What would India do if Soviet Union was at its gates?

[SQ8]

Indeed not. It was assessment of US that there was an understanding between RAW & KGB to support Baluchis during the quoted period also. The active intervention by Indians in Sindh in black ops in this period is something even you are aware of, indeed the nexus of MQM-India is not a new concept.

The remaining part, thanks. However I do understand the difference, unlike some, am sure, over here.

My contention was that occupation was never an Indian objective, ever. Reason being the demographic balance resulting thereof.

Again, there is a difference between occupation and annexation. Occupation means borders still intact and the Pakistani population being treated as prisoners.

 

[dray]

Indian often poking nose on Pakistan joining the anti-soviet war in Afghanistan..lets turn the table and see how India would react under such situation..The scenario assume asymmetric disparity between Red army and those of Indian republic in both - conventional and non-conventional weapons, machinery and war fighting abilities...

Uh..we would have turned to brotherly Pakistan for help.

 

[Hellfire]

Again, there is a difference between occupation and annexation. Occupation means borders still intact and the Pakistani population being treated as prisoners.

Sir totally agreed.

I am sticking to my demographic angle because if one is to analyze the Indian political posturing right since 1947, which includes even the insertion of the clause of plebiscite to original instrument of accession in J & K, any hypothetical occupation of any land by India, for purely intellectual discourse let us take the Kashmir valley itself, will result in an Indian posturing towards a 'democratic' process and due self governance for occupied territories too. Please take kashmir's example for now purely as an intellectual example as we will have divergence of opinion on same.

In no case will India allow itself to NOT be seen upholding 'democratic' values even if coercive measures are needed to implement the same.

In such a scenario, a significant demographic changeover is a risk which India shall be loathe to take.

It is precisely why Maldives was never ever remotely under threat. Put bluntly, we are wary of a large hostile muslim population under occupation or even a large semi hostile annexed population. The costs are too significant

It is a dilemma which India faces daily. It is precisely the reason why there is never a military option irrespective of the bluster of politicians. This was so even before the advent of nuclear weapons in south asian battlefield.

The solution for India, that is the only viable option, is to continue to engage the elected civil government in order to strengthen it and try and degrade the vice like grip of PA on foreign affairs, something aptly highlighted by Modi's statement yesterday, the answer on so called 'lakshman rekha'. There is, at present, a civil establishment in Pakistan which is willing to talk yet has no weight for a solution and on the other hand a military that officially is in background but has a no negotiation policy.

 

[SecularNationalist]

What reference? Didn't get you.

@somebozo not quoting you as your post is off on a tangent. I merely stated that we would have moved in for a buffer as we were unwilling to allow Soviets on our border

Interesting observations as below, can't certify the truth of the claims of author.

It was published as a chapter in 2011 by Sergey Radchenko in a book he co-edited with Artemy M. Kalinovsky, The End of the Cold War and the Third World:New Perspectives on Regional Conflict based on declassified East bloc archives.

P. 175: The Soviets reportedly shared with the Hungarians India’s plans to attack Pakistan’s Kahuta nuclear facility, according to documents in the Hungarian archives. It is not clear though if the Soviets were only reporting widespread rumours or whether they actually had access to any Indian plans. The rumours were indeed widespread, and K. Subrahmanyam suggests that the Indian proposal for non-attack on nuclear facilities, which he suggested to Rajiv Gandhi, was the consequence of such rumours in the Western media (K. Subrahmanyam, “India’s Nuclear Policy -1964-98: A Personal Recollection,” in Jasjit Singh (ed.) Nuclear India (New Delhi: IDSA/Knowledge World, 1998 [2006 reprint]), pp. 40-42).
Pp. 176-77: In 1982, the Soviet Ambassador to Afghanistan proposed to the Indian Ambassador in Kabul that India should take advantage of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan to retake all of Kashmir, again according to the same document from the Hungarian archives. The Indian leadership apparently shot down this proposal.
P. 181: In a July 1987 meeting, PM Rajiv Gandhi tells Soviet leader Gorbachev that India has been able to apply sufficient pressure on Sri Lanka to prevent it from giving a base in ‘Trinkomali’ to the US.
P. 183: Rajiv Gandhi also discusses the Operation Brasstacks crisis with Gorbachev and tells him that the Indian Army was “itching” to take advantage of the situation and cut Sindh from Pakistan. Though the Brasstacks crisis is well-known, this provides an unusual inside look at Indian thinking, as also an indication of a civil-military rift during the crisis, which has until now been a hypothesis.
P. 186: On 7 March 1989, according to documents from the Mongolian Foreign Ministry archives, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi tells the Mongolian President Jambyn Batmunkh that India was ready to launch a joint Afghan-Indian war on Pakistan if Pakistan attempted to topple the Najibullah regime. The Mongolian President is so surprised “that he even asked the Prime Minister to repeat himself, for fear that something had been lost in translation. Rajiv Gandhi reiterated his readiness to intervene to save Najibullah from Pakistani aggression.” Assuming the documents in the Mongolian archives are accurate, how serious would such a comment be? I would think, not very. I doubt if India had made any serious military preparations, let alone joint military planning or preparations with Afghanistan. At least four divisions of the Indian Army were still bogged down in Sri Lanka, Punjab was still simmering and Kashmir was beginning to boil too. I suspect this was merely some empty bravado, or as Radchenkmo suggests, ‘fantazising’. Nevertheless, some fascinating accounts, which we will not be able to fully corroborate until Indian files are opened.



