Instead of talk India should bomb Terror Camps in Pakistan Dr Subramanian Swamy

[livingdead]

He can't bomb any Pakistani and people who give such trigger happy statements aren't worthy to be trusted in terms of whom they want to bomb.

whether its possible or not, is secondary, but was he talking about bombing of terror camps or was he talking about bombing pakistanis in general?
The first one is nothing new, americans are doing it for long. The fact that India does not possess the capability does not make it any more trigger happy.
What swami can be accused of (if he is talking about bombing terror camps only) is not being trigger happy but misleading his followers, as he does not elaborate the consequences of such action.

 

[Aamna14]

whether its possible or not, is secondary, but was he talking about bombing of terror camps or was he talking about bombing pakistanis in general?
The first one is nothing new, americans are doing it for long. The fact that India does not possess the capability does not make it any more trigger happy.
What swami can be accused of (if he is talking about bombing terror camps only) is not being trigger happy but misleading his followers, as he does not elaborate the consequences of such action.

Since when has India sidelined and replaced America?? Have Indian forces been deployed in Afghanistan till this very year?? Capability or not the capability, India is in no way in the league of US nor does India live in a vaccum to vanish after doing any such attempt. What India needs to learn is to stop acting like a super power and making such pre election speeches because if your politicians still grab anti Pakistan votes there then it shows the mentality of the Indian voters I am afraid. India should never even think of violating our borders because if you think there wouldn't be any retaliation then you're dead wrong. The closer the focus of Indian politicians stays to home, the better.

 

[livingdead]

Since when has India sidelined and replaced America?? Have Indian forces been deployed in Afghanistan till this very year?? Capability or not the capability, India is in no way in the league of US nor does India live in a vaccum to vanish after doing any such attempt. What India needs to learn is to stop acting like a super power and making such pre election speeches because if your politicians still grab anti Pakistan votes there then it shows the mentality of the Indian voters I am afraid. India should never even think of violating our borders because if you think there wouldn't be any retaliation then you're dead wrong. The closer the focus of Indian politicians stays to home, the better.

lolz, you seem to just repeat what I said, Indian does not possess the capability of US and India is not US.
which is why swami can be accused of misleading his followers, as they seem to think India does possess such power.
What I was pointing is, bombing terror camps itself (which by now I presume is what he was talking about, and not pakistanis in general as you seemed to imply in your reply) is nothing new as such.

As to "India" should stop acting as superpower, swami is not India, is he? I think GoI represents us.

If India possed such power would it be okey to exercise it? I am not so sure. In my view, due to the fact that India is nowhere near US (in assymetry of power vs pakistan) here are few choices as to how to respond to pakistan sponsored terror.
1. fund terror in pakistan: This is immoral and we should not do it.
2. fight war with pakistan: This is hugely disproportionate response (unless the terror victims are our representitives, like death of a PM or death of large number of MPs)
3. fund subvertive activity within pakistan: This is the least offensive one that gives the best result. However we should be very careful about civilian casulaty of such activity and only use it to pressure pakistani leadership into not funding terror, not for revenge. This also keeps the possibility of a compromise open.

 

[Aamna14]

lolz, you seem to just repeat what I said, Indian does not possess the capability of US and India is not US.
which is why swami can be accused of misleading his followers, as they seem to think India does possess such power.
What I was pointing is, bombing terror camps itself (which by now I presume is what he was talking about, and not pakistanis in general as you seemed to imply in your reply) is nothing new as such.

As to "India" should stop acting as superpower, swami is not India, is he? I think GoI represents us.

If India possed such power would it be okey to exercise it? I am not so sure. In my view, due to the fact that India is nowhere near US (in assymetry of power vs pakistan) here are few choices as to how to respond to pakistan sponsored terror.
1. fund terror in pakistan: This is immoral and we should not do it.
2. fight war with pakistan: This is hugely disproportionate response (unless the terror victims are our representitives, like death of a PM or death of large number of MPs)
3. fund subvertive activity within pakistan: This is the least offensive one that gives the best result. However we should be very careful about civilian casulaty of such activity and only use it to pressure pakistani leadership into not funding terror, not for revenge. This also keeps the possibility of a compromise open.

My answer to what India should be doing would get us in a long debate over another issue. As far as India being concerned about ivilian casualty as long as Pakistanis are the ones bleeding is the last thing I would expect. And many might even argue that India indeed does fund terrorism in Balochistan.

 

[cyphercide]

Proxy wars should be replied in kind. Start with extending full diplomatic recognition of the Baluchistan movement.

 

[livingdead]

Proxy wars should be replied in kind. Start with extending full diplomatic recognition of the Baluchistan movement.

since they stopped supporting kashmiri separatists, we should do the same quid pro quo.

My answer to what India should be doing would get us in a long debate over another issue. As far as India being concerned about ivilian casualty as long as Pakistanis are the ones bleeding is the last thing I would expect. And many might even argue that India indeed does fund terrorism in Balochistan.

I am a bit hesitant to call support to baloch nationalist as supporting terror. Its like pakistan supporting kashmiri separatist.

 

[Aamna14]

since they stopped supporting kashmiri separatists, we should do the same quid pro quo.


I am a bit hesitant to call support to baloch nationalist as supporting terror. Its like pakistan supporting kashmiri separatist.

So don't you call them terrorists?? I mean your government??
Other than that Kashmir remains to this day a disputed territory Balochistan isn't.

 

[cyphercide]

since they stopped supporting kashmiri separatists, we should do the same quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo? We never did threaten their internal affairs by poking our collective nose in it.

