Chapter 34

Indo-Pak Détente Leading to Unification

“Global Clash of Races-Diplomacy of Civilizations” © (2006) Kalki Gaur

34(1) Purport

(1) India is Exemplar State & Future of Asia

Thesis One: The 21st Century is an Asian Century and India and China are the leaders of Asia.

One. The trend lines in terms of economic and military power all say “Asia,” Hindu and Buddhist Asia, and the future is happening in Asia, for better or worse. The geopolitical stakes in Asia are much higher than the stakes in Europe. The top world civilizations and top world powers of the 21st Century are: Protestant United States, Buddhist China, Hindu India, Buddhist Japan, Western Christian European Union and Orthodox Russia.

Two. No Islamic nation could possibly join the ranks of world powers in the 21st Century, neither Pakistan nor Iran nor Saudi Arabia nor Indonesia, in spite of all oil-incomes the GNPs of all Islamic nations consign them to the status of a medium powers at the best. No OPEC nation and no Muslim nation can ever be a world power in the 3rd Millennium.

Three. The clash of civilizations in the 21st Century requires Troika of USA, China and India to lead the world, as by 2050 the GNP of top 4 economies in the world shall be: China, USA, India and Japan, and the GNP of India shall be four times the GNP of Japan.

Four. Pakistan is no match to India and no equal to India in the Asian triangular Balance of Power

Five. President Bush in March 2006 recognized India as a Global Power with global responsibilities, including the responsibility to export democracies and democratic nation building in South Asia.


(2) Sustainable Balance of Concert of Asia

Thesis Two: The de Richelieu Raison D’etat Concert of Asia, seeking a sustainable triangular continental Asian Balance of Power, among China, India and Japan with United States as the maritime Balancer shall maintain peace in Asia and realize the dream of Century of Asia. The post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained peace in Europe between several European powers with Britain as a Balancer.

One. The strategic goal of Bush-Rice foreign policy is to create a sustainable balance of power in Asia, so Asian countries can continue to liberalize, progress and develop in the 21st Century of Asia. If the focus of USA-India strategic ties in Asia is containment of rising China vis-à-vis the United States and India, the historic model is Europe circa 1914, with China in the role of Germany.

Two. If the geopolitical balance of power focus in Asia is widened out to include Hindu India and Buddhist Japan along with Buddhist China, then the more congenial triangular Asian balance of power or Concert of Asia might be Europe circa 1815, with a stable balance of power between several Asian world powers, throughout next 100-years of the 21st Century and the Protestant United States as balancer as Britain was during Concert of Europe (from 1815 to 1914), with very little cost to Christian United States.

Three. The Triangular Balance of power in Asia requires United States should undertake preemptive attacks to demilitarize nuke-seeking Iran and force nuclear Pakistan to discontinue clandestine transfers of nuclear weapon technology to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Malaysia.

Four. Pakistan cannot be an independent actor in the China-Japan-India Triangular continental Asian balance of power in Asia, where United States is the maritime Balancer. These are the arguments author makes in this Chapter.


34(2) Asian Balance of Power

Nukes & Oil Impact Reunification of India

First. The major populations of the world and the seat of the world civilizations are located at South Asia, East Asia, Europe and North America. Europe and North America have become united led by European Union and NAFTA respectively. The East Asia has become united driven by the economic forces of globalization and open access to the markets of United States. The discovery of oil and gas resources in Central Asian Caspian oil basin and proliferation of nuclear weapon technology to oil-rich Iran necessitates the closer India-Pakistan military and economic ties so that 1.4 billion people of the Subcontinent might realize their true potential in 21st Century as the Century of India. The combined population of South Asia exceeds that of China, the world’s most populous nation in the world. The combined GNP of South Asia in terms of purchasing power parity would exceed that of Japan in 2004, the world’s third largest economy. India and Pakistan shall unite into a form of South Asian confederation along with Bangladesh and Burma to help realize the dream of making the 21st Century the Century of India and 3rd Millennium the Millennium of India.


Pakistan Not a Great Power

Second, how should giant Elephant India involved in mating with giant Dragon China, should look at India’s relationship with irritating younger brother Pakistan, who is bent upon spoiling India’s fun for no gains of its own? Should India beat the shit out of Pakistan or invite Pakistan as the younger brother to share the big meal that super power India intends to gain in the oil-rich Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran and Iraq? Pakistan has no role in the Asian Balance of Power. The Asian balance of power determined by the Triangular balance of United States, China and India. The Eurasian Balance of Power determined by Quadrangular balance of France, Russia, China and India. The global players in the Global Balance of Power are: United States, China, Russia, India and France. Giant India has a reserved place on the table of world powers with other giant world powers and Pakistan has no place on the high table. India is a super Power in its own right, and Pakistan can do nothing about it. Pakistan should realize that super power status of India doesn’t depend upon the consent of Pakistan.


China India Pakistan Triangular Balance

Third, the oil riches of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan redefined the Great Game of Asia in the 21st Century. American Big Oil and British Empire created the artificial state of Pakistan to create a wedge between India and the oil-rich Iran, as Indian Empire used to control 100% of the Iranian oil before 1947. Had Pakistan not existed, India would have continued to control 100% of Iranian oil fields and 49% of the Iraqi oil fields even after 1947. The newly discovered oil and gas reserves of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have made Pakistan again geopoltically very important in the Great Asian Game of 21st Century. In the 18th, 19th and 20th Century the goal of the Great Game was to deny Russia and Soviet Union the direct access to the war water ports of Arabian Sea coasts. In the 21st Century the geopolitical goal of the Great Game is to deny the foreign sea power and air power the United States, the permanent military bases in the oil-rich Caspian oil basin, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. It is not in the national interests of Russia, China and India to allow United States, NATO and European military bases in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Krygyzstan, Tibet, Xinjiang/Sinkiang and Tibet. Any permanent military bases of foreign sea powers and air powers in the heartland of Asia would threaten the security of Russia, China and India. Pakistan is important in Asia as it can provide military bases to United States and NATO and hinder India’s projection of its power over Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Tibet could become India’s land gateway to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. India and China can jointly project its military power in the Caspian oil basin and Turkmenistan via Tibet. Pakistan can become an important ally of India, if Pakistan agreed to jointly project the Subcontinent’s power over Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.


Secession of Baluchistan & Pashtunistan

Fourth, Pakistan is an artificial state and likely to break up in near future. The Muslim Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971, with the blessing of India. The Provinces of Baluchistan and NWFP Pusthunistan wanted to merge into India rather than Pakistan. It would be in the national interest of India to engineer the secession of Baluchistan and Pushtunistan from Pakistan. India should engineer the Second Partition of Pakistan so that Baluchistan and Pushtunistan might secede from Pakistan and form a new Federation with Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The Federation of land-locked Central Asian Republics, Afghanistan, Pashtunistan and Baluchistan would give direct sea outlet for the oil and gas resources of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The secession of Baluchistan from Pakistan would be in the national interest of American Big Oil, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and India.


Demise of Two Nation Theory

Fifth. India should declare that India doesn’t accept the Two Nation Theory and Small Nation Theory. The very identity of Pakistan based on the false doctrine of Two Nation Theory, which was discredited by successful secession of Muslim Bangladesh from Pakistan. The secession of Bangladesh validated the Small Nation Theory, which can have the repeat success by the secession of Baluchistan and Pushtunistan from Pakistan, and they might join the Federation of Greater Afghanistan. India should work towards the disintegration of Pakistan so that partitioned Pakistan may rejoin India into Confederation of South Asia.


