El Sidd
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 67,597
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
It is not something that is of late, it is something that has been showcased as such since inception itself.
The only difference has been the approach is fructifying over the years. India of 1990s was an economically insecure and diplomatically weak nation, present years give out a different picture for apparent reasons.
There has been no 'jumping' on bandwagon overnight. Systematic undermining of the pre-eminent organisation of the day is a time tested strategy, that is in vogue as always. Hence the rise and fall of different organisations.
LeT had established itself as the pre-eminent group, now, HM out of the blue, is reasserting itself. These two organisations have their own inherent differences. The situation is more complicated with advent of wahabi fundings into valley. This has enabled mosques sprouting at every nook and corner, which, admittedly are preaching an anti-India agenda, but are also preaching the rabid interpretations that are more identified with places like Afghanistan and mid-East. These are inherent contradictions within a viable armed struggle.
The fatigue is within the common man on ground. The common man on street is caught in a grinder, a corrupt political setup in the state and separatists (whose near and dear ones are comfortable and who control major businesses in Kashmir, including contractors for the armed forces) and militant groups on other side. It is this man who is the daily wage earner, who is being pushed deeper into despair and penury as strikes leave no business unaffected.
There is no fatigue in IA. The fatigue only exists in this forum. Ground realities are quite different. But IA is not the solution here.
The Leftists are actually killing themselves. They are a minuscule population who gets the bytes but has no bite, so hardly an issue.
Uncle Sam is not invited, that is a sure thing. That is why even the present power set up, is stressing on Shimla Accord only. Even Chinese are not exactly a great idea into this dispute over Kashmir.
I doubt many will find a way into Kashmir save from coming in through LC from your side. And any who do come, will meet their fate here. As for homegrown ones, short life span. The present military strategy of restrained targeting will provide the necessary controls, but then, again, it remains only a stop gap measure.
The ultimate game remains to isolate China into South China Sea in order to establish a status quo there. CPEC allows China an alternate and simply disallows that. Hence, Kashmir is very stupid place for US to bother in. I would always point to Baluchistan area.
My logic, for past 9 months now, remains on Iran as being a target for US. US moves to destabilise Iran, logically go towards Baluchistan-Sistan province of Iran.
Now reading it with Modi's statements over Baluchistan over the last year (rhetoric notwithstanding), one can imagine a convergence of interests here between US and India if Iran follows a policy of supporting Kashmiri movement. That is what my original contention remained.
This combination of US-Indian interest in Baluchistan (including Baluchistan-Sistan region) allows addressing two major interests of US - Iran and CPEC. Two of India also are addressed - CPEC and destabilised Pakistan (I say destabilised as anything more than destabilised aka like Syria will be dangerous for US and Indian interests, so even if India wanted, US will not allow that; so perhaps a level of violence enough to make CPEC unviable/risk prone option yet not enough to allow destruction of host country itself)
I remain a strong proponent of that. Never allow hungry wolves into your pen.
I will laugh at this one as I know exactly what level of support Pakistan provides. Been there done that situation for me
I don't hold it against Pakistan, they have to do everything to secure their interests. But then, it is a game two can play
I think we can leave this bit to our understandings on this aspect
Actually, it makes our job easier
I still believe that it must remain a bilateral issue. The only issue here is both Pakistan and India are being cornered to become proxies which is not very productive.
Uncle Sam need the encirclement of China and south China sea is just one prong of this two pronged effort to force China into submission.
As far as CPEC is concerned it is China's only secure oil supply line which should leave no one in any doubt about China's seriousness.
Iran is tricky. Its isolated facing multiple issues and apart from the rhetoric they really can't back their claims up.
Kashmiris are strong enough with enough representation in every key country and specially Britain who invited them there to somehow delay the issue.
But i would definitely reiterate that currently India has not used her diplomatic potential fully and at a time everyone is being so curiously sensitive in choosing sides, India has chosen going balls deep with America and that is not ideal to say the least.
Regarding the Islamic terrorists well its not going away that easy given the amount of economics behind it and as long as fanatics have hold of key strategic locations namely Iran and Saudis.
Russia's economy needed you the most at this moment in time so I don't know how they will see this.
The chain of command ensures that use of nuclear arsenal is a collective effort and not individual.
So you can calm down.
But I can only say although i am not sure if i should say this here.
After 1999 episode it is now certain Pakistan will not go first use on nuclear.
And you can thank Saudi king that he beat some sense into musharaf in 1999. Otherwise it was kaboom.