Whenever India has willed, Pakistan has broken.

 

[livingdead]

So don't you call them terrorists?? I mean your government??
Other than that Kashmir remains to this day a disputed territory Balochistan isn't.

disputed territory does not give any more right to pakistan govt to support insurgency. (than GoI to support baloch insurgency). It only means it is disputed.


I am not sure of GoI's thought on BLA and such entities. I dont represent anybody but myself here.

 

[Aamna14]

disputed territory does not give any more right to pakistan govt to support insurgency. (than GoI to support baloch insurgency). It only means it is disputed.


I am not sure of GoI's thought on BLA and such entities. I dont represent anybody but myself here.

It does however change the narrative and therefore it no longer remains an Indian territory and on the other hand becomes a population thats fighting against a brutal occupation. Thats what the status does. Thats the reason I said it would lead to a completely off topic discussion. No I don't mean you represent anyone from the government we all obviously post our individual perspectives and opinions.

 

[livingdead]

It does however change the narrative and therefore it no longer remains an Indian territory and on the other hand becomes a population thats fighting against a brutal occupation. Thats what the status does. Thats the reason I said it would lead to a completely off topic discussion. No I don't mean you represent anyone from the government we all obviously post our individual perspectives and opinions.

the status of disputed terrotory does not give any special right to pakistan (or any other country) to arm separatists who fight India. Does it?
BTW pakistan govt keeps repeating it was giving moral support (not material or weapons)we have right to give 'moral' support to oppressed baloch. Tell me under which law it is wrong just because its not disputed territory.

BTW the whole of kashmir is disputed not only Indian bit, so do you think it will be okey for India to support an armed insurgency in your part of kashmir (hypothetically speaking)

 

[Aamna14]

the status of disputed terrotory does not give any special right to pakistan (or any other country) to arm separatists who fight India. Does it?
BTW pakistan govt keeps repeating it was giving moral support (not material or weapons)we have right to give 'moral' support to oppressed baloch. Tell me under which law it is wrong just because its not disputed territory.

BTW the whole of kashmir is disputed not only Indian bit, so do you think it will be okey for India to support an armed insurgency in your part of kashmir (hypothetically speaking)

Because Baloch people are more patriotic than you think they are. You are talking about the separatist groups?? Don't even think that an average Baloch would support any such effort and the reason I am saying this is because I have been there and I have known people who have spent there entire lives in Balochistan and not just its capital I mean. Not one Baloch I have met in my life ever who supports any such movement and they are more anti India then you would even like to think.
No, the moment you ask the Kashmiris what they want and grant them their rights is when there would be no further cross border issues. I have no issues with whatever they decide and nor should anyone else.

 

[livingdead]

Because Baloch people are more patriotic than you think they are. You are talking about the separatist groups?? Don't even think that an average Baloch would support any such effort and the reason I am saying this is because I have been there and I have known people who have spent there entire lives in Balochistan and not just its capital I mean. Not one Baloch I have met in my life ever supports any such movement and they are more anti India then you would even like to think.
No, the moment you ask the Kashmiris what they want and grant them their rights is when there would be no further cross border issues.

Doing that(because of cross border issues) will leave us vulnerable to futher blackmail. You dont give money to blackmailer and pretend that problem will go away, it will only embolden the blackmailer.
Kashmiris should get their rights anyway, and we should ensure that it happens (and apprears to happen) not under any duress or compromise.
Which is why 'patriotic' baloch needs to be given moral support. The support should only be withdrawn as quid pro quo gesture.

 

[Aamna14]

Doing that(because of cross border issues) will leave us vulnerable to futher blackmail. You dont give money to blackmailer and pretend that problem will go away, it will only embolden the blackmailer.
Kashmiris should get their rights anyway, and we should ensure that it happens (and apprears to happen) not under any duress or compromise.
Which is why 'patriotic' baloch needs to be given moral support. The support should only be withdrawn as quid pro quo gesture.

No they surely don't because they haven't been protesting since the time of partition against our state as Kashmiris have against yours. By rights, I meant the right to choose their future and you know very well what I meant so you are clearly not giving them that right. You don't have to listen to what Pakistan says but what Kashmiris say so I don't find it blackmailing only what the largest democracy in the world should be doing instead of denying what its people have been asking for decades.

 

[livingdead]

No they surely don't because they haven't been protesting since the time of partition against our state as Kashmiris have against yours. By rights, I meant the right to choose their future and you know very well what I meant so you are clearly not giving them that right. You don't have to listen to what Pakistan says but what Kashmiris say so I don't find it blackmailing only what the largest democracy in the world should be doing instead of denying what its people have been asking for decades.

I did not deny that kashmiris need to be given their rights. What rights are reasonable and to what extend we can compromise is something that needs to be seriously discussed.
In future, when asia looks like europe, am sure we will give them choice(like scots are given now), before that it will only lead to futher bloodshed and multinational game arena there. Afganistan is a good reminder of what happens when big players start playing chess in a sovereign entity that does not have means to stop it.
Basically anything short of Independence should be on the table. That negotiation should not happen because pakistan has capability to fund and destabilize the area. We need to make sure the influence is minimized first.
And supporting independent balochistan is one such way. Its immaterial whether baloch wanted in 47 or in 97. I dont know what percentage of baloch want independence but lets assume 100% of kashmiris want independence and only 0.1 % baloch want independence. Still its imperative for us to support it for now.
Ultimately of course these all will be negotiated and settled.