Mughal Pakistan as New Caliph of Islam

Sixth. It is in the common national interests of India and Pakistan to project Muslim Pakistan as the New Caliph of Islam and head of the Mughal Caliphate of Islamabad, which technically should control the Islam’s Holiest cities, Mecca & Medina, and impose Indian Deobandi sect as the reigning doctrine of Islam in Mecca. Pakistan as the Caliph of Islam outranks Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It may not be against India’s national interest if, with the help of India, Pakistan could takeover oil-producing Muslim nations of the Middle East under Mughal Caliphate of Islamabad and shared the oil-incomes of the Mughal Caliphate with India. It would be in the interest of India, if Pakistan could take over Mecca & Medina and Deobandi Sunni sect became the dominant religious doctrine of Islam worldwide.


Reunification To End Muslim Nuke Bazaar

Seventh. Protestant United States invaded secular Sunni-ruled Shiite-majority oil-rich Iraq presumably in the search of banned WMDs. Howsoever indefensible the President Bush’s invasion of Iraq might have been, the real good that came out of it was the discovery of the nuclear weapon’s designs and the complete Uranium Enrichment Plants that were supplied to Iran, North Korea, Libya, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan’s nuclear smuggling network that also included Japan, Germany and South Africa. Proliferation of nuclear weapon technology to oil-rich Aryan Iran, oil-rich Semite Saudi Arabia, oil-rich Arab Libya, oil-rich UAE and technologically advanced Malaysia presents greatest threat to human race as Iran is ruled by extreme Shiite fundamentalists and extreme Wahhabi fundamentalists rule Saudi Arabia and UAE. The Soviet-era scientists of oil-rich Aryan Muslim Central Asia, namely, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have nuclear expertise and they have racial and cultural ties with Iran.


Iranian Nukes Threaten India & Pakistan

Eighth. Proliferation of nuclear weapon technology to oil-rich Shiite Iran and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia presents greatest strategic threats to United States, India and Russia in the 21st Century and transforms the Clash of Civilization into the Clash of the civilized world powers versus WMD-seeking fundamentalist Muslim Iran and Saudi Arabia. The acquisitions of nuclear weapons by Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia are in the national interests neither of Protestant WASP United States nor of Hindu India and nor of Orthodox Slav Russia. United States, Russia and India, the leading Protestant, Orthodox and Hindu Civilizations have common national and civilization interests to wage war of civilizations on Iran and Saudi Arabia to militarily denuke and demilitarize Iran and Saudi Arabia to force the Islamic nuclear genie back into the bottle. Besides militarily stamping out the nuclear weapon programs of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, UAE and Malaysia, both the super powers should bring about the reunification of nuclear India and nuclear Pakistan so that Muslim Pakistan’s nuclear scientists no longer tempted to sell their nuclear expertise to the oil-rich Islamic nations.


Iranian Oil Caused 1947 Partition of India

Ninth. The Christian West would be forced to change its mindset vis-à-vis Muslim-Hindu clash of civilizations whenever the West realized that only reintegration of Aryan Muslim nation of Muslim Pakistan with Aryan Hindu India could possibly tame the specter of Islamic Nuclear Weapon menace. Britain partitioned Indian Empire in 1947 to create artificial state of Pakistan as a buffer state to prevent India’s hegemony over Iranian and Iraqi oil fields as before 1947, Indian empire controlled 100% of Iranian Oil and 48% of Iraqi oil, and before 1965, Indian Rupee was the official reserve currency of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Iran, Jordan and Yemen.


Oil Created Muslim Fundamentalism

Tenth. Western oil interests created Muslim Wahhabi fundamentalism to undermine the control of Ottoman Empire and Indian Empire over the oil rich Arabian Gulf and Iran respectively. Western nuclear non-proliferation interests would force United States and Western Europe to force Pakistan rejoin the Federation of South Asia with India. The Christian West created Hindu-Muslim Clash of Civilization to partition Indian Empire in 1947 to gain control over Muslim oil fields. President Jimmy Carter created and legitimized Shiite Ayatollah fundamentalism to undermine the rising power of Imperial Pahlevi Iran.


West Needs the Reunification of Subcontinent

Eleventh. The Islamic nuclear threat to the Christian West would undermine Hindu-Muslim Clash of Civilization and bring about closer civilization-level closer ties between India and Pakistan. The Christian West would need India to reassert its historical ties with Iran and Caspian Central Asia as Emperor Babur the founder of Mughal dynasty in India came from Samarkand. Only Aryan India can tame the nuclear weapon technology proliferation by scientists of Aryan Pakistan, Aryan Uzbekistan, Aryan Turkmenistan, Aryan Kazakhstan, Aryan Tajikistan, Aryan Kyrgyzstan and Aryan Kyrgyzstan and Aryan Azerbaijan if India is allowed to exercise closer cultural, racial and civilization ties with Pakistan and Caspian Central Asia. The Christian West’s national interests in securing Persian Gulf oil resources resulted in the partition of Indian Empire and Hindu-Muslim clash of civilization in 1947. The Christian West’s national interests in preventing the proliferation of Muslim Pakistan’s nuclear weapon technology to oil-rich Muslim Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, UAE and Malaysia would result in the reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in the early quarter of the 21st Century. Muslim oil resulted in the partition of Indian Empire. The menace of Islamic Nukes would result in the reunification of South Asia or Indian Empire before 2025 AD. Oil caused the Partition of 1947 and Nukes will result in the reunification and end the Hindu-Muslim clash of civilization during first quarter of the 21st century.


34(3) Talk Points

Pakistan Roadblock to World Power India

First, India after the decline of Russia, which became evident after president Bush’s victory in Iraq, India and China joined the ranks of world’s top three world powers along side United States, leapfrogging Russia, France, Britain, Germany and Japan. The world’s top four economies are, United States ($8.4 trillion), China ($4.1 trillion), Japan ($3 trillion) and India ($2.2 trillion). India’s dilemma is: How India, the world’s 3rd greatest power and 4th largest economy, overcome the hurdle of Kashmir and Indo-Pak rivalry, so that India could devote its diplomatic assets to play global role to assert India’s global interests and global responsibilities, due to its status as world power? How to convince Pakistan that it would gain more my Indo-Pak détente as junior partner of World Power India? How to convince Pakistan ($237 billion GNP) that by aligning with world power India, nuclear Pakistan could become more important than Saudi Arabia ($129 billion) or Israel ($99 billion) in the New Middle East? How to convince Pakistan that it has no chance whatsoever either to match or overtake India’s military, economic, scientific and technological capability in 3rd Millennium? How to convince Pakistan that Indo-Pak détente would allow Pakistan to major power of the Islamic world and become the New Caliph of Islam overriding the rival claims of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey? How to quantify the economic bait that India should offer to Pakistan, to cajole and persuade it to abandon its anti-India strategy? How to diplomatically threaten Pakistan that India could retaliate by engineering the secession of Balochistan and Pashtunistan from Punjabi dominated Pakistan? How to convince Pakistan that the lands of Mughal Emperor Babur, the Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan now holds unheard of oil-riches, which should be jointly exploited by Pakistan and India? How to convince Pakistan that the divine destiny of the Islamic Pakistan should be to lead and preside over oil-rich Islamic world as the New Caliph of Islam? How to convince Pakistan that India can offer more goodies to Pakistan in the Middle East and Caspian Central Asia than Saudi Arabia, United States and Britain can ever match in order to Pakistan to destabilize India?


