of the military realm — all that will happen is that Pakistan will lower the nuclear threshold and hence Pakistan will still be able to protect itself. Neat and deadly.

    But follow that logic a bit. We already have an example: from the Indian parliament attack to Operation Parakram to the quasi-mooting of Cold Start to Pakistan developing smaller missiles that can carry miniaturised nuclear warheads, the whole spiral has already played out.

    Great. We feel safe. Here’s the problem though: tactical nuclear missiles only respond to the threat of a rapid and limited ground invasion by the Indians. There are a whole bunch of other options.

    A sea blockade by the Indian navy or air strikes by the Indian air force, for example. Or, if we want to get really fancy, imagine a multi-day episode like Mumbai that triggers an OBL-style Indian raid on Muridke before the militant attack is snuffed out in India.

    Much of that is fantasy, either because India can only dream of such capabilities or because it’s insanely expensive to assemble. But, given its economic trajectory, given the money it can set aside for its military, given its external relationships and given the highly skilled pockets of labour available to it, India can afford to at least take a partial stab at fantasy.

    Then what? To every new conventional capability India threatens or acquires, Pakistan can’t simply lower the nuclear threshold further. That would be absurd and unworkable for a bunch of reasons, not least because it would mean us sitting on a hair-trigger that would give the world jitters.

    So, in every realistic scenario, Pakistan cannot let the conventional parity with India grow too out of whack. And in every realistic scenario, Pakistan simply doesn’t have the resources to compete conventionally — if India decides to hit the accelerator.

    Either it would bankrupt us à la the Soviets and the Cold War or it would drive us to do something desperate before the point of no return is reached.

    That, then, is the core of the Pak-India relationship: the intolerable threat of militancy for India and the unsustainable proposition of a conventional arms race for Pakistan.

    And that also explains why the relationship is again near insoluble — the fear of one feeds the fear of the other.

    Why should Pakistan give up on the proxy threat when it can’t compete in the long term in the conventional realm and militancy is the one thing India doesn’t have an answer to?

    And why would India give up the option of pulling away conventionally if it’s the one thing that could make Pakistan consider giving up its proxies for good?

    The worst thing about the Pak-India relationship is not that it doesn’t make sense, but that, when you look at it closely, the damn thing makes a kind of perverse sense.

    Which brings us to the present. Pakistan’s hedge against a possible arms race with India has been to stabilise ties with the US: chummy up to the Americans and keep the weapons flowing while there’s a hawk in Delhi. It’s no accident that ties with the US are at their most stable in years.

    India’s response to the continuing militancy threat has been to change tack from Manmohan Singh’s tentative diplomacy to Modi flirting with the proxy threat against Pakistan.

    Combined, the Pakistani and Indian responses make for some fireworks and a great deal of noise. But it does little to change the contradiction at the heart of the relationship.

    An intolerable threat for the Indian side and an unsustainable proposition for the Pakistani side is a riddle no one appears to have the answer to.


    http://idrw.org/india-pakistan-again/
     
  4. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,006
    Likes Received:
    2,250
  5. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,625
    Likes Received:
    17,101
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Yuri Bezmenov is giving his own twist to the events. Of course, he is a dissident, and he has to please those who are his sponsors.

    I have seen this video, and this video has been posted more than once in DFI. He mentiones that the Mukti Bahini cadres were trained by the USSR in Simferopol, which is in Crimea, which recently reunited with the Russian Federation.
     
  6. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,006
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    ^^

    Sir, there are few more names in this clip.

    Anyway, but here in this ( PAKISTANI RANT ) thread, the point is, they always cry in the name of India only.

    Whereas, as per "Pakistan Cyber Force [Official]" the ground reality is totally different and the most funny part is no one talk about it or even cry about it......!
     

Share This Page