| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| The emerging union of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan |
| 2009-01-04 |
| By MIRZA ASLAM BEG In 1989, Soviet Union had retreated from Afghanistan. Iran had emerged stronger after the eight years of brutal war with Iraq and democracy had returned to Pakistan, after eleven years of military rule. The dawn of freedom, thus gravitated the three countries to come together, as the bastion of power, to defeat and deter the common enemies. The idea of unity between the states was floated to achieve the essential element of 'Strategic Depth'. Our enemies were unhappy with the idea and resolved to defame and defeat it. They succeeded in causing civil war in Afghanistan, which created dissensions between Pakistan and Iran. As if this was not enough, Afghanistan was invaded and occupied in 2001. The occupation led to hatching dangerous conspiracy by the Indo-US-Israel nexus 'to establish Indian hegemony in this region' and extend power and influence even beyond. The Mumbai contrived incident of November 26 is the first step, in this direction. The Mumbai episode reflects the Saffron Sensibility characteristic of Hindutva, the Neocons and the Zionists, having a mindset of a boiling antipathy towards Pakistan. It is this congenital hatred which brings "strange bedfellows together." The ultimate objective is 'to establish Indian hegemony over South Asia', including Afghanistan, now considered part of South Asia by Pentagon. Pakistan is the stumbling block to be softened-up. Thus the callous blood bath of Mumbai on November 26 was enacted by RAW, CIA and Mossad, - the Saffron Nexus - to defame Pakistan in the comity of nations and lend justification for punitive action. The pressure is continuously being mounted on our western borders, while the threat of 'surgical strikes' and war against Pakistan, continues, to extract strategic advantages. No doubt, Mumbai episode was a homegrown conspiracy of the Hindu militant groups in collusion with the Saffron Nexus. The very few terrorists, ten only, who took over Taj, Oberai hotels and the railway station, were used to create a facade of a foreign terrorist group attack from Pakistan. It was also to provide the cover-up to eliminate Hemant Karkare and the officers of Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), for the reason that Karkare was a brave nationalist officer, who had succeeded in exposing the terrorist involvement of the Saffron Brigade, in the Malegaon Blasts. The main culprit, Praggya Singh - an army officer, along with other noted personalities of the BJP, RSS, Bajrang Dal and VHP were arrested. Karkare and other members of ATS thus were eliminated, to cover-up the real crime. This is killing 'two birds' with one stone. The Bush administration seems to have convinced Obama to carry the Saffron flag forward and implement the strategy of Indian hegemony over South Asia, which is a bad omen, both for Obama and the region. An occupied Afghanistan is not in the interest of Pakistan and the region, whereas, an independent sovereign Afghanistan makes a reliable ally, together with Iran, to form the Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan Union (PIAU). The PIAU will thus provide the 'Strategic Depth' to the states, in the same manner as the European Union (EU) provides 'depth of security' to all the members. Depth of Security means, territorial security, economic, socio-political and diplomatic security as the common denominators. Therefore, while seeking this objective, Pakistan's interests will remain in conflict with the occupation forces in Afghanistan. And the worst is the establishment of the spy network in Afghanistan, which continues to mount pressure on Pakistan. The nerve centre of this spy network is at Jabal-us-Seraj, manned and operated by CIA, Raw, Mossad, MI-6 and BND (German intelligence). It's a huge set-up with concrete buildings, antennas and all the modern electronic gadgetry, one can conceive of. Its out-posts are Sarobi and Kandahar against Pakistan; Faizabad, against China; Mazar-e-Sharif, against Russia and Central Asian States and Herat against Iran. Thus, Afghanistan has become the hub of regional and global conspiracies. The tribal conflict on the western borders therefore is due to this interference from Afghanistan, yet the problem on our western borders is not worrisome, because the tribals of the area including FATA are adamantly loyal to Pakistan. Thy have declared that, in case of war/threat thereof with India, they will not only ensure security of the western borders but directly confront the occupation forces in Afghanistan, accentuating the ongoing conflict in the region. The state brutality in Kashmir continues unabated because "Kashmir won't willingly integrate into India; it's beginning to look as though India will integrate/disintegrate into Kashmir. Indian military occupation in Kashmir, a shamefully persecuted, impoverished minority of more than fifteen million Muslims, are being targeted as a community and pushed to the wall, whose young see no justice on the horizon" (Arundhati Roy). What will happen in Kashmir after the retreat of occupation forces in Afghanistan, should be a matter of great concern for the Indians. And, if war breaks-out, now, or later, on Kashmir issue, "it would be catastrophic for India" (Federation of American Scientists report). Pakistan armed forces, now deployed against India, have full capability to thwart Indian designs. The Pakistan Air Force high altitude interception capability has been improved by means and resources now available. Pakistan's nuclear capability, maintains a credible deterrence with India. "Nukes are not weapons of war nor they compensate for Pakistan's conventional military capability" (Benazir Bhutto). Pakistan's military policy therefore is based on its conventional military forces, to defeat Indian aggression. Being cognisant of this reality it is maintaining the effective and functional military balance, to ward-off pressures from the north-west, while remaining prepared to fight and "carry the war into the Indian territory," implementing the offensive defence concept, well tested in the Zarb-e-Momin Exercise-1989. The "occupation of Afghanistan" is the main source of trouble, spurred by the Saffron Nexus, which has given India a false sense of hope and strength, and the resultant sabre rattling. India is enjoying the strategic partnership with USA as we enjoyed it in the past and suffered humiliations and betrayal. We wish 'interesting times' to India. Indian quest for South Asian hegemony is a pipe-dream, never to bear any fruition. Will the countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran ever accept their hegemony? If history is any guide, this shall never be. The sun is rising, breaking the dawn of freedom, heralding the realisation of the Strategic Depth objectives as the guarantee for peace and security of the entire region. The retreat of occupation forces from Afghanistan is eminent, and will revive the 'Strategic Depth Concept.' Historical realities do not die. Invasion of Afghanistan was indeed a great strategic blunder, because, "force, if unassisted by judgement, collapses through its own mass." (Horace) The writer is a former Chief of Pakistan Army Staff |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #16 John, India has my condolences... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-01-04 21:21 |
