Dhondy Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 We had this debate some time ago. Whether a destabilised Pakistan, imploding under its self created strains, is in India's interest. Then, as now, there were some hopelessly idealistic thoughts that were wonderful to read, deserved to be lauded for their inherent magnanimity, but were divorced from reality. In this context, I find Seedhi's post brutally honest, slightly shocking, but closest to how somebody entrusted with the security of a billion people would think. Since the Taliban troubles started, there's scarcely been a whisper on India's western frontier. The enemy is too busy taking care of its own strife. Should the average Indian citizen feel a trifle guilty at the subliminal urge to gloat? Perhaps you will find this excerpt from the latest issue of TIME instructive, reproduced ad verbatim. "..Many of these (factional) leaders were created by a military establishment to harass India. But today, the real enemy is within, a radicalism, like Frankenstein's monster, has turned on its former patron. What they once sowed, Pakistanis are now-tragically and shamefully-having to reap." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Blaster Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 India should try to ensure that pakistan is mired in this conflict for a long long time (at least a decade) with as much pain as possible. It is an empirical fact that the Kashmir situation is much more easier whenever pakistan is weak and mired in its own conflict. Plus pakis should get a huge dose of their own medicine. Also, to make pakistans life difficult India should beef up its troop presence on the borders so that pakistanis cannot move their troops to fight the Taliban, thereby allowing the Taliban to slaughter pakistani troops with more ease. Actually the best possible scenario is a complete Taliban takeover of pakistan, and when that happens the US will definitely take away pakistans nukes - resulting in the ultimate goal of a nuke nude and a discredited pakistan wich will be an international pariah. Not to mention Kashmir will automatically be resolved. Best possible scenario? ****heads with nukes is never a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Best possible scenario? ****heads with nukes is never a good thing.The nukes would be long gone before the Taliban lay their hands on them, the US, Russia and even China would never countenance that, and pakistan will forcibly be castrated of its arsenal. End result: a nuke-less, pariah pakistan. By product: Kashmir issue resolved (which Kashmiri would want to be under Taliban rule?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zubinpepsi Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 The nukes would be long gone before the Taliban lay their hands on them, the US, Russia and even China would never countenance that, and pakistan will forcibly be castrated of its arsenal. End result: a nuke-less, pariah pakistan. By product: Kashmir issue resolved (which Kashmiri would want to be under Taliban rule?) ok taliban takes over pakistan and nukes r bein taken away.. but wat makes u think tht talibans wudnt infilterate into kashmir and start doing wat they r doing in pakistan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Blaster Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 ^^Yeah and about kashmiri not wanting to live under taliban rule is just pure speculation. Who's to say what kashmiri would wanna go to pakistan when they could peacefully live in India? Pakistan will always be pakistan, its a corrupt country now and it will be corrupt no matter if taliban rules it or if the current terrorists run it. And Kashmiris will always want to have a Azad Kashmir unless the young kids actually get some kind of education over there and not get training to become suicide bombers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 ok taliban takes over pakistan and nukes r bein taken away.. but wat makes u think tht talibans wudnt infilterate into kashmir and start doing wat they r doing in pakistan?If the Talibs try infiltrate into Kashmir, India would be able to launch air strikes and across the border and use as much firepower as necessary. Right now India cant do so because of paki nukes and international pressure. But with a Taliban ruled, nuke nude pakistan, there would be no such restriction. Taliban would be slaughtered mercilessly if they try to infiltrate into India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 ^^Yeah and about kashmiri not wanting to live under taliban rule is just pure speculation. Who's to say what kashmiri would wanna go to pakistan when they could peacefully live in India? Pakistan will always be pakistan, its a corrupt country now and it will be corrupt no matter if taliban rules it or if the current terrorists run it. And Kashmiris will always want to have a Azad Kashmir unless the young kids actually get some kind of education over there and not get training to become suicide bombers.Without pakistani backing, the azadi movement would die a swift death. And a Taliban controlled pakistan would have zero influence internationally or militarily (without nukes etc) to do anything about Kashmir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I want paki army to kill these talibans but I know that whenever