|
Modi’s war
 [DAWN] FRUSTRATED by Pakistain’s refusal to bow to Indian diktat, encouraged by its strategic partnership with the US, alarmed by the renewed revolt in India-held Jammu and Kashmire and humiliated by the killing of 18 Indian soldiers in Uri, Narendra Modi is on the path of war against Pakistain. He has vowed to "isolate" Pakistain, support Baloch separatists, dam Pakistain’s rivers and conduct "surgical strikes" against Pakistain. Pakistain must assess these threats objectively. Its response should be characterised by resolve, responsibility and reciprocity.New Delhi’s confrontational course reflects the ideological nostrums of the BJP-RSS cohort and the presumption that America will endorse Indian intimidation of Pakistain. The US no doubt would welcome a degree of Indian pressure on Pakistain to promote its own objectives, especially Pak action against the Haqqani ’network’ operating in Afghanistan. To please India, it is also asking Pakistain to suppress pro-Kashmiri groups (LeT and JeM). But Washington is not likely, at this time, to declare Pakistain a "state sponsor of terrorism". The resolution moved in the Congress by two politicians is unlikely to be adopted much less endorsed by the current US administration. Declaring Pakistain a terrorism sponsor would hurt Pakistain, but would also lead to termination of all Pak-US cooperation, with dire consequences for peace in Afghanistan and South Asia. In any case, America is not the world. Isolating Pakistain will be a challenging, ultimately fruitless endeavour for India. China is a neighbour of both Pakistain and India and Pakistain’s strategic partner. In a conflict, China’s posture would be more relevant than America’s. Beijing has advised both Pakistain and India to open dialogue and exercise restraint. But it’s obvious which one needs to be restrained at present. Indian aggression against Pakistain will evoke a strong Chinese response. The third major power, Russia, which has considerable regional influence, is no longer India’s all-weather ally, given Modi’s rush to jump into America’s strategic lap. Significantly, even as India’s anti-Pakistain rhetoric has been ramped up after Uri, the first joint Pakistain-Russian military exercises have gone ahead -- that too in Gilgit-Baltistan, to which India lays claim. Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka have bowed to Indian pressure and joined its decision not to attend the Saarc summit (which Pakistain should have itself cancelled in response to Modi’s threats). Their powerlessness illustrates how Pakistain’s national independence would be compromised were it to succumb to Indian hegemony. It validates the wisdom of our founding fathers in creating Pakistain and of our leaders in securing an effective conventional and nuclear capability to neutralise India’s ability to coerce Pakistain. Afghanistan’s current alignment with India is strategically more significant. Partly, it is the result of Pakistain’s over-promise and under-delivery of a dialogue with the Afghan Taliban; partly, it is a reflection of the US attempt to use India to displace the influence of Pakistain and China in Afghanistan. But India’s presence in Afghanistan, like that of the US, is vulnerable to the hostility of Afghan myrmidons. And, if Afghan territory continues to be utilised, especially by India, for terrorism and subversion against Pakistain, the latter has options for direct action to counter this. Pakistain has considerable space, now and in future, to reverse Kabul ...the capital of Afghanistan. Home to continuous fighting from 1992 to 1996 between the forces of would-be strongman and Pak ISI/Jamaat-e-Islami sock puppet Gulbuddin Hekmayar and the Northern Alliance, a period which won Hek the title Most Evil Man in the Worldand didn't do much for the reputations of the Northern Alliance guys either.... ’s hostility through incentives and disincentives. Posted by: Fred 2016-10-02 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=469100 |