There is no unity among people in Pakistan.

[Joe Shearer]

Sir would you really want to be dealing with the TTP insurgency? Keep in mind that if we had been Indian, the TTP would have come part and parcel!

Here's the catch.

If you had been Indian, your problems would have been Indian. The TTP problem would have been Indian. India has faced and curbed similar movements, not so violent, not so powerful, but similar, in Nagaland, in Mizoram for a short while, in Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand, currently still going on, and earlier, in the Punjab. I leave aside Kashmir; in terms of your specialisation, it is quite different.

As it stands, I personally believe that it is worth our while to help Pakistan in any way possible to fight the TTP. The TTP is a cancer, and idiots within India don't understand that the (possible but unlikely) succumbing of Pakistan to this cancer will mean an existential threat to India. The TTP winning puts the equivalent of an ISIS on our border; that is several orders of magnitudes worse than the Pakistan Army, which is still a disciplined military force.

There are hedge scholars and armchair strategists who will squeal in shrill tones for support to terrorists who terrorise Pakistan, with complete disregard for the need for all nations to unite against terrorism, wherever and however it occurs; they need not occupy our attention. Even without your being Indian, then, I believe that the TTP problem should be an area of concern for India, and that there exists a need for India to help Pakistan in whatever way it is possible. That help will be difficult to offer, given the history of mutual suspicion, and the deep-rooted anger within India at the blatant way in which terrorism in parts of India is supported by the Pakistani establishment. Unfortunately, giving in to our baser feelings and hoping that the TTP, or, for that matter, the Baloch nationalists will undermine Pakistan is cutting off the branch on which we ourselves sit.

Yes, we should help Pakistan now, with the TTP insurgency. Hypothetically, we should be ready to take direct responsibility for combating this deadly insurgency, in the imaginary case that we were considering a confederated nation.

Now wait for the screams of outrage.

 

[Icarus]

Here's the catch.

If you had been Indian, your problems would have been Indian. The TTP problem would have been Indian. India has faced and curbed similar movements, not so violent, not so powerful, but similar, in Nagaland, in Mizoram for a short while, in Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand, currently still going on, and earlier, in the Punjab. I leave aside Kashmir; in terms of your specialisation, it is quite different.

As it stands, I personally believe that it is worth our while to help Pakistan in any way possible to fight the TTP. The TTP is a cancer, and idiots within India don't understand that the (possible but unlikely) succumbing of Pakistan to this cancer will mean an existential threat to India. The TTP winning puts the equivalent of an ISIS on our border; that is several orders of magnitudes worse than the Pakistan Army, which is still a disciplined military force.

There are hedge scholars and armchair strategists who will squeal in shrill tones for support to terrorists who terrorise Pakistan, with complete disregard for the need for all nations to unite against terrorism, wherever and however it occurs; they need not occupy our attention. Even without your being Indian, then, I believe that the TTP problem should be an area of concern for India, and that there exists a need for India to help Pakistan in whatever way it is possible. That help will be difficult to offer, given the history of mutual suspicion, and the deep-rooted anger within India at the blatant way in which terrorism in parts of India is supported by the Pakistani establishment. Unfortunately, giving in to our baser feelings and hoping that the TTP, or, for that matter, the Baloch nationalists will undermine Pakistan is cutting off the branch on which we ourselves sit.

Yes, we should help Pakistan now, with the TTP insurgency. Hypothetically, we should be ready to take direct responsibility for combating this deadly insurgency, in the imaginary case that we were considering a confederated nation.

Now wait for the screams of outrage.

Once again, the depth of your analysis leaves me with very little to add. If people in power were half as far-sighted as you, I'd dare say the Indi-Pak equation would be starkly different.
For now, Pakistan faces its demons alone, the US has deserted us, the GCC was only adding fuel to the fire, China has their own problems with ETIM and doesn't want to compound them.
In such a situation, India could have gotten serious mileage by literally doing nothing, staying silent on the LoC and working boundary would have allowed Pakistan to divert forces from the east to its concerns in the west and served as a massive show of trust from both sides. This is especially true when Kiyani in a landmark statement had declared that internal threats were the most pressing danger to Pakistan's survival, the first time it wasn't declared to be India since 1947.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Once again, the depth of your analysis leaves me with very little to add. If people in power were half as far-sighted as you, I'd dare say the Indi-Pak equation would be starkly different.
For now, Pakistan faces its demons alone, the US has deserted us, the GCC was only adding fuel to the fire, China has their own problems with ETIM and doesn't want to compound them.
In such a situation, India could have gotten serious mileage by literally doing nothing, staying silent on the LoC and working boundary would have allowed Pakistan to divert forces from the east to its concerns in the west and served as a massive show of trust from both sides. This is especially true when Kiyani in a landmark statement had declared that internal threats were the most pressing danger to Pakistan's survival, the first time it wasn't declared to be India since 1947.