Oil Interests Determine National Interests

Second, the diplomacy and geopolitics in the 21st Century defined the national interests of nation states in terms of the oil interests. Pakistan can promote its oil national interests more by cooperating with India than by opposing India. Economic giants of Asia should join the banner of Sino-Indian détente to secure Asia’s energy supplies from Arabian Gulf and Caspian basin. Oil had been the principal cause for the artificial creation of Muslim Pakistan in 1947. The Turkmenistan oil is the principal cause that United States continued to support Wahhabi terrorism in Afghanistan as well as Kashmir. England created Muslim Pakistan to place a geographic barrier between India and oil-rich Iran as Indian Empire had controlled the 100% of Iranian oil prior to 1947 independence. United States consented to Pakistan’s support to Kashmir terrorism to tie down India, so that India may not challenge United States in the oil-rich Caspian basin. Since oil interests created Pakistan in 1947 and sustained Islamic terrorism in 1980s onwards, India should focus on Caspian oil-riches to bring about Sino-Indian détente and Indo-Pak cordiale Entente. America stroked the fire of Islamic terrorism in Kashmir to keep India out of oilfields that lie west to its borders. India diplomats should focus on oil interests to bring about India China Pakistan oil-alliance to secure Caspian oil and gas supplies for oil hungry China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Pakistan. Oil-deficient economic giants of Asia have common national interests to foster and promote Sino Indian détente to project the power of the Asia’s economic giants over oil-rich Caspian Central Asia and Arabian Gulf. Oil caused the partition of India in 1947 and oil would cause the new détente in South Asia in particular and Asia in general. The problem of the diplomacy is: How to convince the diplomats of Pakistan, India and China that oil national interests of India, Pakistan and China coincided in oil-rich Caspian Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Arabian Gulf region?


New Age of oil Colonial Empires

Third, the new age of colonial empires dawned on the world and Russia ceased to be a world power and joined the ranks of France and Britain, catapulting India and China into the ranks of the top three world powers besides hyper power United States. The year 2003 is a turning point in history and the new age of colonial empires descended on the world with full force when UNO recognized America as the Occupying Powers in Iraq for one year and transferred the control over Iraqi oil to United States and Britain, and Russia and France meekly consented to it. It signaled that either Russia lost its status as world power and accepted its new role as medium size power or the white Christian world accepted the leadership of America to recreate the colonial world order. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee invited Pakistan’s democratically elected prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali for Summit level meeting to resolve all problematic issues including Kashmir, because India needed new diplomatic options in the wake of America’s invasion and subsequent colonial occupation of oil-rich Iraq. President Bush created history and created a new world order when American Resolution demanded that United Nations should recognize America’s occupation of Iraq as legitimate Occupying Power for a minimum period of one year and possibly more. After colonial empires became legitimate units of international system, it is high time that India, China and Pakistan should also get their oil colonies. The problem of the diplomacy is: How to convince diplomats of Pakistan, India and China that in the new age of colonial empires that dawned on the world after 2003 Iraq war, the continental land powers should cooperate with one another to secure their rights to carve out their own colonial empires in the new age?


Decline of Russia

Fourth, Russia ($929 billion GNP) would seek its future in alliance with France ($1.2 trillion) and Germany ($1.8 trillion) and rejoin the European balance of power and accept the leadership of the United States ($ 8.4 trillion) in Europe. Russia, Germany and France would reluctantly accept the dominance of United States trying to hold America in check peacefully. It is likely that Russia would jettison its pro-Third World revolutionary legacy and pursue the interests of the Russian Empire to the exclusion of the interests of the Third World and the Non Aligned World. India can no longer depend on the support of Russia in the event of clash of White races with brown and yellow races. Russia would be firmly on the side of the White colonial powers in the global clash of races. Russian Orthodox Church even does not recognize Hinduism as a legitimate religion. Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and Georgia do not accept Hinduism as official religions, though they accept Buddhism and Islam as official religions. After the demise of the Soviet Union the Russia is a new organism and the Russia is firmly in the White European Camp and would formulate its foreign policy in light of European balance of power and looming rivalry of France and Germany with United States and Britain. The Balance of Power considerations, the interests of White Christianity, and Europe’s rivalry with Asia and America would determine the future response of Russia towards India. India should not expect any support from Russia more than what Russia agreed in terms of a treaty with India. The New Russia is different from the Soviet Union and has new perception of Russia’s national interests. After the secession of Central Asian Republics, Russia’s geopolitical scenario has changed. Because of the decline of Russia, India should develop India-China detente as the fulcrum of the new world order in Asia, because Russia would not be able to play important role in Asia now onwards. The failure of Russia to stop or neutralize America’s invasion of Yugoslavia and Iraq eroded the world power status of Russia, the rump of the erstwhile Super Power the Soviet Union, as a result the top three world powers in 2003, were United States, China and India. Soviet Union is dead and new motivations influence Russian foreign policy. The problem of dealing with Russia can be defined as: What Russian diplomats’ perception of Russia’s new national interests and oil interests are similar to and what are different from the known Soviet national interests and policies? How to find and understand the new geopolitics that President Putin of Russia relies to formulate Russia’s new foreign policy? How should India and Pakistan respond to the Russia’s traditional quest for the access to the warm water ports?


New Troika: USA China and India

Fifth, India and China as the new member of the top Troika of the world powers must reinvent bilateral India-China détente and stable triangular India-Pakistan-China détente. United States, China and India are the top three world powers in 2003. India and China should catapult Asia as the major power in world scene to replace Europe, which had been ascendant from 1500 onwards, as Asia not Europe is the leading continent of the world in the 21st Century. The decline of Russia and the growing wedge in NATO alliance and the expansion of NATO and European Union to encompass the First World and the Second World, demanded that India, China and Pakistan the three nuclear powers of the Third World to safeguard the interests of the Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic worlds and protect the interests of the brown and yellow races representing more than 80 percent of the world’s population. It is moral imperative for the new leadership of India, China and Pakistan to provide leadership to the 5 billion non-white population of the world, representing the interest of the Third World and the Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic Civilizations. India, China and Pakistan should pool their diplomatic, economic and military resources to provide leadership to the Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic civilizations. The top three world powers are: United States, China and India. Russia, France and Britain represent the second tier of world powers. The third tier of the great powers is: Germany, Japan and Canada. The top ten economies of the world are: United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Brazil and Russia. The problem of the diplomacy is: How to convince India, China and Pakistan that decline of Russia required that neither China nor India can shirk their destiny from asserting their rights and responsibilities as world’s 2nd and 3rd greatest world powers behind United States, the world’s top most world power. The problem of diplomacy can be defined as: How Indo-US détente and Sino-US entente would affect the Sino-Indian détente and Indo-Pak détente? Can United States remain friendly to India as well as China, when United States, China and India are world’s top three world powers? Where do the national interests of United States, China and India converge and where do their national interests conflict?


Pakistan as New Caliph of Islam

Sixth, the 25-member European Union and enlarged NATO poised to unleash new age of White Christian Colonialism in the 21st Century that would resemble the post 1500 Christian colonial empires. America’s colonial occupation of Iraq could signal the expansionism of the Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate as euphemism of American Caliphate, since Wahhabi clergy agreed to transfer all rights over Arab oil and gas resources to American oil colonialism in exchange for the imposition of Wahhabi fundamentalism first in Arabian Peninsula and later throughout the Islamic world. It is not in the interest of Pakistan, India and China to permit the expansion of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate throughout the Islamic world, riding on the American tiger. India ($2.2 trillion) and China ($4.1 trillion) should promote either Aryan Pakistan ($237 Billion GNP) or Aryan Iran ($325 billion) or Aryan Turkey ($394 billion) as the New Caliph of Islam as they all are greater economic and military power than Saudi Arabia ($129 billion). The expanded NATO has emerged as an imperial alliance in 2003 and assumed military role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wahhabi Saudi Arabia launched the expansionism of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate in the aftermath of the colonization of secular Iraq the anathema of Wahhabi fundamentalism. India should develop closer military and diplomatic ties with Pakistan, Iran and Turkey to promote an Aryan Caliph of Islam to compete with Wahhabi fundamentalism. The Center of Islam should reside either in Pakistan or Iran. Turkey should reassert its Ottoman role in the Islamic world. Hindu India should not join the anti-Islamic Crusades launched by White Christian Crusaders on oil-producing Islamic world. However, the rise of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate is not in the interests of Pakistan, China, Iran, Turkey and India. India should promote India, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey Alliance to create a direct land link from South Asia to Mediterranean Sea. Pakistan is better suited to emerge as the 21st Century’s New Caliph of Islam, than Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran. India should help Pakistan gain custody of the Islamic Holy cities of Mecca & Medina and fair share of the OPEC oil incomes. Pakistan should look Westward and stake its fortunes in the Middle East. The West should respect Pakistan more than Saudi Arabia, because Pakistan is greater economic and military power than Saudi Arabia. India should explain to Pakistan that India treated Pakistan as an equal by promoting as the potential paramount Islamic power in the Middle East. India should firmly demonstrate to Muslim Pakistan that its destiny lied westward in the Middle East, and Pakistan should disengage eastward terrorism and expand westward. Saudi Arabia financed Pakistan’s eastward terrorist acts in Kashmir thereby India should retaliate by supporting Pakistan’s westward expansionism in oil-rich magic lands. The problem of diplomacy could be defined as: Why should Pakistan ($237 billion GNP) work as the Lap Dog of Saudi Arabia ($129 billion), when nuclear Pakistan emerged as the greatest military power of the Islamic world? How Pakistan should cooperate with India and China to exercise hegemony over Islamic Umma?


Common Oil Interests of India China Pakistan

Seventh, India, China and Pakistan have common national oil interests in the Caspian Central Asia and the Arabian Gulf. The oil interests, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan oil and gas pipeline would provide the new foundation of India Pakistan détente. China and India are the two principle markets for the oil and gas resources of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The oil interests of Russia, in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, would conflict with the oil interests of India, China, Pakistan and Iran. Russia wanted the Caspian oil and gas to flow northward using Russian oil and gas pipelines. It is in the oil interests of India that the Caspian oil and gas flows through the pipelines either through Iran or Afghanistan and Pakistan towards India. India, China and Pakistan are dependent on imported oil and gas and the oil interests demanded that these three Asian powers developed common military, diplomatic and economic policies to secure their oil and gas supplies at prices the American oil companies get to remain competitive in the age of globalization. India and China have legitimate rights and responsibilities in oil-rich Caspian Central Asia and Arabian Gulf. India-Pakistan détente and India-China détente would develop on the converging oil interests. Japan and South Korea would join “India China Pakistan Iran Alliance” to secure their oil imports from Arabian Gulf. Common oil interests would sideline the conflicting interests in Kashmir to give great boost to India-Pakistan détente and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan and India oil & gas pipeline. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali during their Summit Meeting should focus on converging oil interests of India and Pakistan and leave contentious issues to the subordinates. India should explain to Pakistan that while Kashmir caused financial drain on Pakistan, the India-Pakistan Oil détente would enrich Pakistan and India beyond their wildest dreams. Caspian Oil is the bedrock to build Indo-Pak Entente Cordiale in 2003. India should explain to Pakistan that a new Oil god emerged in 2003 and the god of Jews, god of Pope and god of the Armament lobby would bow down to the oil god. Nations in the 21st Century would define their national interests in terms of oil interests. India, China and Pakistan became Allies not adversaries in the new age of oil colonialism. India-China détente would make the ancient Silk Road the oil transport corridor to transport the oil and gas from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to the energy hungry China. India-Pakistan détente would make the Khyber Pass the crucial link in the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India oil & gas pipeline. India, China and Pakistan would overlook their territorial clashes to reap unheard of riches in the Caspian oil territories. Common Oil interests would override conflicting territorial issues as diplomatically irrelevant. The problem of diplomacy is: How India, China and Pakistan should conduct diplomacy to jointly assert legitimate rights of energy-deficient continental Asian powers to secure the supplies of oil & gas resources for their industrial economies in Caspian basin and Arabian Gulf? What would Pakistan gain by harming India’s oil interests in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan?


Diplomacy of Sino-Indian Naval Pact

Eighth, India should develop closer Naval ties with China before Pakistan would consent to India-Pakistan Defense ties. Indian Defense Minister George Fernandez offered to his hosts President Hu Jintao that Indian Navy and Chinese Navy should jointly patrol South China Sea to check piracy. While Indo-US détente would not promote Indo-Pak détente, the Sino-Indian détente would promote Indo-Pak détente, because India, China, Pakistan and Iran have common oil interests in Caspian oil basin, as the eastbound oil pipelines would carry Kazakh and Caspian oil to China and southbound oil pipelines would carry the Turkmenistan’s oil and Uzbekistan’s gas to India. The common oil interests of China, India and Pakistan dramatically conflict with the oil interests of Russia, which preferred northbound oil pipelines to transport Caspian oil via Russian pipelines. The oil interests of China, India and Pakistan conflict with the oil interests of United States, Turkey and European Union that preferred the eastbound pipelines to Turkey’s port or overland from Georgia and Kosovo to terminals at Baltic sea ports. India should undertake drastic foreign policy revision in light of the oil and gas reserves of Caspian basin that could potentially make India as well as China economic super powers in the 21st Century. The problem for the diplomacy is: How would the joint patrolling of South China Sea by Indian and Chinese Navies increase the political stature and economic competitiveness of India, China and Pakistan?


Principle Problem of Diplomacy

Ninth, the principle goal of India’s diplomacy can be summarized as follows: How India should normalize relations with Pakistan based on the new geopolitical reality of Caspian Oil, without disturbing the apple cart of Islamic-Hindu issues in domestic politics of India and Pakistan and Kashmir crisis? India’s problem is: How to diplomatically convey and project India’s military capability to force Pakistan abandon its declared goal of secession of Muslim-majority Kashmir from India, so that India, Pakistan and China may jointly build, operate and control the Turkmenistan- Afghanistan- Pakistan- India oil pipeline? India and Pakistan have the military capability to exercise control over the Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan oil and gas resources by controlling the oil pipeline, but Kashmir conflict forces India and Pakistan to forego this golden opportunity to enrich the Subcontinent.


The problem can be defined as follows: How to design India’s new Foreign Policy towards Pakistan and China, so that India as well as could devote its national energies towards projecting India’s Global interests and responsibilities in the Caspian Oil basin and Arabian Gulf? How to persuade that Pakistan should devote its scarce resources towards projecting Pakistan as New Caliph of Islam and gain predominance in the Middle East? In the Middle East after America’s conquest of Iraq, the national interests of India, Pakistan and China coincide and provide the best opportunity in developing triangular alliance of India, China and Pakistan, as well as India-Pakistan détente and India-China détente. In the continent of Africa, the national interests of India, China and Pakistan coincide and do not conflict. It is in the common national interests of India, Pakistan and China to develop a common oil-policy towards oil-rich Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan so that the oil-gas pipeline could transport Turkmenistan oil/gas resources to the oil-hungry markets of India and China via direct land route. India, China and Pakistan can develop joint foreign policies for promoting their separate national and economic interests in Caspian Central Asia, Middle East and Africa. From the perspective of Geopolitics and history of Civilizations and recent revolution of Precision Guided Munitions, anti-ship cruise missiles and increased role of oil in world economy, a solid case can be built for Military Pact of Asian land powers, to project military, political and diplomatic power of India, China and Pakistan in oil-rich Caspian Central Asia, Arabian Gulf and continental, to herald the 21st Century as the Century of Asia, led by India, China, Japan, Pakistan and Koreas. India should offer Defense pact to Pakistan as well as China so that land powers of Asia could claim their place under the sun and stake their claim of the Asian Oil.