Actually, may not be so, as the resultant demographic disbalance will be a nonstarter as I pointed out was in the case of Bangladesh to @That Guy. If a pragmatic view of the Indian Military's strategic thinking (and minor convergence of the civil thinking by mistake to it) is taken, the primary objective remains Sindh/Baluchistan as a source of trouble/disbalance. Gujral's singular act of dismantling all RAW networks and winding up the various projects there followed by Vajpayee's direction to close down all Pakistan oriented black ops was and is a disaster for which we are still paying.

However, in light of the effects of your Afghan policy, the Pakistani policy makers have done the job for us.




You shall be surprised about the covert warfare aspect. The realm of special forces is such that all have spectacular achievements to their credit, be it SSG or our SFs. But they will remain buried .... so those who know, will not talk about it.

@Syama Ayas ah you posted the reference quite quickly. Thanks

Accept it dude you haven,t achieved something big like defeating USSR at your gates while having no nuclear deterrence.

 

[somebozo]

Accept it dude you haven,t achieved something big like defeating USSR at your gates while having no nuclear deterrence.

ISI was involved for ten years before CIA pitched in..in that sense ISI has fought the longest running proxy war since the history of modern warfare.

Also it is somewhat Indian miscalculation that Indians have kept Pakistani at restraint in occupied Kashmir..the reality is that if ISI want to break hell lose...it surely can..but two key element are lacking in the case of Kashmir...which is necessary to fight long term proxy war.

1. The presence of large number of indigenous guerrilla force willing to engage in long term conflict unlike the Pushtoon of Afghanistan...It means Pakistan will have to sneak in foreign fighters which de-legitimatizes the cause.
2. International rally behind Pakistan cause..unlike the moral and material support we enjoyed in Afghan-Soviet fiasco.

 

[Psychic]

ISI was involved for ten years before CIA pitched in..in that sense ISI has fought the longest running proxy war since the history of modern warfare.

Also it is somewhat Indian miscalculation that Indians have kept Pakistani at restraint in occupied Kashmir..the reality is that if ISI want to break hell lose...it surely can..but two key element are lacking in the case of Kashmir...which is necessary to fight long term proxy war.

1. The presence of large number of indigenous guerrilla force willing to engage in long term conflict unlike the Pushtoon of Afghanistan...It means Pakistan will have to sneak in foreign fighters which de-legitimatizes the cause.
2. International rally behind Pakistan cause..unlike the moral and material support we enjoyed in Afghan-Soviet fiasco.

Agree with your post however, I would like to add that, despite the two points mentioned in your post, the proxies employed by the ISI in Kashmir were yielding strategic benefits for the Pakistan army apart from internationally highlighting the Kashmir issue. But after 9/11, Musharraf had to crack down on most of the training camps of the Kashmiri Mujaheddin in order to appease the Americans.

The pre-9/11 world was a lot different than the world of today. If there is an ISI backed resurgence of militants in Kashmir in near future, then, the whole world will take the side of India against the "terrorists" and their sponsors.

 

[CorporateAffairs]

Nuke the hell out of them.
Take them down along with you.
Die as martyrs.

 

[Bharat Muslim]

upcoming US-China cold war

US-China cold war????

What's your source? Post link.

I highly doubt india has the resilience and a agency like ISI to deal with a arrogant nuclear armed superpower .We sacrificed a lot but at the same we got plenty of experience in covert warfare which india definitely lacks today.
"Wo kehtay hai na jo hota hai ache ke liye hota hai" Sahi kehtay hain

ISI may be great but numbers and money power matters. That's why Pakistan hasn't been able to win even a single war with India.

I have no jealousy or hatred for India, I live in Canada, and this is where I'll live for the rest of my life. What the hell do I have to be jealous about? My free healthcare? The two houses my family owns? The car I own? The free high quality education I received? Tell me, what in the hell do I have to be jealous about?

Hey! You are giving away your personal info here.