A HUGE opportunity lost. I was thinking precisely of this minimalist, non-invasive, non-demonstrative and yet very useful strategy. Unfortunately, the political leadership in India at that time was mired in its own sins, and in no condition to take a look at the far horizon, and the military leadership is not in the habit of involving itself in geo-political strategy; it has been severely discouraged from any strategic thinking or participating in that, and these moments of myopia are the direct result.

 

[niaz]

Thanks for your reply, On one hand u write,the discontent in Balochistan started from 1948 and the Federal govt should redress Balcoh complaints on priority basis and on the other hand u write that "RAW is exploiting the discontentment among the Baluchi ". I cannot comprehend your half hippo giraffe theorey. First of all there was no RAW in 1948. What was the Pakistani govt doing all for these decades,it should addressed the Baloch problem on priority basis,instead of addressing the Baloch problem a full scale war was launched on the Balochis
Lastly we Indians even denied asylum to Braham Bugti who latter went to Geneva,Switzerland
Many of the Baloch rebels r staying abroad where they r holding press conferences,seminars
telling the whole world about the exploitation of Balochis at the hands of Pakistani army.U have Mir Suleman Dawood,the head of Royal family who stays in exile in London tell a TV reporter how the Balcohis r treated.

Baluch insurgency is a separatist movement similar to the Khalistan movement (which is now dead). In addition to Kashmir, minor movements for secession from India currently exist in Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur & Assam. One could possibly also say that Baluch Liberation army is using tactics used by the Naxalites.

I wouldn’t expect you to admit that India is involved in supporting terrorism across the border. You are also free to call my theory as ‘Half hippo half giraffe’; nevertheless it is my belief that while others simply allow rebel Baluch leaders to hold press conferences; RAW is supplying Baluch Separatist movements with funds as well as arms.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Baluch insurgency is a separatist movement similar to the Khalistan movement (which is now dead). In addition to Kashmir, minor movements for secession from India currently exist in Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur & Assam. One could possibly also say that Baluch Liberation army is using tactics used by the Naxalites.

I wouldn’t expect you to admit that India is involved in supporting terrorism across the border. You are also free to call my theory as ‘Half hippo half giraffe’; nevertheless it is my belief that while others simply allow rebel Baluch leaders to hold press conferences; RAW is supplying Baluch Separatist movements with funds as well as arms.

Sir, your views will always command respect. Even though we may disagree about the possibility of R&W involvement in the troubles Pakistan faces.

 

[Asif Durrani]

There is, just bring in Kashmir issue and Pakistan gets united in no time.

Having very little access otherwise to Pakistani media, I have been reading pieces in The Dawn and watching a few youtube videos of late. You would be surprised at how many Pakistani intellectuals have started breaking ranks with the establishment on the Kashmir issue. Many of them have come around to the view (rightly, I believe) that the single-minded obsession with Kashmir has sown the bitterness that Pakistan is harvesting at present. All of the Pakistani state's foreign policy has been geared towards this single agenda, and more and more people are realizing the disaster it has lead to.

Once again, the depth of your analysis leaves me with very little to add. If people in power were half as far-sighted as you, I'd dare say the Indi-Pak equation would be starkly different.
For now, Pakistan faces its demons alone, the US has deserted us, the GCC was only adding fuel to the fire, China has their own problems with ETIM and doesn't want to compound them.
In such a situation, India could have gotten serious mileage by literally doing nothing, staying silent on the LoC and working boundary would have allowed Pakistan to divert forces from the east to its concerns in the west and served as a massive show of trust from both sides. This is especially true when Kiyani in a landmark statement had declared that internal threats were the most pressing danger to Pakistan's survival, the first time it wasn't declared to be India since 1947.

I agree with the point you made about India's presence on the eastern border. Several of my friends keep claiming that how brave the Pakistani army is - fighting a war on two fronts. When I ask which other front, I am told against India. To which, of course, I reply that I was not aware that India has declared war on Pakistan, so why did we assume as much?

The point is, why doesn't the Pakistani Army/Government hold summit-level talks with their Indian counterpart, and get an agreement on the issue? That India will support Pakistan against the TTP by respecting the LOC and international border during the interim period at least. I see no reason why the Indians would not agree to it - think of the PR disaster for them if they refused.