this conflict will end , this same paki army will invite taliban leaders and pay them to do jidhad in Kashmir .. I dont know what to hope :dontknow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 A resounding NO! No one can defeat the Afghans and it's foolhardy to attempt it. Guerilla warfare is deeply ingrained in them and they are bloody good at it. The opium supply will ensure that they are not going to run out of money ever and a non existent economy and fundamentalistic social structure means they are never going to run out of personnel. England and Russia found it out the hard way and America is doing so right now. Mind you' date= all three nations were superpowers when they ventured into a war with Afghanistan. Afgan's penchant for guerilla warfare and fighting is grossly exaggerated, I think. The way I look at is Afganistan has never had much to offer. Countries/civilizations are attacked if the attacker gains something at the end. In ancient days it used to be fertile land, cattles etc. In medieval to modern era it was the riches be it gold and precious metal, or silk and spices. Afganistan never had anything to offer so why would it be attacked? There was nothing to be gained really. In modern era the same logic takes a slightly different turn. Russian never had anything to gain, on the other hand United States did have a lot to gain by giving USSR a bloody nose. So yes it was the Afgan fighters against Russian tanks but guess where the weapons came from? One of the turning points in the war of course was CIA's handing over of Stinger missles to Afgan muhajids that used them with telling effect against Russian fighter helicopters. So yeah there is no argument against valor as such but there is enough argument to suggest Afgans would be no different than most other martial races if the supply of weapons is cut off. Which is what would happen if US led NATO troops pull back and a coalition force of China, India, Pakistan, Middle Eastern countries take charge in Afganistan. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triam Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 1) Try to educate its fellow citizens to be civil and not feel a certain "happiness" about it all. 2) Utilize the time, and saved money and effort, to bump up its borders and tighten its security. 3) Lay low in regional politics and ensure not to create any problems for Pakistan as it battles the terrorists. 4) Take a lead on Afganistan and come up with better solution than USA-led coalition. Maybe root for a regional troops that would comprise soldiers from China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Middle East etc, instead of NATO/USA that is fuelling fire. xxx Agree with 1 and 2. 3 define regional politics and really, how do we ever trust Pakistan? On 4, lead on Afghanistan and comprise soldiers with China, Iran, Pakistan and middle east? Really?? except Iran none of the others would work with us, on what basis do you think China or Pakistan or even the middle east will work with us? Do you want to work with Iran and spoil the existing relationship with US (admittedly not very peachy)? seeing that China always treats India with contempt and lack of respect and China and Pakistan are hands in gloves with each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Afgan's penchant for guerilla warfare and fighting is grossly exaggerated, I think. The way I look at is Afganistan has never had much to offer. Countries/civilizations are attacked if the attacker gains something at the end. In ancient days it used to be fertile land, cattles etc. In medieval to modern era it was the riches be it gold and precious metal, or silk and spices. Afganistan never had anything to offer so why would it be attacked? There was nothing to be gained really. In modern era the same logic takes a slightly different turn. Russian never had anything to gain, on the other hand United States did have a lot to gain by giving USSR a bloody nose. So yes it was the Afgan fighters against Russian tanks but guess where the weapons came from? One of the turning points in the war of course was CIA's handing over of Stinger missles to Afgan muhajids that used them with telling effect against Russian fighter helicopters. So yeah there is no argument against valor as such but there is enough argument to suggest Afgans would be no different than most other martial races if the supply of weapons is cut off. Which is what would happen if US led NATO troops pull back and a coalition force of China, India, Pakistan, Middle Eastern countries take charge in Afganistan. xxx Sure, no one can fight without weapons but the opium of Afghanistan will ensure they will always be able to buy weapons from defunct Soviet states like Tajikstan and Turkmenistan. There is an enormous number of unaccounted weapons in the region which can always be purchased with the right price. Afghanistan might not have had a lot of natural wealth but has always been a very strategic country geographically - the Silk route and all connecting South and Central Asia. And it was crucial during the British times as well and both Russia and Britain wanted control of it to gain direct access to the others' empire. And Russia of course suffered a terrible fate in the 80s. There is no denying that the CIA and USA helped, but there will be no shortage of arms if an India led force attacks there. Anyways, the idea of Kaffirs and Commies coming together(even allowing for this unlikely alliance to come into play) in a force to attack Afghanistan will leave them with no shortage of suppliers and sympathizers in the Muslim world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triam Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 ^^^ Shwetabh, I agree with most of your points, but are you claiming that the Afghan problem is an unsolvable one but merely can be contained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 ^^^ Shwetabh' date=' I agree with most of your points, but are you claiming that the Afghan problem is an unsolvable one but merely can be contained?