You are quite conveniently forgetting the ceato sento and what not you signed to get f86 sabres, t37 tweets etc, when India was still buying it's hardware primarily from britain and france. Untill Indo-Chinese war, I don't think you had a single bullet coming from them. but then enemy of an enemy formula was used by both you remarkably well.
But then again India's primary focus would be developing a limited industrial base in Afghanistan catering to the limited mass. The tribes allying with pakistan is not based on political ideology but in kinship which is mostly pashtun demographic, last time Pakistan pushed this advantage and propped up one of the most heinous and draconian regime in the history of mankind, so a repeat of the same would barely yield different results. Tribal outlook hasn't counted for national policies of afghanistan , look into Saur revolution.
America accepts role of Taliban after bombing Taliban out of kingdom kom, pursuing them in pakistan and going to extent of violating it's allies sovereignty to bomb them, it's called diplomacy... If mullah Omar props his head out of his tent tonight, there will be a hell-fire with his name on it, rest assured. That's what american policy is. when you are so attentive to american think tanks on India, then why the selective reading, please pay attention to state dept, US generals and ISAF generals on Pakistan's role too, why ignore that part of it?
dear sir, the ones before weren't answers and neither are these.
1. Stability in you definition which brought peace inside pakistan came at cost of hazara and tajik genocide. It came at the cost of one of the worst draconian rules that the modern world has witnessed. - all this came with pakistani collusion. To me that is not stability. I won't wish such stability even upon my worst enemy.
2. That is great answer. Then please explain why would you unleash hordes of talib-e-ilm cannon fodder from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islami from Darul Uloom Haqqania on the afghans, I doubt they did anything to you to deserve that?
3. That is quite contrary to what your government and most prominent members here says.... they want a Pro- pakistan government, not a stable one, which even in the past by your own definition of stability meant a monstrous regime like that of taliban.
So you in all you say you want a stable afghanistan.... taliban according to you brought stability... you wish such stability onto afghans but god forbid not your own country... looks like stability for afghans and pakistan have distinctively different meaning and definitely different delivery modes.
I would also repeat my previous question again as I am a novice on the topic.
"Between the choices PDPA Parcham led by Burhanuddin Rabbani /Dr Najibullah's government and the Mullah omar's taliban, on what merit did pakistan make it's choice.?"