 

[somebozo]

We never try to be Pakistanis when it comes to solving our problems.
Instead we try to be Islamist, socialist, communist, Marxist, etc..

 

[Icarus]

I agree with the point you made about India's presence on the eastern border. Several of my friends keep claiming that how brave the Pakistani army is - fighting a war on two fronts. When I ask which other front, I am told against India. To which, of course, I reply that I was not aware that India has declared war on Pakistan, so why did we assume as much?

The point is, why doesn't the Pakistani Army/Government hold summit-level talks with their Indian counterpart, and get an agreement on the issue? That India will support Pakistan against the TTP by respecting the LOC and international border during the interim period at least. I see no reason why the Indians would not agree to it - think of the PR disaster for them if they refused.

As for the first part of your question, the eastern front is always at war. Its not an international border which means that it is violable and sovereignty is not absolute along the LoC. So that is why your friends are correct in assuming that Pakistan is locked in a two-front war.
Moving on to the second part, there already exists the ceasefire agreement of 2003 and we are all witness to how well that has stood up across the years. The Pakistanis recently sent a high-level delegation under the leadership of DG Rangers Punjab but even that has yet to win us any dividends, even while he was there, shells were being lobbed across the border and there was civilian casualties. Such actions make any attempt at codifying another agreement fruitless.

 

[Joe Shearer]

As for the first part of your question, the eastern front is always at war. Its not an international border which means that it is violable and sovereignty is not absolute along the LoC. So that is why your friends are correct in assuming that Pakistan is locked in a two-front war.
Moving on to the second part, there already exists the ceasefire agreement of 2003 and we are all witness to how well that has stood up across the years. The Pakistanis recently sent a high-level delegation under the leadership of DG Rangers Punjab but even that has yet to win us any dividends, even while he was there, shells were being lobbed across the border and there was civilian casualties. Such actions make any attempt at codifying another agreement fruitless.

A word in explanation: I thanked @Icarus, not because I agree with him - on the contrary - but because in a bluff, soldierly fashion, he reminded us about reality.

 

[vsdoc]

Sir would you really want to be dealing with the TTP insurgency? Keep in mind that if we had been Indian, the TTP would have come part and parcel!

Maybe if you had been (remained) Indian, there would never have been a TTP.

Just a thought.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Maybe if you had been (remained) Indian, there would never have been a TTP.

Just a thought.

I think so too, but it goes into speculative alternate history, so it seemed best to refrain. Remember Daneshmand's comment on those lines?

 

[vsdoc]

I think so too, but it goes into speculative alternate history, so it seemed best to refrain. Remember Daneshmand's comment on those lines?

Let's not speculate then.

Let's look at the evidence within, with the Muslims who stayed with us.

Fair?

In clinical research parlance, we call these case controlled retrospective cohort studies.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Let's not speculate then.

Let's look at the evidence within, with the Muslims who stayed with us.

Fair?

In clinical research parlance, we call these case controlled retrospective cohort studies.

Well, yes, and they are a great lot, except that some of us behave like arseholes as far as they are concerned.

I mean, imagine bashing them and insulting them constantly almost to the point of provoking them to form SIMI and similar scatter-brained groups.

 

[vsdoc]

Well, yes, and they are a great lot, except that some of us behave like arseholes as far as they are concerned.

So they remain a great lot in spite of arseholes. On both sides, might I add, in the interest of being fair.

Why do you think they are so great then?

Did an imaginary line on a piece of map paper change the collective people mass on two sides of it?

Magically?

 

[Asif Durrani]

As for the first part of your question, the eastern front is always at war. Its not an international border which means that it is violable and sovereignty is not absolute along the LoC. So that is why your friends are correct in assuming that Pakistan is locked in a two-front war.
Moving on to the second part, there already exists the ceasefire agreement of 2003 and we are all witness to how well that has stood up across the years. The Pakistanis recently sent a high-level delegation under the leadership of DG Rangers Punjab but even that has yet to win us any dividends, even while he was there, shells were being lobbed across the border and there was civilian casualties. Such actions make any attempt at codifying another agreement fruitless.

In that case, the LOC is a unique border in the world. There is no other border in this world (between major countries) where there is a realistic chance of major hostilities. Korea is an exception because North Korea has repeatedly made its intentions clear. Sporadic shelling is not the same as invasion, which is what both sides seemed geared against. What is the realistic scenario as far as LOC is concerned? And why would it be forced upon Pakistan unless Pakistan makes the first move? Have we been assuming something that does not stand up to careful scrutiny?