BTW,
Here is an excellent post by a gentleman named Ali on LWJ on the subject of why the possibility of Indian support for select Taliban and Baluch groups cannot be ignored:
===============
Ali:
The Pakistani government explains the Malakand Accord as a gambit required to demonstrate the viciousness of the TTP to the public, and finally swing public opinion against them. This explanation certainly fits the facts, since polls in Pakistan had previously shown people to support peace talks as an instrument, their previous failures not withstanding.
Cutting peace deals with Bahadur and Nazir is frustrating to watch, but these groups (and Haqqani) aren't directly threatening Pakistan right now, and it appears the army is trying to prioritize who it takes on given the paltry number of personnel it is recommitting away from the Indian border.
The remark about Baitullah being a patriot is ridiculous, no question. It is also true that the Army has been populated significantly by officers following the Deobandi sect, and who have a history of supporting the Taliban. Remember that the Taliban were openly allies of Pakistan pre 9/11. It seems to me there still significant numbers of such zealots in the army. However, public sentiment in Pakistan has swung massively against the Taliban, as it should given the carnage this month.
However, there's a significant amount of testimony outside Pakistan backing the claim about Indian involvement.
Arun Shourie, the Indian parlimentarian, had this to say in his speech to the Lok Sabha after 26/11 (
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?239206):
"Eleven, the time when large armies could be sent across the borders -- [it is said a lot that we should attack Pakistan]-- that time has gone. The time when large bodies of armies could be sent across the borders has gone. There are no training camps to bomb. But Pakistan gives us the clue what we should be doing to make them register a cause, that is, look at the violence in Kashmir in the last year-and-a-half that has gone down because Pakistan has been preoccupied in its own problems. So, keep it preoccupied in its own problems in Baluchistan, in Gilgit Baltistan, in ***."
Vikram Sood, the former R&AW chief, had much the same to say (
http://soodvikram.blogspot.com/2009_01_05_archive.htm)
As did B Raman (
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?239124):
A divided Pakistan, a bleeding Pakistan, a Pakistan ever on the verge of collapse without actually collapsing--that should be our objective till it stops using terrorism against India.
The opinion expressed by these Indians is basically that the conventional projection of force is denied by Pakistan's nukes, so unconventional force should be used.
There's a great article here (
www.outlookindia.com | To Understand Pakistan, 1947 Is The Wrong Lens) explaining why Pakistan is so paranoid about India. In two words: Bangladesh, 1971
The evidence I've given you so far is sabre-rattling by mainstream Indian politicians and officials. There are also statements by Americans.
There's the heatedly disputed article in Foreign Policy:
Can the intel community defuse India-Pakistan tensions? | The Cable
'While the U.S. 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 former intelligence official said. "The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan," the former intelligence official who served in both countries said. "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 problem with this claim is that it, and its rebuttals, were both by anonymous sources. Not so Christina Fair of RAND (
Roundtables | Foreign Affairs
"I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan's regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan's apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. 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 Baluchistan."
Ultimately, Pakistan has enough problems to fix of its own, and it is always going to come out with a black eye if it takes India on given the size discrepancy. It needs to aggressively pursue the Mumbai terrorists and pursue peace. However, India's stated intent and actions cannot be swept under the rug.