What is India's true goal in Balochistan long-term?

[surmabhopali]

What is India's true goal in Balochistan long-term?

In my opinion, the Indian game plan with Balochistan primarily is to keep an insurgency sustained for as long as possible with the goal of destablising and preventing any prospect of economic development, infrastructural development, FDI and internal investment, bad reputation, and no peace. You can't even safely play cricket without the risk of terrorism being brought up. Pakistan is essentially being strangled by India, and struggling to fight its way out.

Anything more than the above, like seccession, to them I think is simply a bonus but not a primary goal, to genuinely break it would require more severe efforts in other domains. For example they have begun trying to raise it to a diplomatic and social level given the recent documentaries which could point towards this.

We must admit they have been very successful with the above. Because they have actual functioning national instituions with competent, skilled, qualified and loyal individuals. They prioritise meritocracy with a strong system of accountability.

One method to achieve their seccessionist goals is to incite a nation-wide civil war, then India initates a war against the army, whole of Pakistan would cease to exist at the end of it. The only real thing which prevents this from happening is the existence of our nuclear weapons arsenal, I think India will 100% try to denuclearise Pakistan if it seeks to do this and it could be coming soon.

We can expect in the coming near years more co-operation between India and Afghanistan too, using TTP or perhaps a newly branded movement. The future does not look good.

@Bleek @blain2 @Sifar zero @Signalian @PanzerKiel @KaiserX @Olympus81 @villageidiot @Areesh @Sayfullah @Mirzali Khan @Samurai_assassin @Muhammad Saftain Anjum @ghazi52 @HAIDER @AlKardai @chinasun @Abid123 @CivilianSupremacy @Ali_14 @FuturePAF

You say india will try to denuclearise pakistan ? How can a country be denuclearised ? Knowledge can not be taken away from a country .

 

[TheSolution]

8x smaller Pakistan is pacifist on the defensive. A smaller country is fighting on the defensive! This is Pakistan’s biggest mistake. Pakistan CANNOT match India conventionally NOR can it afford to be on the defensive for long before a very large conventional gap takes place between the two.
As a 8x smaller country, Pakistan should be on the offensive. Be offensive so you can defend you country. Fight this war in enemy territory so their resources get drained and their army is spread thin. Keep them fighting them self so despite being 8x bigger population, they can’t even be 1.5x your power.
Right now india is breaking Pakistan with “a thousand cuts”.
The best defence is offence.
Make Indians fight a deadly insurgency in Eastern inda far from your borders and Kashmir. Make Kashmir into hell for Indians. Exploit every tiny fault line in india and make them fight each other.
Even if it goes horribly wrong it’s still good. Even if they go rouge at least it will be inside india far from our border and them killing each other.
Our pacifism has allowed india to bring to war to Balochistan, Sindh and KP. Indians already gearing up to spread that into GB and AJK.


It’s sad Pakistan lets it self get bullied by india like this and doesn’t respond in kind. India has much much more fault lines Pakistan can exploit easily and with fewer resources can make india taste hell.

But it still requires more resources to go on the offensive, if a small country like Pakistan can sustain then it will be even more affordable for a country like India

If civil war breaks up nukes won't work.
It will work if it's regular war.

Yh I'm talking about regular war against India if she tries to get involved and overwhelms you, especially if it's during a critical situation like 1971.

I'm not saying nuke yourself lol

 

[TheSolution]

We are first one to help turkey when the earth quake hit. We see humanity first.

We ij first country saaar

This sort of pajeet logic only satisfies the brains of other pajeets, it holds no meaning

Humanity on display. Now stop derailing the thread with your idiocy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1622599808174395393

You should pray to your that TTP doesn’t take power in Pakistan. We at least are sane people and act with sense. TTP in power means dehli will be reduced to ashes.

They have no clue what they're talking about lol.

Just parroting a couple Afghan lines

 

[Abid123]

But it still requires more resources to go on the offensive, if a small country like Pakistan can sustain then it will be even more affordable for a country like India

You are right about resources, but Pakistan is by absolutely no means a "small country".

 

[Paji]

I don't understand how India can physically support the Baloch insurgents. There is no shared border and neither the Iranian nor Afghan governments are allies of India.

Can someone explain what geographical route the supposed Indian aid to Baloch insurgents takes ?

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@waz sb

If Sri-Lanka's people could move against their rulers I have no idea why the ocean of humanity 240 million strong waits for.....

I have a theory but that might sound disrespectful and distasteful to you and other Pakistani interactors. Hence, I would rather refrain...

Regards

 

[TheSolution]

I don't understand how India can physically support the Baloch insurgents. There is no shared border and neither the Iranian nor Afghan governments are allies of India.

Can someone explain what geographical route the supposed Indian aid to Baloch insurgents takes ?

Watch it from one of your guys

 

[TheSolution]

You gents bring nukes into picture on all sorts of issues.

Nukes are the only thing making up for the continously widening conventional gap.

Say if PA becomes overwhelmed, then nuclear threshold allows them to back off as they wouldn't risk their own country.

They prevent a 1971-like scenario, if the army is preoccupied in internal operations, India could try to military distract the army which gives power to the insurgents to maneuver freely and capture areas.

Under certain circumstances, it is quite possible for them to achieve it too - because they have economic/military/diplomatic leverage over Pakistan. India does not.

That's the issue here, Pakistan cannot afford to surrender its nuclear weapons or that essentially signs its own death warrant.

India may not directly have the power to do so, but it can influence those that do (US), which it has been doing.