[/quote'] I am not even sure what would be a "solution" to the Afghan problem. Expecting Afghanistan to start implementing a modern education and through process system in the near future is not practical, perhaps not for decades if the process is started out today. With no shortage of brainwashed people, a supply of opium and weapons, a culture seeped in warlord traditions I really don't know what is a solution to the Afghan problem. At best, India can foster good relationships with the present regime, work towards making sure Taliban do not gain power again, set up a strong and credible intelligence network, and invest in infrastructure in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triam Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I am not even sure what would be a "solution" to the Afghan problem. Expecting Afghanistan to start implementing a modern education and through process system in the near future is not practical, perhaps not for decades if the process is started out today. With no shortage of brainwashed people, a supply of opium and weapons, a culture seeped in warlord traditions I really don't know what is a solution to the Afghan problem. At best, India can foster good relationships with the present regime, work towards making sure Taliban do not gain power again, set up a strong and credible intelligence network, and invest in infrastructure in the country. The highlighted bit is a result of all the reasons listed in the first paragraph, haha, it is like a chicken and egg problem, you cant stop Taliban from gaining power again just because of the culture, no shortage of brainwashed people, the warlord traditions and supply f opium and weapons, yeah sure it will not be called Taliban. But as the saying goes iif it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Agree with 1 and 2. 3 define regional politics and really, how do we ever trust Pakistan? Its not about trust, its about diplomacy. By all means dont have complete faith in Pakistan, but have faith enough to let them fight this battle and clean their menace and not use India as a distraction against it all. On 4, lead on Afghanistan and comprise soldiers with China, Iran, Pakistan and middle east? Really?? except Iran none of the others would work with us, on what basis do you think China or Pakistan or even the middle east will work with us? Do you want to work with Iran and spoil the existing relationship with US (admittedly not very peachy)? seeing that China always treats India with contempt and lack of respect and China and Pakistan are hands in gloves with each other? Which country apart from Pakistan has more of a strategic interest in Pakistan? Obviously China. If you forget India, United States and every other powerful country in the mix think about the importance that Pakistan holds for China. Amongst other it is the gateway to Middle East(and future) for China. They are hugely dependent on Oil, most of which they import from Middle East, and they struggle to haul it back across Indian Ocean etc. In case of a war, specially a war that goes for a long time, their supplies would be shut down without which they wont be able to fight a battle. Hence their deep interest in developing Pakistan's port of Gwadar(and hence India's increased interest in Baluchistan which is very close to it). If Pakistan falls then China's ambition will take a big hit. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 the idea of Kaffirs and Commies coming together(even allowing for this unlikely alliance to come into play) in a force to attack Afghanistan will leave them with no shortage of suppliers and sympathizers in the Muslim world. I doubt that very much. A coalition comprising of Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis and Middle Eastern countries will effectively settle all those arguments. I mean how do you fight against Chinese when they are the biggest arms supplier to you, and your backing Arabs? How do you fight Pakistani and Middle Eastern, even Indian, troops without worrying about the whole Muslim-Muslim backlash?? Plus of course of all the countries in the mix, US included, India perhaps has the best goodwill on the ground(not amongst Talibans etc but amongst the average Afgan). I concede it would be very difficult to get such a coalition going. There would be distrust between India-Pakistan, Iran-US, US-China and maybe US/UK would never let it go out of their control anyway, but I also think this coalition stands inherently better chances than what NATO/US combo would dish out. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts