Too Many Secrets....

[Gulshan]

It is good strategy. Now we have leverage to negotiate Kashmir and other terrorism. Earlier our pleas fell on deaf ears.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I said earlier that 'Afghanistan is being held hostage to the hostility between India and Pakistan' - I'll retract that.

"But mind you, such covert warfare has not been waged by the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), but by the tri-services DIA and Afghanistan's Riyast-i-Amniyat-i-Milli,''

Sengupta's comment here indicates that elements of the GoA (parts of its intelligence apparatus) were involved in spreading terror and destabilizing Pakistan as well. The GoA brought this upon itself and only has itself to blame.

Where it should have used the opportunity post taliban to make peace with its neighbors, it chose to reengage in the sort of covert games that characterized its early hostile relationship with Pakistan.

The reasons behind Pakistan's insistence upon a more 'neutral' government, and its hostility to the Karzai government now become clear.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Some other points of interest to note in his commentary are related to the description of the Indian relationship with Ahmed Shah Massoud and the Northern Alliance, that might offer insight into why the ISI and PA were so averse to supporting him:

This in many ways is reminiscent of the era ranging from the mid-1980s and early 1990s during which RAW had succeeded in gaining the trust of what would later morph into the Northern Alliance.

In fact, by 1986, despite India's official recognition of the then Soviet-backed Afghan regime led by Dr Najibullah, India had begun extending medical assistance to the guerrilla forces led by the legendary leader Ahmad Shah Massoud and as a consequence of this, one wing of the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) was completely cordoned off by South Block and it was there that all those Mujahideen wounded in battle while fighting the Soviets under Massoud's leadership received the urgent medical attention that they deserved.

So impressed was the Northern Alliance by India's humanitarian assistance that this relationship, at first opportunity, got elevated to a higher level when, in the early 1990s after the breakup of the USSR, the Northern Alliance succeeded in securing Tajikistan's approval for an Indian Army-run field hospital to be established at Farkhor.

Sengupta also elaborates further on the DIA's covert Operations, absence of RAW and chain of command in a response to a question in his comments section:

The OUTLOOK report you're referring to is about restrictions placed on covert operations undertaken by RAW. The DIA's DG, on the other hand, does not take orders or directives from the NSA, he reports to the Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff who in turn reports to the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.

That's why in my report I clearly stated that it is the DIA that has been entrusted with the task of conducting such covert operations since RAW simply does not, at the moment, have any strategic reach or resources in the area of operations.

I'm not saying one has to believe what Gen Musharraf says, rather, I'm merely restating what was openly being discussed by several Delhi-based retired senior military officials (1-star and above) whenever they met at the Golf courses. The problem with the India-based mainstream media is that it does not go deeper into the stories to explain to laymen, for instance, how the chain of command works within civilian and military establishments concerning RAW or the DIA.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Fascinating stuff on India's support for the Mujahideen at the same time as it was a customer of the Soviets:

The Soviets were never looked upon or perceived by India as an ally. Nor was India a member of the Warsaw Pact. If you are a student of history you must surely realise that the USSR ceased being a superpower in 1979 itself when Moscow failed to militarily intervene during the Sino-Vietnam conflict.

By the mid-1980s as Gorbachev was busy trying to mend fences with China he made a significant remark during his visit to India in 1986 saying that it will not take sides with any party in the event of another Sino-Indian war.

To India this meant that the USSR could no longer be counted upon as India's all-weather friend. Consequently, for reasons of realpolitik India decided not to keep all its eggs in one basket, but to keep its options open in Central Asia as by then the demise of the USSR was assured, the only question being when, and not if. And that's when India started courting the Northern Alliance component of the Mujahideens.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

india has been involved in our tribal areas and balochistan for a very long time now. They first initiated the arming of insurgents in balochistan and helped coordinate joint operations with KHAD (afghan intelligence at the time, now "officially" disbanded), and KGB to bomb and create panic in the tribal areas. These operations were seen as a counterweight for the US-Pak support for the mujahideen in afghanistan.

Obviously, the Soviet Union could not just go all-out and invade Pakistan in an attempt to eliminate the threat that was emanating from our side of the border. Yet, they did punish Pakistan severely by creating and backing separatist groups and terror campaigns on Pakistani soil-they also at times violated Pakistani airspace, we have plenty of souvenirs to remind us. It is during this time, india, and of course the afghan govt. joined the effort and started a brutal campaign. some of the signs of that campaign are starting to re-appear, for example, planted bombs in cars exploding in Peshawar, and of course, the re-emergence of the BLA or Balochistan Liberation Army.

It's important to remember that india isn't the only power responsible for the destabilization, there are many other players in the region-some which shouldn't even be there-that all have a hand to play. I think it's important, we take the time to focus on them as well as india. this has been the position I've been arguing for some time now. Also, Pakistan isn't guilty of "backing terror" from its soil, as thought. india took the initiative and threw jabs at Pakistan first, whether it was 1971 in East Pakistan, 1980's during the Soviet-Afghan war when our attention was fixed towards Afghanistan, or even now when Musharraf, in all of his wisdom, decides to "extend" the hand of peace and initiate CBM's while india does not budge an inch and increases its activities on our western borders.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Assad,

Shuja Nawaz mentions in his book Crossed Swords that the Indians were involved in pushing the GoA led Pashtunistan movement almost immediately after independence, hoping that they could take advantage of the disaffected followers of the Frontier Gandhi, Khan Abdul Ghafaar Khan.

So Indian support for destabilizing Pakistan goes back far earlier than 1971.

But anyway - how do we move from this impasse and get out of this vicious cycle?

Not without the Yanks playing a role, and their attitude during the Bush years is definitely not encouraging - pursuit of a strategic relationship with India drowning out any possible even handedness in their policies.

 

[Durrani]

Assad,
Not without the Yanks playing a role, and their attitude during the Bush years is definitely not encouraging - pursuit of a strategic relationship with India drowning out any possible even handedness in their policies.

Yea any possibility of them playing a constructive role is over I guess. They seem to be very serious about deepening strategic ties with India. And I think them having to rely on Pak in the 'war on terror' for now is kinda acting like a buffer against full-fledged American-Indo cooperation. But I fear once the war in afghanistan is over and Pak's importance is reduced the US will seriously push all kinds of strategic agendas with India.

On that note I think this is the best chance we will ever have to somehow reverse course with the Russians and start some kind of strategic ties with them. At some point the Russians are bound to become very dissatisfied with the US-Indo relationship. And we should be able to use that to our advantage by developing deeper ties with them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yea any possibility of them playing a constructive role is over I guess. They seem to be very serious about deepening strategic ties with India. And I think them having to rely on Pak in the 'war on terror' for now is kinda acting like a buffer against full-fledged American-Indo cooperation. But I fear once the war in afghanistan is over and Pak's importance is reduced the US will seriously push all kinds of strategic agendas with India.

On that note I think this is the best chance we will ever have to somehow reverse course with the Russians and start some kind of strategic ties with them. At some point the Russians are bound to become very dissatisfied with the US-Indo relationship. And we should be able to use that to our advantage by developing deeper ties with them.

I am not sure the Russian angle is a good idea.

Sengupta suggests that the Soviets pretty much dumped the Indians over China, refusing to 'take sides'. They aren't going to help out Pakistan much unless perhaps the relationship with the US goes back to Cold War era hostility, and that is extremely unlikely.

At the same time, continuing our rapprochement with the Russians and taking advantage wherever we can is still a good policy to follow.

 

[Contrarian]

Prasun K Sengupta is a very prolific defense analyst who contributes to several Indian military and defence blogs as well as magazines.

His articles are often analyzed on Pakistani forums as well.

Aside from him, B Raman (and some others whose names I cannot recollect accurately off the top of my head) is another respected analyst (in Indian circles) who has outlined similar thoughts and policies.

Its not merely that he has confirmed Pakistani allegations, its the little details he mentions in arriving at his conclusions that lend veracity to his piece.

Agno, Prasun has ALSO been known to be completely wrong, way off and passing off speculation as Fact in many of his articles. He is infact one of the lesser reliable people in regards to defence reporting. He is also the editor of Force Magazine, one which i subscribe to, and one in which i have found factual errors repeatedly.

He has consistently used detail in most of his articles from the time he started, but very often, most of his details have found to be completely wrong-figment of spculation. So by any means, dont think of his article to be correct based on whether or not he has provided details.

Therefore in the other thread, where i mentioned about the APS system for T-90S and T-90M's, i have written that the source is unreliable. I forgot to write it down here.

So, understand this thread intelligently, and not jingoistically. It is obvious that India has used Afghanistan to foment trouble in Pakistan in Balochistan. I reiterate, the support has been for Balochistan, and NOT Taliban. They are fundamentally against us and India against them.

However if you are looking at this article as some kind of proof, you would be very wrong.

Agno, you have used this article as proof in some other threads, try to refrain from that. As a source, the blog is unreliable, as is Prasun Sengupta. At best, it is a starting point for discussions, not the end.

P.S: B.Raman is a far better and credible analyst than Sengupta. They cannot even be banded together.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Malay,

The information from Sengupta alone perhaps might be lacking to establish guilt on its own - but it matches up with what Musharraf stated, and it matches up with the information in the Foreign Affairs article and other sources.

This is not some fantastic new claim - it is essentially what Pakistan has insisted for years now and what some non-Pakistani experts have also attested to.

On the errors in Sengupta's reporting - its one thing to get the technical information, timelines etc. wrong - its another to completely fabricate information he obtained from one star and higher generals about a policy.

His details on the incident might be off - for example the '324 Military Intelligence Battalion' - I am not sure how he could verify something like that. But his overall point of Indian support for Baluch insurgents would have to be a complete lie to be wrong.

 

[Contrarian]

He has been known to say complete lie's before. That is why i am saying, his articles dont stand for much.

However, the concept that India has supported Baloch insurgents is not wrong. But what he implies, that there is institutionalized support or the details, may or maynot be right. He is known to be wrong many a times, and has passed off wrong details as well.

So like i said, his articles are good as a starting points, nothing more.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

He has been known to say complete lie's before. That is why i am saying, his articles dont stand for much.

However, the concept that India has supported Baloch insurgents is not wrong. But what he implies, that there is institutionalized support or the details, may or maynot be right. He is known to be wrong many a times, and has passed off wrong details as well.

So like i said, his articles are good as a starting points, nothing more.

I must say I have never heard such a negative description of Sengupta from anyone before, nor can I comment on your accusation of 'lying' without any more information.

I do know that he has been a largely credible writer on defence related issues for many years now, and his information matches up with other sources.

For his information here to be wrong you would have to claim that an obvious nationalist decided to make up conversations with Indian generals and make it conform to what Musharraf said, even though it paints his country in a negative light.

That's really stretching it.

But, we can agree to disagree. I find his article very credible given the reasons I have already mentioned.

 

[Bull]

I must say I have never heard such a negative description of Sengupta from anyone before, nor can I comment on your accusation of 'lying' without any more information.

I do know that he has been a largely credible writer on defence related issues for many years now, and his information matches up with other sources.

For his information here to be wrong you would have to claim that an obvious nationalist decided to make up conversations with Indian generals and make it conform to what Musharraf said, even though it paints his country in a negative light.

That's really stretching it.

But, we can agree to disagree. I find his article very credible given the reasons I have already mentioned.

If im not mistaken this guys is seen in livefist blog and i have seen lot of members taking him on.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If im not mistaken this guys is seen in livefist blog and i have seen lot of members taking him on.

I can completely see that - but then I can also see for example that many Indian analysts don't agree (or in the past have strongly disagreed) with each other on several military issues - such as the Arjun's capabilities, the reasons behind the Army's rejections, similar issues on the LCA etc.

I have seen similar character assassinations against respected Indian intellectuals who argued for a plebiscite in Kashmir following last years massive freedom protests.

Differences will always occur on the details, and no doubt those who do not like his comments on Indian support for Baluch insurgents will disagree with him there, but that does not mean he is wrong, especially when his information lines up with other sources.

 

[Bull]

I can completely see that - but then I can also see for example that many Indian analysts don't agree (or in the past have strongly disagreed) with each other on several military issues - such as the Arjun's capabilities, the reasons behind the Army's rejections, similar issues on the LCA etc.

I have seen similar character assassinations against respected Indian intellectuals who argued for a plebiscite in Kashmir following last years massive freedom protests.

Differences will always occur on the details, and no doubt those who do not like his comments on Indian support for Baluch insurgents will disagree with him there, but that does not mean he is wrong, especially when his information lines up with other sources.

Im not picking him out. I said i have seen him being pulled up for factual errors, not for the opinions. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but im speaking of factual errors.