India's Contingency Plan: Breaking up of Baluchistan
Rajiv Malhotra
December 30, 2009
I agree with the analysis below. (AFGHANISTAN: INDIA'S CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR "THE DAY AFTER" )
By Dr. Subhash Kapila .
I have been writting for over a year that India is foolishly relying upon USA to secure itself against the AfPak talibanization threat. Most of the denial mode is
based on: emotional weakness to consider scenarios that are unpleasant, the euphoria of "incredible India" that the stock market does not want to spoil, the
Bollywood and cricket bubble in which india's middle class and elite want to remain blissfully intoxicated. The article below brings much needed realism.
I would add two more points to it:
1) USA's departure might in fact INCLUDE a Pak deal in which it seems that US withdrawal is a "victory" because Pak army has "agreed" to "protect" US
interests on its behalf. In other words, US might announce that it has outsourced the war to the Pak army for another few billions of dollars. Taking this
further, USA might accept the "good Taliban" as those elements which sit down and sign an agreement under which the US can announce withdrawal, the
PR move being to claim that the "bad Taliban" has been isolated. For those who understand how the Good Cops and Bad Cops function in American
society, this would be the reversal of that game - the Taliban would be playing Good and Bad Cops in dealing with the US. Such a US policy would be seen
as the least of the evil options available, by a pragmatic US politics wanting to avoid further bleeding. It would seem like the Taliban anger has been diverted
towards "other infidels" (i.e. Indians).
2) India's contingency plan should include the breaking up of Baluchistan. It would kill the Iran-Pak oil pipeline. It would kill China's naval base in Pak. It
would kill China's route from the ocean to China via Tibet that includes road, rail and pipelines. Only this could bring security for India that is at least 10 to 20
years long, and thereby giving India time to develop further economically.
My understanding of this US-Pak_India -Afghanistan issue is:
1. The US knows full well that India is in no position to directly bring any serious harm to the US but Pakistan can harm US interests seriously in Asia and
perhaps even in the middle east.
2. Therefore in extricating itself from the Afghan mess the US will try to be good to Pakistan in financial terms with a secret understanding that what Pakistan
does in India or in Kashmir will not really bother the US. That is a blank Check for heightened Pakistani mischief tyrough Taliban or some other Islamic
extremist outfit.
3. The UPA govt. is completely wrong to imagine that the US will pull India's chestnuts out of the fire in respect of terrorrism in India or in the matter of
Kashmir.Man Mohan Singh is a novice in the art of foreign policy.In fact he is a novice in many other internal matters of policy too!
4. India, therefore, has to become pro-active in Baluchistan. Being pro-active is, however, unknown to India except during Indira Gandhi's time. Even then it
was she who pushed the military and the bureaucracy including Intel men. To become pro-active India should be less lethargy in its military build up.Antony
the Defence Minister is very honest and very incompetent.
-- R Venkatnarayana
2009/12/indias-contingency-plan-breaking-up-of.html
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers36/paper3576.html
Rajiv Malhotra
December 30, 2009
I agree with the analysis below. (AFGHANISTAN: INDIA'S CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR "THE DAY AFTER" )
By Dr. Subhash Kapila .
I have been writting for over a year that India is foolishly relying upon USA to secure itself against the AfPak talibanization threat. Most of the denial mode is
based on: emotional weakness to consider scenarios that are unpleasant, the euphoria of "incredible India" that the stock market does not want to spoil, the
Bollywood and cricket bubble in which india's middle class and elite want to remain blissfully intoxicated. The article below brings much needed realism.
I would add two more points to it:
1) USA's departure might in fact INCLUDE a Pak deal in which it seems that US withdrawal is a "victory" because Pak army has "agreed" to "protect" US
interests on its behalf. In other words, US might announce that it has outsourced the war to the Pak army for another few billions of dollars. Taking this
further, USA might accept the "good Taliban" as those elements which sit down and sign an agreement under which the US can announce withdrawal, the
PR move being to claim that the "bad Taliban" has been isolated. For those who understand how the Good Cops and Bad Cops function in American
society, this would be the reversal of that game - the Taliban would be playing Good and Bad Cops in dealing with the US. Such a US policy would be seen
as the least of the evil options available, by a pragmatic US politics wanting to avoid further bleeding. It would seem like the Taliban anger has been diverted
towards "other infidels" (i.e. Indians).
2) India's contingency plan should include the breaking up of Baluchistan. It would kill the Iran-Pak oil pipeline. It would kill China's naval base in Pak. It
would kill China's route from the ocean to China via Tibet that includes road, rail and pipelines. Only this could bring security for India that is at least 10 to 20
years long, and thereby giving India time to develop further economically.
My understanding of this US-Pak_India -Afghanistan issue is:
1. The US knows full well that India is in no position to directly bring any serious harm to the US but Pakistan can harm US interests seriously in Asia and
perhaps even in the middle east.
2. Therefore in extricating itself from the Afghan mess the US will try to be good to Pakistan in financial terms with a secret understanding that what Pakistan
does in India or in Kashmir will not really bother the US. That is a blank Check for heightened Pakistani mischief tyrough Taliban or some other Islamic
extremist outfit.
3. The UPA govt. is completely wrong to imagine that the US will pull India's chestnuts out of the fire in respect of terrorrism in India or in the matter of
Kashmir.Man Mohan Singh is a novice in the art of foreign policy.In fact he is a novice in many other internal matters of policy too!
4. India, therefore, has to become pro-active in Baluchistan. Being pro-active is, however, unknown to India except during Indira Gandhi's time. Even then it
was she who pushed the military and the bureaucracy including Intel men. To become pro-active India should be less lethargy in its military build up.Antony
the Defence Minister is very honest and very incompetent.
-- R Venkatnarayana
2009/12/indias-contingency-plan-breaking-up-of.html
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers36/paper3576.html