| #15 That man once had command of Pakistan's nuclear weapons |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-01-04 20:55 |
| #14 ya'll thinkin about this too deep. Them man is a total loon! That may be a requirement to be a "Chief of Pakistan Army Staff" but it's undeniable he's a fricking loon! Nuff said. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-01-04 20:35 |
| #13 "There will always be cultural mixing between regions but political borders have always been there." That is true but there really was no notion of the nation state as we know it today. A political boundary was basically the land under the control of a king or emperor. The authority of that person went down through individuals who controlled smaller areas, maybe landlords or warlords or others who bound the people bound to the land by an oath of loyalty. We can't place our notion of nation state into the culture of people who pretty much still live they way people did in medieval Europe with local lords holding peasants in oaths of loyalty (bayat). |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-01-04 20:10 |
| #12 Iran can only gain depth from her enemies by moving the entire nation East. Pakistan by moving her entire nation west. This guys concept of depth make little sense. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-01-04 18:48 |
| #11 Also the outer political borders of the Indian subcontinent are determined by geography. The mountains and deserts that divide the subcontinent from Persia were the natural border between the states. Pakistan is firmly subcontinental. |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-01-04 15:25 |
| #10 An example of cultural mixing/changing: Saddam's manipulations (Arab vs Kurd) in the Kirkuk region. |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-01-04 14:19 |
| #9 People were drawing lines on subcontinental maps long before the British or Russians came on the scene. There were borders between the Delhi Sultans, the Moghuls, the Sikhs etc and the Persians. The Peacock throne in Tehran that the Shahs sat on is actually war booty from India. 2500 years ago there was a border between the Persian lands held by Alexander's satrap Selucius Nicator and the Indian Emperor Chandragupta Maurya. There may be Persian words and a Persian derived script in Urdu but a Hindi speaker will have a conversation with an Urdu speaker and both will think the other is speaking 'their' language. A Punjabi Urdu speaking Pakistani like Beg has far more in common culturally with an Indian across the border than an Iranian. There will always be cultural mixing between regions but political borders have always been there. |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-01-04 14:03 |
| #8 What on earth gave the retired gentleman the idea that Iran needs strategic depth? john, I think they've been passing round the strong stuff in the Pure Officers' Club for a number of decades. No wonder the Army of the Pure loses every war it starts! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-01-04 13:52 |
| #7 This is nothing "emerging". If you look over the course of history, before the British (and Russians) carved up areas with arbitrary lines on maps, one can see where cultural influences extended by looking at language, culture, and traditions. If you add up the Farsi speaking regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, you can see an area that was naturally culturally "connected" to what we know as Iran. Drawing of borders has created artificial political boundaries where no such cultural boundaries existed before. Same with other areas, too. See where Uzbek or Tajik is the dominant language and notice that when Russia drew the borders of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan they intentionally chopped the regions up to reduce the cultural identity. The Azeri regions of Iran should really be part of Azerbaijan. The Arabic speaking regions, part if Iraq. Iran "should" extend further Eastward and include regions of what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. There "should" be a Kurdistan that includes some of what is now Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. What was done at the end of WWI and continued after was to actually set the stage for more strife by arbitrarily chopping up regions without regard to (or in many cases any knowledge of) the people and cultures living in those regions. It turned proud people into ethnic minorities. imagine if 10 US states were given to Mexico, 10 to Canada, and a chunk if Mexico and French speaking Canada were given to the US. It would turn many Americans into ethnic minorities in Canada and Mexico and the same with Canadians and Mexicans that would now find themselves on the American side of the line. It would set the stage for resentment and unrest. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-01-04 13:47 |
| #6 gravitated the three countries to come together, as the bastion of power, to defeat and deter the common enemies I'm thinking glass from the Persian Gulf to the Indian border. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2009-01-04 13:24 |
| #5 Both reflect the attitudes of the Pakistani praetorian class |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-01-04 13:11 |
| #4 Beg and Hamid Gul (formerly ISI chief) are the two major proponents of an Islamist Pakistan. The United States knows them both very well, having worked with both during the involvement in Afghanistan. Both have sought to destroy the Pakistan democracy, and both belong in jail. |
| Posted by: Balthazar 2009-01-04 10:44 |
| #3 Strategic depth of six feet under sounds about right... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2009-01-04 10:07 |
| #2 Purdy much all 'ye need to know: The PIAU will thus provide the 'Strategic Depth' to the states |
| Posted by: .5MT 2009-01-04 09:28 |
| #1 The sun is rising, breaking the dawn of freedom, heralding the realisation of the Strategic Depth objectives as the guarantee for peace and security of the entire region. They're passing around the strong stuff at the Officer's club |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-01-04 08:43 |