Afghan officials accuse Pakistan of Indian embassy attack

[maqsad]

All of this is a crock of crap. There is far too much evidence supporting the contrary.

The contrary evidence just proves India is playing a double game. There is enough evidence, more than enough evidence of Indian sponsorship of terrorism in Pakistan both through Afghanistan and of course the old school way, not involving the Afghans.

 

[Flintlock]

According to the screaming propagandists in India the mujahideen have been streaming into India for eons over the LOC.

It's amusing you don't see that as a clear and present threat also.

Yeah, and now think of a weak Pakistan in the hands of Mullah XYZ. Compare that with the current situation in the valley.

Get my point?

SOME leaders in India do think that way. But there is a right wing element in the Indian military and intelligence bureaus that does want to deal harshly with Pakistan and dismantle it one day by hook or by crook.

Indian policy has been doddering and stodgy, but never confused. There are no loose ends and rogue elements doing their own thing.

You know nothing about the influence of Indian military on politics, which is Zilch. The Chief of Army staff comes at around number 13 or 14 on the seniority list whereas in Pakistan he is usually number 1 and max number 2.

As I said, India gains nothing by dismantling Pakistan. Not in the present climate anyways.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yeah, and now think of a weak Pakistan in the hands of Mullah XYZ. Compare that with the current situation in the valley.

Just for the sake of argument - I disagree.

The thinking in the more extreme sections of the Indian establishment (going by certain civil and military commentators) is that it is the Pakistanis establishment that has "brainwashed" Pakistanis into "hating India" as a raison de`etre, and the focus on the Kashmir issue is merely a vehicle for that hate and a means to perpetuate it.

This section of the establishment does not really believe that Pakistan will ever be satisfied with Kashmir, and that the "Pakistani establishment" will find some other means of perpetuating hostility with India if Kashmir was resolved.

If this is the view held by Indian decision makers that are a product of the above thinking (and I am not suggesting it is), then the bigger threat is not a Pakistan that disintegrates, but a strong Pakistan that continues to hold to a vision of "hatred towards India" as a reason for existence.

In their view, a united Pakistan, composed of diverse cultures and ethnicities, with tensions between these ethnicities simmering under the surface, needs that hate towards India to survive as a united entity. A disintegrated Pakistan would split along those ethnic and cultural lines and therefore the need for propagating a "hate for India" would no longer be necessary.

This view has become even stronger over the past few years as India has leap frogged over Pakistan in almost every sector, and the prosperity of the present is providing an additional, flawed retrospective justification for the argument of "hate India".

I am basing these observation on articles and comments by Indians that I have read over the years - by no means am I suggesting that this is the prevalent view in India, or that it is the view that prevails in the corridors of power, but that it exists.

 

[Contrarian]

You know nothing about the influence of Indian military on politics, which is Zilch. The Chief of Army staff comes at around number 13 or 14 on the seniority list whereas in Pakistan he is usually number 1 and max number 2.

The list is called the Warrant Of Precedence. For the benefit of those who dont know, it is the Priority List in India. It dictates how the authority or power flows through the country in decreasing order.

 

[Majnun]

Embassy was always in Taliban crosshairs-India-The Times of India

Taliban has a history of attacking the Indian embassy. So no prizes for guessing the perpetrators of this ghastly and cowardly act.

Since when has the Taliban had a history of attacking the Indian embassy? Since the Taliban was formed, it ruled Afghanistan from 1996-2001. During that time there was no Indian embassy in Aghanistan. It has only come since Karzai (ie Indian puppet of Indian funded organization Northern Alliance) became president. And it has been clearly stated that this is the first time the Indian embassy has been attacked.

 

[Majnun]

Sure, anything is possible. But you seriously think the Indians would sacrifice its own military attache to Afghanistan for a false flag op?

The most likely scenario is that people who are unhappy with the Indian presence in Afghanistan carried it out, which leaves us with Taliban and Pakistan.
Since the Taliban denies their involvement, its either Pakistan or some third element who we do not know of.