American Invasions of Pakistan & China

Tenth, Pakistan began to wonder after the American conquest of Iraq, whether United States would invade Pakistan to destroy Muslim Pakistan’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, as it id in case of Iraq. India should specifically promise Pakistan that India would not support any NATO or American invasion of Pakistan. President Pervez Musharraf might be daydreaming if he thought that Pakistan could be the Albania for NATO in South Asia. It is argued that had Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee not order the nuclear weapon tests in 1998, India could have become the target for NATO attacks. Communist China began to wonder whether, United States would invade China or order covert operations to overthrow the Communist regime in China, to replace it with pro-Taiwan Buddhist regime of China, in which Falun Gong and Dalai Lama could play considerable role. If United States and India decided to support Buddhist uprising in China, the Communist regime would fall and Buddhist regime would replace it. If United States and India decided to undertake counter nuclear proliferation measures in Pakistan the specter of Islamic Nuclear Bomb could be eliminated. Hindu India has as much freedom to join with Protestant United States to undermine and destabilize Islamist Pakistan and Communist China, as Pakistan and China have to align with United States against India. India should explain to China and Pakistan that India the leader of the Non Aligned Movement would never join with the Super Power to destroy the independence and sovereignty of a fellow Third World nation. India can develop Indo-Pak détente as well as Sino-Indian détente by giving firm commitments to Pakistan and China that India would never join any America or NATO led invasion forces against Pakistan or China. Pakistan is seriously concerned that United States may decide to defang Islamic Atom Bomb.


New Age of Covert Operations

Eleventh, India should accept the right of Pakistan to undertake covert operations at any place of its choice including Kashmir, so long as Pakistan would not mind if India undertook retaliatory covert operations in Balochistan, Pashtunistan and Karachi to destabilize Punjabi-domination of Kashmir. Pakistan agreed that as late as 1965, the Kashmiri Muslims were pro-India and anti-Pakistan and Pakistan’s case for secession of Kashmir Valley rested on the flimsy ground that after 1965 and especially now in 2003 the Kashmiri Muslims became against India. India should assert its right to demand that since Mohajirs in Karachi, Baloch tribes in Balochistan province, Pushtuns in NWFP province and Kashmiri in Azad Kashmir in 2003 oppose Punjabi Army rule in Pakistan they should also have the freedom to secede from Pakistan. India should explain to Pakistan as well as China that larger countries are multi-ethnic nation states would be destabilizing their own societies if India decided to do to them what they are doing to India in Kashmir and other terrorism prone areas. India should stop weeping over Pakistan’s repeated violation of its promises to stop terrorism in Kashmir, because Pakistan is culture and Islamic culture believed that it is OK for Muslims to lie for a good cause, the argument President Zia Ul Haq gave to President Ronald Reagan, when he got the consent of President Reagan to continue covert operations after 1988 accord with the United States accord with the Soviet Union, which led to the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. India should explain that Pakistan would be living in fool’s paradise if it believed that Kashmir is like Afghanistan where with the support of the United States India could be forced to withdraw from Kashmir allowing Pakistan to move in Kashmir as it did in Afghanistan. India should assert its right to undertake covert operations in Pakistan using Northern Alliance war veterans if Pakistan continued its infiltrate Pashtun Afghan and Arab Wahhabi terrorists in Kashmir. India should deploy Kyrgyz and Uzbek Afghani war veterans to destabilize Pakistan if Islamabad failed to stop the infiltration of Afghan Taliban terrorists in to Kashmir through its territory.


Kashmir is Water Tank for Pakistan

Twelfth, Kashmir is the water tank for Pakistan and India can stop the water flow of two of Pakistan’s five rivers by developing dams on Indian side of Kashmir. India should demonstrate India’s world power status and convey that while India willing to share its world power status with Pakistan and allow Pakistan to handle some of India’s global interests and global interests especially in the Middle East and the Central Asia it should lean that Pakistan’s economy is one-tenth the size of India and would never match India in military capability.


Yankee Camel in Pakistani Tent

Thirteen, Pakistan realized after the brazen US-UK invasions of Iraq that it made a mistake by inviting American Camel in the Pakistani Tent and Pakistan feared that like the proverbial story the Yankee Camel would take over the Pakistani tent and establish American colony over Pakistan and Afghanistan. India should explain to Pakistan that Indians have learnt the British Indian history where the European sought the trading posts and ended up ruling the Subcontinent by Policy of Deception and the Policy of Divide & Rule. India should declare that India would militarily come to the defense of Pakistan if United States and NATO invaded Pakistan.


34(4) Pakistan’s Covert Dreams

(1) Rebutting Pakistan’s Main Arguments

India should explain that Pakistan lacked the economic resources to harbor imperialistic dreams in Kashmir. India should explain to Pakistan that if Pakistan continued to undertake Covert Operations in Kashmir at behest of its foreign partners, it could come to a grief and suffer the secession of Balochistan and NWFP if India launched counter covert operations in India. India should explain to Pakistan that its imperial dreams in the Middle East as the new Caliph of Islam, could be realized only when it cooperated with India. Indian diplomats can realize the goal of Indo-Pak détente only after they are able to demonstrate India’s military superiority over Pakistan and India’s military capability to foil any foreign inspired insurgency or terrorist attacks in Kashmir. China, United States and Saudi Arabia financed Pakistan to undertake covert operations in Kashmir to destabilize India deny India’s legitimate great power role in Caspian oil basin, Iran and Arabian Gulf. Saudi Arabia and United States launched covert operations in India to sabotage India’s assertive role as the world power with global interests and global responsibilities. India should war Pakistan that it could come to great harm if it continued to launch covert operations against India at behest of Saudi Arabia, United States and Pakistan. Pakistan accused India to harbor super power dreams. India should accept Pakistan’s complement and replay that India realized that India has joined United States and China into the exclusive Troika Club of world’s top three world powers, after the decline of Russia in 2003.


First, Pakistan realized that there are many benefits of Indo-Pak détente, as in commodities Pakistan is short of iron-ore and imports from India can be extremely price-competitive. In the same vein, Pakistan has abundance of sugar and it will be cheaper for India to import it from Pakistan than from any other country. Similarly Pakistan should Indian tea and Indian tires. India has offered to separate the economic side of the dialogue from the political side of dialogue and India would accept every Pakistani proposal to increase bilateral India Pakistan trade and to establish South Asian Free Trade Zone.


Second, Pakistan realized more than India that lure for oil and gas wealth of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan would bring down the saber rattling by India and Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan are energy-hungry. Pakistan could be a transit point for the proposed pipeline carrying oil and gas from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to India. This could go a long way in solving India’s energy crisis and Pakistan could earn a substantial transit fees. Both India and Pakistan benefit by jointly controlling the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India oil & gas pipeline, which would act as damper against any saber rattling by the two governments. India wants to develop India-Pakistan détente on the solid foundations of Caspian oil interests. Failure of India and Pakistan to arrive at common Caspian oil policy would allow Europeans exploit Central Asian oil and gas resources to the detriment of economic interests of India, Pakistan and China. India wants to develop Indo-Pak détente on the solid foundations of joint development of Turkmenistan oil pipeline and joint oil and gas exploration and production in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Indian and Pakistani oil companies should dominate the Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan oil sector and secure cheaper Caspian oil and gas resources for economic development of India and Pakistan. Indo-Pak Cooperation in Turkmenistan Oil sector would douse water on fire in Kashmir.


Third, Pakistan realized that India is the world leaders in Information Technology and Software development. India exported $10 billion in IT software and in comparison, the IT industry in Pakistan is miniscule. Pakistan seeks partnership with Indian IT companies, so that Indian companies would sub-contract some component of their IT projects to the software programmers and IT industry in Pakistan. A partnership in Information technology between Indian and Pakistani companies would go a long way in energizing the economic relations between the India and Pakistan. India should offer India’s technology transfer to develop South Asia as the world’s IT hub for global back office operations and Business Process Outsourcing.


Fourth, Pakistan realized that insisting on resolution of Kashmir as pre-condition for Indo-Pak détente would be a non-starter. There is no Kashmir first pre-condition form Pakistan now, even when Pakistan thinks that the issue of Kashmir holds the key to the relations between India and Pakistan. Unless this big issue of Kashmir is solved, the normalization between India and Pakistan would be very difficult. India should demonstrate that militarily Pakistan and Saudi Arabia stood no chance of success in Kashmir, even if some foreign powers supported Pakistan’s terrorist activities in Kashmir.


Fifth, Pakistan realized that certain vested interests in India and Pakistan consistently sabotaged closer India Pakistan ties right after the 1947 independence as they profited by it. There is a lunatic fringe in India and Pakistan who would do their best to thwart the India Pakistan normalization process. But many believe they could be marginalized if both India Pakistan are ready to meet midway and solve the outstanding issues. What Pakistan’s members of Parliament found during their visit to India, was warmth and goodwill from the people of India and they realized that there was no ice between the people of India and Pakistan. It had been overwhelming for the Pakistani delegation. Hindu Indian government should explain to Pakistan that India’s secularist Congress Party and Pakistan’s military dictatorships had vested interests in prolonging the Kashmir crisis and to highlight the India Pakistan conflict as conflict between Islam and Hinduism. Military rulers of Pakistan and secular Congress party leaders had the vested interests in perpetuating the Two Nation Theory based on the contradictions of Hindus and Muslims. Congress Party exacerbated Hindu Muslim conflicts in Kashmir and rest of India to secure Muslim votes in India. Military rulers in Pakistan and exported terrorists to Kashmir to overcome the stigma of the defeat of Pakistani Army in 1971 and the secession of East Pakistan or Bangladesh. India should explain to Pakistan that Hindu government of India would welcome any opportunity to promote Indo-Pak détente at terms better than the Congress Party would ever offer to Pakistan. Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali realized that the Hindu party in power in Delhi in 2003 is not the lunatic fringe that consistently sabotaged India-Pakistan relations after 1947. Bhartiya Janata Party in India as well as the Mr. Jamali’s party in Pakistan has common vested interest in promoting India Pakistan ties, as a measure to keep secularists out of power in India and military rulers out of power in Pakistan. India Pakistan amity would enhance the political fortunes of Mr. Vajpayee in India and that of Mr. Jamali in Pakistan and undermine the lunatic fringe that sabotaged Indo-Pak ties in the past, namely the Congress Party in India and Military dictators in Pakistan. India should explain that only after India-Pakistan détente could Pakistan hope to develop stable democratic governments in Pakistan.


Sixth, Pakistan financed insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir to undermine India’s challenge to China. Pakistan realized the economic value of financing the insurgency in Kashmir, as it would derail India’s dream to catch up with China. Pakistan mistakenly believed that India would agree for the secession of Kashmir, if Pakistan succeeded in creating insurgency in Kashmir. Pakistan hoped that because the Kashmir valley was a garland of thorns around the neck of India, a resolution of the Kashmir dispute would be of immense benefit to India, and would release the resources of India to compete with China to attain the double-digit economic growth and would, release the creative energies in the sub-continent to make it a permanent détente. India should be prepared to financially compensate Pakistan for removing the irritant of Kashmir, which became great hindrance that prevented India from playing a global role with global interests and global responsibilities commensurate with its rightful status as 3rd world power member of the top troika alongside United States and China. India should be prepared to offer economic carrots to weaker economy of Pakistan and shower financial rewards in exchange for Pakistan to end its nuisance value in Kashmir. Prime Minister Vajpayee should directly ask Prime Minister Jamali the economic and financial incentives Pakistan would expect India to pay for ending Pakistan inspired terrorism in Kashmir. Financial stimulus to Pakistan would turn out to be much cheaper than the cost of waging conventional war or covert operations against Pakistan. Let the diplomats of India and Pakistan to work out the financial compensation payable to Pakistan for winding up Islamic covert operations in Kashmir.


Seventh, Pakistan does not dispute the pro-India loyalty of the inhabitants of Ladakh and Jammu & Kashmir and agreed that majority of people in Ladhak and Jammu are well integrated into the Indian Union. Pakistan mistakenly believed that India would not dispute the loyalty of Kashmiri of Baltistan, Gilgit and Azad Kashmir towards Pakistan. So Pakistan believed that there was no issue on who these areas should belong to. Pakistan also mistakenly believed that the part of Kashmir, which had been ceded by Pakistan to China, Aksai Chin, would not be disputed by India. Pakistan only disputed that Kashmir Valley’s continued association with India. Indian diplomats should declare that India did not accept the Aksai Chin lands that Pakistan ceded to China. India should demand that Kashmiri residents of Pakistan Occupied Azad Kashmir should have no less freedom and democratic freedom that Kashmiri enjoyed in Kashmir Valley. India diplomats should assert India’s right to speak for the Kashmiri of Baltistan, and Gilgit. In the event of any settlement over Kashmir India should have as much influence and power over POK Azad Kashmir, Baltistan and Gilgit, if Pakistan were to get any rights over Indian Kashmir Valley. India should assert its right to support secession tendencies and covert operations in Azad Kashmir, Baltistan and Gilgit if Pakistan failed to stop terrorist incursions into Kashmir.


Eighth, Pakistan continued to finance the Islamic terrorist insurgency in Kashmir, as it believed Kashmiri people would support Pakistan in 2003. Pakistan realized that as late as 1965, Kashmiri Muslims were happy in India and preferred India to Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that there is a realization in Pakistan that we have tried to take Kashmir by force and failed. Pakistan tried many times and it had to face the moment of truth, as it failed in 1948, in 1965, then in the 1980s, and then, of course, Kargil in 1999 in gaining the moral and political support of the Kashmiri people in the Kashmir Valley. Pakistan believed that local situation in 2003 is in total contrast to the earlier situation, when Pakistani agents infiltrated from Pakistan into Kashmir in 1965, it was the Kashmiri themselves in the Kashmir Valley who informed the Indian police and had them caught. Pakistan agreed that Kashmiri were relatively happy with India in 1965, but Pakistan argued that the Kashmir situation is totally different in 2003.


India appreciated when Pakistan agreed that people of Kashmir in 1965 supported India and opposed Pakistan, when Kashmiri informed Indian police about Pakistani insurgents and agents that had infiltrated into Kashmir. If Pakistan developed its argument for secession of Kashmir Valley because of the changing political feeling in Kashmir after 1965, then India would be justified in demanding that Mohajirs of Karachi, Baloch tribes of Balochistan province and Pashtuns of NWFP Province should be given freedom to secede from Pakistan as they openly opposed the Punjabi’s domination of Pakistan politics and Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s military coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Nawaz Sharief. India should demand that Pakistan should allow the secession of Balochistan, Pashtunistan and Azad Kashmir from Pakistan, as these people no longer accepted the domination of Punjabis in Pakistan. India should launch covert operations in Pakistan and hire Northern Alliance war veterans to cause insurgency in Pakistan. Pakistan would accept India’s offer of Indo-Pak détente once they realized that would lose the wars of covert operations just as they lost the 1971 War. India should develop covert operations capability and promote insurgency in Pakistan to force military rulers of Pakistan accept the wisdom of indo-Pak détente.


These were the main argument Pakistan as outlined by the Pakistani delegation to India. Member of Parliament Mr. Bhandara is a member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q), and an industrialist, and also a noted writer and columnist in Pakistan. He was in the 15-member parliamentary delegation, which paid eight-day visit to India. Pakistan as an adversary of India has legal rights to undertake subversive operations against India in Kashmir. However, India also has rights undertake counter covert operations in India and to launch retaliatory Covert Operations in Azad Kashmir, Balochistan and NWFP and Karachi, if it could muster the courage and necessary assets in Pakistan.


(2) Vajpayee Jamali Summit

The success of the Vajpayee-Jamali Summit would become the greatest diplomatic event of the 21st Century if it resulted in the Indo-Pak détente, and both leaders have a political interest in making the Summit a success, as that would ensure the overwhelming election victory of both leaders in their next general elections in India and Pakistan. India should convey to Pakistan that Indo-Pak détente would enhance the stature of Prime Minister Jamali in the Islamic world. The Summit Meeting of Prime Ministers Jamali and Vajpayee could succeed if could make Mr. Jamali stronger center of power in Pakistan as new Chief of Staff would prefer to replace Gen. Pervez Musharraf. It is time for Pervez Musharraf to go. The Agra Summit of Pervez Musharraf and Atal Behari Vajpayee failed because he feared that America would withdraw its support to his regime if he agreed for India-Pakistan détente. Gen. Pervez Musharraf after engineering the military coup of 12 October 1999 increased the interference in Afghanistan and Kashmir in pursuit of geopolitical strategic Islamic depth against Hindu India with the full consent of Saudi Arabia and the CIA, to justify his coup against Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief who had agreed to arrest Osama bin Laden to hand him over to the United States. Three major, overlapping trends are undermining President Pervez Musharraf’s long-term ability to sustain its diplomatic and terrorist overreach in Afghanistan. Firstly, the co-ordination among India, the United States and Russia to oppose Pakistan's policy to sponsor Islamic Terrorism, especially after 9/11 attacks destroyed the aura of invincibility of Islamic terrorists. Secondly, the America’s victory in Afghanistan destroyed the ideological legitimacy of Wahhabi Islamic terrorism, even when Pakistan with the consent of America provided safe-passage to Pakistan and Arab Al Qaeda terrorists, who otherwise would have lost their lives at the hands of Northern Alliance soldiers. Militarily Muslim terrorists cannot face India’s military might whenever India decides to destroy Islamic fundamentalism worldwide. Third, Pakistan could disintegrate if it attempted to divert its scarce national resources to finance Kashmir terrorism, if India raised the stakes to finance secessionist forces in Balochistan and Pashtunistan. Pakistan's deteriorating economy and social fabric ruled out Islamabad's staying power to wage covert operations in India, if India retaliated by India-financed covert operations in Pakistan. Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s regime confronts a dilemma: the more manpower and resources Pakistan squanders on its hopeless quest for Islamic insurgency in Kashmir, the more Pakistan will exacerbate all above three trends. Anti-terrorism international measures and explosion of domestic separatist forces would isolate and weaken Pakistan. Rise of India and decline of Pakistan will force Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali to undertake agonizing reappraisal and shift in Pakistani policy towards India otherwise Pakistan would into the uncontrolled downswing into chaos and collapse inside Pakistan itself, which would result in the secession of Pashtunistan and Balochistan.


(3) India China Alliance

United States misused Indo-US détente to develop military bases in Pakistan. Into-US détente did not result in Indo-Pak détente, while Sino-Indian détente would result in Indo-Pak détente. Indo-Pak détente would occur whenever Sino-Indian détente became a reality. India should develop closer ties with China, prior to developing closer ties with Pakistan. While Indo-US ties worked counter to Indo-Pak détente, the Sino-Indian détente would have positive influence over Indo-Pak détente. India should invite China for a dance to tempt Pakistan join India and China into three-way dance to harness the oil resources of Caspian Central Asia and to assert role of Asia’s land powers in Southeast Asia and Arabian Gulf.


India should explain to Pakistan that India could develop defense ties with China to jointly exploit the Caspian oil and gas resources, and Pakistan should work towards Indo-Pak détente. Pakistan should realize that rather than becoming a Lap Dog of Saudi Arabia and America, Pakistan could join as equal in the India-Pakistan-China Defense Pact to jointly project the power of the brown and yellow races over the oil-rich Caspian Central Asia and Arabian Gulf. The appointment of Pakistan’s ambassador to China as new Pakistan’s ambassador to India signaled that India-Pakistan conflicts would become Indo-Pak détente whenever Indo-China détente became reality. Indo-US détente would work counter to the Indo-Pak détente, but Sino-Indian détente would promote Indo-Pak détente and translate into Sino-Indo-Pak Détente, because Sino-Indian detente based on the common oil interests in the Caspian Central Asia and Arabian Gulf.


Sino-Indian Defense Treaty if materialized would usher in the Asia’s 21st Century. India should present the new generation leaders of China epoch-breaking diplomatic proposals to cement India-China détente, as Chinese leadership had been is realist enough to catapult from enemy relationship to strategic alliance relationship. Dr. Henry Kissinger transformed America’s relationship with China that fought direct war with United States in Korean War and caused the defeat of United States in the Vietnam. China secured Most Favored Nation’s status with United States, even after it fought Vietnam War and Korean War with United States. Chinese President Hun Jintao mulling over Indian proposal for cooperation between navies of India and China to check piracy in South China Sea, which could some day translate into India-China Naval Defense Pact. There has been no immediate response from the Chinese leadership to a radical proposal made by the Defense Minister, George Fernandes, that Indian and Chinese naval forces should cooperate in anti-smuggling and anti-piracy measures. Mr. Fernandes apparently won the hearts of the Chinese by persisting with his April 20-27 ’03 visit despite the overwhelming threat of SARS, left his hosts mulling over the suggestion India-China Naval Pact to combat piracy in South China Sea. The Chinese system of decision-making was not geared to giving spot reactions to proposals.


The Congress Party couldn’t develop closer ties with China because the Congress Party’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was the architect of India’s military debacle in 1962. The subsequent Congress governments failed to develop India’s military deterrent to compete with China to the chagrin of Indians. The last Indian Prime Minister to visit China was P.V. Narasimha Rao in September 1993 when the two countries signed an agreement on the maintenance of peace and tranquility along the Line of Actual Control on the border. An expert group to help the Joint Working Group (JWG) on the boundary question was also set up. Of course, the 1988 visit of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, saw the real breakthrough in bilateral relations when the two countries decided to set up the JWG on the boundary question and agreed that the border dispute should not hold up progress in other areas of the relationship.


(4) Pakistan is habitual Liar

India should not complain like a woman when Pakistan violated its commitments because is the nature of Pakistan to lie and India can do nothing about it. It would be stupid on the part of Indian government to believe what Pakistani leaders say, but believe only what they do on the ground. India cannot trust the words of Pakistani leadership. India can force Pakistan to accept India-Pakistan détente by developing closer political, economic and military ties with Afghanistan and the neighboring Iran, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The road to an Afghan peace proceed through two challenging rings: an inner ring of conflict among various Afghans ethnic groups, plus an outer ring of nations maneuvering for influence against each other inside Afghanistan. The two rings overlap. NATO use Afghan factions as surrogates to serve competing objectives of the West in the Caspian region. Important geopolitical incentives and disincentives motivate foreign powers, Western powers, India and Pakistan to prevent America’s monopoly over Afghanistan to the exclusion of other powers in Afghanistan.


Muslim’s Right to Lie in a Good Cause

President Zia Ul Haq told President Reagan that Muslims have a right for good cause. India should never believe when Pakistan said that it would stop terrorist infiltration into Indian Kashmir. India should accept that Pakistan has a right to lie about its involvement in Kashmir as Pakistan could successfully hide Pakistan’s direct military involvement in Afghanistan after the 1988 Geneva Accords that prohibited Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan. India has no right to blame Pakistan for lie, when it had been the consistent policy of the military rulers of Pakistan to lie whenever they could to promote Pakistan’s national interests. Former US Secretary of State George Shultz wrote in his memoirs about an exchange between then President Reagan and Pakistani military dictator Zia Ul-Haq sometime before the 1988 Geneva Accords that led to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. President Zia Ul Haq called President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan asked Gen. Zia how Pakistan would handle the fact that Pakistan would be violating their agreement, if they continued intervention in Afghanistan after the accord. Gen. Zia replied that Pakistan would just lie about it. 'We've been denying our activities there for eight years.' President Reagan recounted, Zia told him that, 'Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause'. "Zia's policy of denial continued into the post-Soviet period, when Pakistan replaced the Soviet Union as the major outside power attempting to establish its hegemony inside Afghanistan.


