R Wing
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 3,516
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Sure. In regards to solution to the current issue. I still believe that it's best to focus on house, then expand.
Going for Nuclear weapons is a different scenario. Nuclear weapons are something which guarantee the protection of your sovereignty and territory.
If there was some other superweapon, I would say that we should go for it no matter what. But the case here is in regards to Kashmir and taking it back.
Here's the issues.
- It's a stalemate, at the moment.
- We don't have the economy to sustain a war if we start it, neither the economy to mass procure weapons.
- FATF. Can we supply arms to freedom fighters in Kashmir?
- If we push, then it's dangerous, it can escalate out of hand and into a Nuclear war. You tell me, is it viable to go to war?
- International community won't do much at all.
So, what options do we have? Wait it out. Palestine would kill for an opportunity of even 10 years to build herself up by making a peace deal, but Israel does not allow it. Why? They know, if that is allowed, then Palestine will hit back harder and with a proper punch.
Here in our case, we are perfectly capable of defending ourselves, and have all the time reserved to us. So, what's the haste? Keep an eye on Kashmir, make sure world is aware, and dilution of population does not occur, and keep diplomatic channels for talks open, but build your economy.
Thank you for responding (on topic!)
You bring up some excellent points. Allow me to disagree.
On the surface, everything you're saying makes complete sense. We should focus inward, we should develop ourselves, we should keep an eye on Kashmir, we shouldn't risk FATF blacklisting, etc.
There are a few things to consider:
1.) Allowing India to illegally consolidate Kashmir means giving them a free hand in detaining and killing any youth they suspect of joining or wanting to join the armed resistance. It also means their intelligence agencies entrenching themselves much more deeply into society and making future uprisings exponentially more difficult.
2.) FATF is a political tool that we have to counter at the appropriate forums by pointing out India's well-known support to Baloch terrorism. Will this suddenly flip things for the better? Of course not. But it will at least get us out of this slave mentality of accepting any and all coercive measures they throw at us. We are painting ourselves into a corner. All that's needed is a false flag or falsified/forged evidence that we support militancy and the party is up. India has done similar things and will continue to do them. Where will we stand then? We should fulfill all our FATF requirements but also quietly and discretely keep arming the Kashmiris.
3.) Weapons don't need to be "mass procured" --- in batches of 50, even a couple of 'shipments' can cause serious trouble in the Valley in terms of ambushing patrols, harassing supply lines, etc.
4.) I would argue that the IOK cause, even without the moral impetus, should be pursued with the same drive and creativity of our nuclear program. The main reason is our water security, which is a much bigger threat than terrorism or India's ill-equipped and poorly trained army. I hope this can help you consider my approach.
5.) Nobody is starting a war. If India wants war, it won't wait for us to give it a reason --- it will create one. So, we might as well go about doing what we think is right. Constant small-scale attacks (death by a thousand cuts) will never breach the threshold of a proper war yet will bog them down further in the occupied Valley. This is the morbid beauty of an insurgency. It can complicate things for a much larger force in asymmetric ways while staying below the threshold of a conventional response.
Thanks for hearing me out.