Occam's razor. If you have an outlandish theory, you need the supporting evidence. Otherwise, the most likely explanation is the simplest one.

You just said that "false flag ops are very common". Please, do name some recent false flag operations which have been proved beyond doubt.

Just because the Taliban denies their involvement means they didn't do it and now it is probably Pakistan who did?
There are several points to consider here:
1) The Taliban is now not the government or a legal political party. They are now just a groupwith some factions. They are not all strongly united. No one is even sure who is in charge.
So, while the group of Taliban who denied may not have done it, some other members may have done so.
2) Pakistan, on the other hand, is a sovereign nation with a proper government. Pakistan, too, has denied involvement but, while the Taliban's statement that they did not do it is accepted, Pakistan's is not?
India is just looking to somehow put the blame on Pakistan. This is utterly and totally ridiculous.
Pakistan is quite friendly with Afghanistan, not with the Northern Alliance, which is supported by India, Russia and Iran, traditionally not Pakistan's friends (Iran since 1979).

 

[EagleEyes]

Well, only Pakistani Taliban has denied it. Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaida hasn't. Pakistan has also denied it.

 

[Energon]

Just for the sake of argument - I disagree.

The thinking in the more extreme sections of the Indian establishment (going by certain civil and military commentators) is that it is the Pakistanis establishment that has "brainwashed" Pakistanis into "hating India" as a raison de`etre, and the focus on the Kashmir issue is merely a vehicle for that hate and a means to perpetuate it.

This section of the establishment does not really believe that Pakistan will ever be satisfied with Kashmir, and that the "Pakistani establishment" will find some other means of perpetuating hostility with India if Kashmir was resolved.

If this is the view held by Indian decision makers that are a product of the above thinking (and I am not suggesting it is), then the bigger threat is not a Pakistan that disintegrates, but a strong Pakistan that continues to hold to a vision of "hatred towards India" as a reason for existence.

In their view, a united Pakistan, composed of diverse cultures and ethnicities, with tensions between these ethnicities simmering under the surface, needs that hate towards India to survive as a united entity. A disintegrated Pakistan would split along those ethnic and cultural lines and therefore the need for propagating a "hate for India" would no longer be necessary.

This view has become even stronger over the past few years as India has leap frogged over Pakistan in almost every sector, and the prosperity of the present is providing an additional, flawed retrospective justification for the argument of "hate India".

I am basing these observation on articles and comments by Indians that I have read over the years - by no means am I suggesting that this is the prevalent view in India, or that it is the view that prevails in the corridors of power, but that it exists.

Based on the information I've been exposed to by attending numerous Indian foreign policy discussions and symposiums held by government officials (civilian and military) and academicians alike; I think your hypothesis regarding the current environment is incorrect.
The trend if anything is rapidly reversing. Even for the most ardent Indian conservative, currently the biggest supposed anti-Indian vector in Pakistan is radical Islam, not a nationalized social movement promoting hatred towards India. The former has the ability to seed through virtually every section of the society regardless of ethnic or cultural differences and is for the most part independent of the latter. As long as India maintains military, economic and diplomatic superiority over Pakistan it is a lot more convenient to have Pakistan as monolith that can be vilified and tackled easily. What they find dangerous and most of all frustrating is that Pakistan is anything but a monolith (IMO it was dumb to assume this in the first place). To have a Pakistan that disintegrates, but with the various factions still holding on to radical Islamism is the worst possible scenario because that would mean multiple fronts where nobody can really be held responsible or vilified decisively.

From the centralist -> liberal spectrum's perspective, Afghanistan and now Iraq serve as solid examples of the disastrous consequences associated with sharing a contiguous border with a fragmented failed state. Such a situation for India would pretty much ensure a complete economical collapse.

Hence given the unlikelihood of Pakistan superseding India economically, militarily or diplomatically in the foreseeable future, any threat posed by a unified Pakistan pales in front the fatal risk associated with a fragmented Pakistan.

 

[blain2]

The list is called the Warrant Of Precedence. For the benefit of those who dont know, it is the Priority List in India. It dictates how the authority or power flows through the country in decreasing order.

We have the same list but different priorities which have been revised to some extent. The COAS, CAS and CNS come in at #5 in line with Federal Ministers. Corps Commanders come in at #6. The CoAS being the President is an anomaly and not the norm.

 

[blain2]

Yeah, and now think of a weak Pakistan in the hands of Mullah XYZ. Compare that with the current situation in the valley.

Get my point?



Indian policy has been doddering and stodgy, but never confused. There are no loose ends and rogue elements doing their own thing.

You know nothing about the influence of Indian military on politics, which is Zilch. The Chief of Army staff comes at around number 13 or 14 on the seniority list whereas in Pakistan he is usually number 1 and max number 2.

As I said, India gains nothing by dismantling Pakistan. Not in the present climate anyways.

Indian military has considerable influence on the Government of India. Policy and procurement are two different issues where we have seen the Indian Armed forces take a back seat to the babus for the latter but they have exercised considerable influence on the former. Also do not confuse protocol with influence. They are two entirely different things.

 

[Flintlock]

You are quite wrong. Indian military has very specific influence on the Government of India. Do not confuse protocol with influence. They are two entirely different things.

In Pakistan they are indeed very different things.

In India, the army has no role in political decision making, which is handled by the Cabinet entirely, in consultation with the Parliament and overseen by the judiciary.

The army is only consulted in matters directly related with military action or with the army itself.

Obviously, the army has its own sphere of influence. However, it has no veto on the government's decision.

 

[Kasrkin]

Yeah stuff related to the army is almost always the important stuff, take Siachen for instance, the Indian Army said no compromise, we aint pulling back after all that waste of lives and money and valaa no compromise....Other examples are there too I'm sure if anyone would care.

And to the topic: These Afghans really hate us dont they? Poor ISI, it haunts Afghan dreams as well now...

 

[blain2]

In Pakistan they are indeed very different things.

In India, the army has no role in political decision making, which is handled by the Cabinet entirely, in consultation with the Parliament and overseen by the judiciary.

The army is only consulted in matters directly related with military action or with the army itself.

Obviously, the army has its own sphere of influence. However, it has no veto on the government's decision.

Geo-politics is an area where the Indian military has just as much influence on the GoI as does the Pakistani military establishment on GoP. Not saying something in public is not the same thing as not saying anything at all. I can list out some recent examples where the political initiative was killed on the behest of the Indian military establishment.

Also in Pakistan, its not always the case where the Armed Forces have a veto over the policies of GoP. There are certain areas where indeed the Armed Forces can veto an overriding imperative of the GoP. Secondly, this veto usually happens when the Govt and Army have a unified command (CoAS is the President) and in such cases it is expected that the policy formed would represent both the GoP and Armed Forces thinking.

I think you really need to dig into the influence of the Pakistani military establishment to figure out if its really political in nature or more from the standpoint of internal/external security considerations.

 

[Energon]

In Pakistan they are indeed very different things.

In India, the army has no role in political decision making, which is handled by the Cabinet entirely, in consultation with the Parliament and overseen by the judiciary.

The army is only consulted in matters directly related with military action or with the army itself.

This is correct. The Indian military has actually been impressively apolitical since the nation's inception and has had no influence on the executive branch of the government. Even during Indira Gandhi's emergency, she kept the military at an arms length, mostly because Sam Manekshaw and her didn't really see eye to eye. Despite numerous rumors, Manekshaw himself didn't initiate any groundwork towards a coup (at least I haven't found any credible evidence of this).

 

[Energon]

Geo-politics is an area where the Indian military has just as much influence on the GoI as does the Pakistani military establishment on GoP. Not saying something in public is not the same thing as not saying anything at all.

The nature of roles played and influence exerted by the military upon the government in India and Pakistan are nothing alike. If anything they are diametrically opposite. Every military should have a certain amount of influence over policy when it comes to conflict management/resolution and the Indian military has been no different in this regard. But to equate the two models would be grossly erroneous.