 

[GodToons]

This thread is not to discuss with Indians whether they are involved or not, or to what extent. Don't derrail the thread.

India doesn't care about its reputation so lets cut this bullshit clown act, if you did you wouldn't be openly abusing and denying the rights to muslims within your country as well as in Kashmir.

neither would your prime minister be Modi.

Why Narendra Modi Was Banned From the U.S.

Narendra Modi, India's likely next leader, is the only person ever denied a U.S. visa based on a little-known law on religious freedom

www.wsj.com

UK government ends boycott of Narendra Modi

Ten years after massacre that many blame on Modi, influential Indian politician meets with British high commissioner

www.theguardian.com

Expert warns of impending ‘genocide’ of Muslims in India

Gregory Stanton, who founded the Genocide Watch group, is sounding the alarm on violence against Muslims in India.

www.aljazeera.com

Oh! Shut up! cut the crap.
No state, including India, will support a community which comes on road with swords, knife shouting 'SAR TAN SE JUDA' and killing innocent people. What your country did to the minority where numbers comes down from 23% to 2% between 1947 to 2020. Why you guys pick girls of minority to convert?

 

[VkdIndian]

They prevent a 1971-like scenario, if the army is preoccupied in internal operations, India could try to military distract the army which gives power to the insurgents to maneuver freely and capture areas.

1971 was precipitated by Paks own actions. India just cashed on to it.
That kind of scenario is unlikely to happen again.

Presently, India doesn’t have the asymmetry required to achieve the kind of control required to denuclearise Paksiatn. Nuclear threshold would have been crossed by that time. India has shown that nuclear bluff wouldn’t work if Pulwama like incident happens again.

India doesn’t have any territorial ambitions. India doesn’t want Pakistan to meddle in Kashmir. Talk as much as you want but no material support.

Paksiatn isn’t giving up it’s nuclear weapons either. Why should they? India remains the only threat to them. Nuclear weapons give them the deterrence they need for worst case scenario.

Hope, they are never used.

 

[TheSolution]

1971 was precipitated by Paks own actions. India just cashed on to it.
That kind of scenario is unlikely to happen again.

Presently, India doesn’t have the asymmetry required to achieve the kind of control required to denuclearise Paksiatn. Nuclear threshold would have been crossed by that time. India has shown that nuclear bluff wouldn’t work if Pulwama like incident happens again.

India doesn’t have any territorial ambitions. India doesn’t want Pakistan to meddle in Kashmir. Talk as much as you want but no material support.

Paksiatn isn’t giving up it’s nuclear weapons either. Why should they? India remains the only threat to them. Nuclear weapons give them the deterrence they need for worst case scenario.

Hope, they are never used.

I agree it was mainly a political blunder, should have handed over power to Mujeeb and it could have all been avoided. Military solutions typically should always be last resort. Force doesn't always work as Afghanistan has proved. There are limitations to what military power can achieve.

But I'm looking at this exclusively from a military perspective here.

India has shown that nuclear bluff wouldn’t work if Pulwama like incident happens again.

Not really, Pulwama simply didn't meet the escalation ladder for a nuclear response.

Pakistan had the means to respond conventionally, which it did.

(Let's not derail the thread by discussing who shot down what, the point is it responded conventionally because nukes were not needed)

 

[VkdIndian]

Not really, Pulwama simply didn't meet the escalation ladder for a nuclear response.

Yes it didn’t meet nuclear threshold. That threshold is likely to be breached only in a full fledged conflict. But, in the past, it was presumed that a small spark like Pulwama can lead to something bigger and there is no stopping thereafter. That is what has worked till Pulwama.

During Kargil, IAF was tasked to carry out operations without breaching the LOC inspite of Paksiatn’s violation and capture of those peaks. The reason- It might lead to bigger conflict which wasn’t desired due to nuclear factor.

 

[TheSolution]

Yes it didn’t meet nuclear threshold. That threshold is likely to be breached only in a full fledged conflict. But, in the past, it was presumed that a small spark like Pulwama can lead to something bigger and there is no stopping thereafter. That is what has worked till Pulwama.

During Kargil, IAF was tasked to carry out operations without breaching the LOC inspite of Paksiatn’s violation and capture of those peaks. The reason- It might lead to bigger conflict which wasn’t desired due to nuclear factor.

We are going off-track here but imo the only thing Pulwama proved was that India is willing to carry out preemptive strikes and perhaps not tolerate any perceived support to insurgents in India.

After Pakistan responded it was essentially India that refused to climb up the escalation ladder, I guess after the Indian pilot was returned it cooled things down as each side exchanged blows 1 for 1.

I wouldn't count on this happening every time though, it could continue to escalate in any other scenario.

From my perception nuclear threat is still there as a viability, Pulwama has not somehow proven otherwise.

 

[Sam6536]

The indian army hasn't had the experience of grueling war for decades. Pakistan is well experienced and will drag any confrontation out. Also many of the Pak civilian population will take up arms as this will be seen as a war between muslims and kafir idol worshippers.

What?
Army has been fighting insurgency in Kashmir for decades now. Also Central Reserved Forces have been active in maoist prone areas. India Pakistan border has been quiet just for the past 2 yrs before that there was constant firing on both sides. Plus Indian army personnel deploy to UN missions in large numbers too.
2nd aspect of your answer is jingoism so better left unanswered.

 

[Paji]

Watch it from the mouth of one of your guys

Wow, I didn't know RAW was so effective in using 40K USD, but all this happened when the Ghani regime was in power. All the Indian consulates in Afghanistan have now been shut down , so how does India now provide material support ?