34(5) Sino-Indo-Pak Oil Interests

(1) Indo-Pak Oil Diplomacy

India as well as Pakistan stood to gain greater influence over oil-rich Caspian basin and Arabian Gulf in the aftermath of Indo-Pak détente. India should explain to Pakistan that Indo-Pak détente would allow India as well as Pakistan share in the imperial legacy of pre-Partition Indian Empire in the Arabian Gulf region and Iran. Due to the India-Pakistan conflict neither India nor Pakistan able to exercise its historical legacies of Indian Empire that exercised Gun Boat Diplomacy in the Persian Gulf and governed Arabian Gulf as the Indian Lake, where Navy of the Indian Empire reigned supreme and Indian Rupee was the official reserve currency of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Trucial States, Iran, Muscat & Oman, and Yemen. India Pakistan détente would become a reality if India accepted Pakistan’s legitimate claim to be the New Caliph of Islam. India should encourage Pakistan play assertive political and military role in oil-rich Arabian Gulf. Arab world The Kashmir conflict can be sidelined if India offered imperialistic pact to Pakistan that allowed Pakistan its dream for gaining custody of Islamic holiest cities of Mecca & Medina as the New Caliph of Islam.


The Kashmir Conflict between India and Pakistan can be resolved once leaders of India and Pakistan realized that England created Pakistan to create a geographic wedge between populous India and oil-rich Iran, Kuwait, Trucial States and Iraq, which continued to be controlled by British oil colonialism even after 1947, but were controlled by Indian empire before 1947. Had 1945 Indian Naval Mutiny succeeded, Indian Empire would have remained united to include Burma, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Aden and Kuwait. Muslims as well as Hindus played important role in the 1945 Indian Naval Mutiny and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose led Indian National Army that fought Allied Powers in Singapore, Malaysia and Burma. India was partitioned because India didn’t have violent freedom struggle. Prominent Muslim leaders rejected the Two Nation Theory and the concept of Pakistan based on religion, e.g. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and etc. Mahatma Gandhi promoted Mohammed Ali Jinnah as the sole leader of Indian Muslims even when he had no supporters among Hindustani Muslims. The Two Nation Theory propagated by British oil colonialism took roots in India, because India did not have violent freedom struggle and many of the non violent Cold Blood freedom fighters could be easily bribed and conned by the British colonial rulers. No hot blooded freedom fighter, whether a Muslim or a Hindu ever accepted the Two Nation theory. The Two Nation Theory propagated by Cold Blood Congressmen, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Morarji Desai. Mind you there were no fighting in the Indian Freedom Struggle, as we like to call it, although the transfer of power was more the result of war exhaustion brought upon the British Empire as a result of two world wars.


(2) Oil Colonialism Partitioned India

England’s oil interests in Iran partitioned India and created Pakistan and Saudi oil interests stroked the flames of Islamic terrorism in Kashmir. However, the oil interests of Turkmenistan Pakistan India oil/gas pipeline would cement the Indo-Pak détente. Oil in the past divided India and oil in future would reunite Indian Subcontinent. India can improve its relations with Pakistan by arguing that England sowed the seed of Muslim separatisms to keep India out of the oil-rich Iran, Iraq and Arabian Gulf, even when Arabian gulf and Persian Gulf had been Indian Lake throughout 18th, 19th and first half of 20th centuries. India and Pakistan can become friends and albeit allies when they realize that as late as 1965, Indian Rupee was the reserve currency of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Oman and Indian Rupee Zone rivaled US Dollar zone and British Pound Sterling zone. After 1857, through the instrument of the Congress Party the Christian Britain introduced the virus of religious communalism to destroy the concept of united Mughal Indian Empire, replaced it with the competing interests of various religious and ethnic groups. David Hume started the Indian Congress Party after the 1857 War of Independence and introduced the religious communalism as a mobilization factor that allowed the Middle Classes to capture political and economic power peacefully. There was no religious communalism in India. Both Muslims and Hindus espoused equal loyalty towards the concept of united Greater Indian Empire, even when there were many independent Maharajas and Rajas in India. Communalism based on religion emerged as a factor, emerged only after 1857 when the Hindu middle classes and business classes saw in introduction of Western Democracy and Competitive examinations, an opportunity to grab power without fighting a battle. It all started from the three coastal cities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras with the highest number of educated Indians dominated above all by the Bengali Hindus who were the first to enjoy the fruits of Western Education by virtue of being colonized by the British before all other parts of India. I will quote some statistics to reveal the Bengali Hindu dominance in education over all other parts of India.


Muslims didn’t partition India, as England partitioned India to safeguard its oil interests in Iran and Iraq and Kuwait. Muslims didn’t vote for the formation of Islamic State of Pakistan in 1947, when English Christians partitioned India and created artificial State of Pakistan to create a buffer state between Great Power India and the militarily vulnerable oil-rich Islamic states of Iran, Iraq and Kuwait.


(3) New Caspian Great Oil Game

Kashmir crisis became irrelevant issue in the age of New Great Game of Caspian oil and gas reserves. Democratically elected Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali would be more amenable for Indo-Pak détente like Nawaj Sharief, because he understood the potential of oil incomes by controlling the Turkmenistan-Pakistan oil pipeline. Nawaj Sharief agreed for Indo-Pak détente because he understood the financial bonanza of the oil and gas bonanza of the Turkmenistan. President Bill Clinton overthrew Nawaj Sharief and implanted Gen. Pervez Musharraf, because being a military officer he won’t demand too much a share of the oil profits that were to be made by the Turkmenistan-Pakistan oil pipeline. India should focus on the New Great Game rather than Kashmir while negotiating Indo-Pak détente. India can sell the idea of Indo-Pak détente to Pakistan and China, arguing that the 21st Century’s New Great Game taking place around Caspian oil and gas reserves, and Indo-Pak Détente would allow China and Russia control the expanding influence of American and the NATO in the Caspian region. Russia, the predominately Muslim Central Asian republics and China view Afghanistan as only one aspect of their own separate strategic game plans in middle Eurasia. For Moscow and the Central Asian republics, the twenty-first century's new Great Game is not taking place inside Afghanistan. Their principal strategic focus, like China's, is on the developing energy-rich East-West global transit and trade corridor north of Afghanistan connecting the dynamic economies of northeast Asia with Europe. China, Russia, India and Central Asian republics must cope with the results of the externally fuelled, inconclusive civil war underway inside Afghanistan and the disruptive export of Wahhabi Muslim terrorism and Afghan heroin drugs into Europe. Pakistan attempted to steer Afghanistan towards serving its paramount strategic goal of confronting India in South Asia.


Russia would need the support of India because only Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan support Russia in Central Asia. Only four of the eight newly independent states in the Caucasus and Central Asia are active members in the Russian-championed CIS and its collective security arm, the Collective Security Treaty (CST): Armenia, which elicits Russian military and diplomatic favoritism in its conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh (Armenia also relies on Russia as a strategic balance against its traditional enemy, Turkey); Kazakhstan, which cannot afford to alienate Russia due to its large Russian minority (35 percent) and economic ties to Russia; tiny Kyrgyzstan, also still vulnerable to Russian economic pressures; and poverty-stricken Tajikistan, a virtual Russian protectorate, torn by a three-year civil war, hobbled by a corrupt, divided government whose writ does not extend to most of the country, and host to 25,000 Russian military and border guards. Georgia and Uzbekistan sought cooperation with Untied States to become free from Russia’s predominance in the region.


India should join the GUUAM, the association of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Mondova. Russia's 'integration' pressures in Central Asia led to the emergence of GUUAM, a loose inter-state grouping whose main goal is to build the East-West global trade and transit corridor with the American help. GUUAM, as its initials suggest, is composed of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova. Romania and Bulgaria are considering joining GUUAM, and their participation would extend the GUUAM-backed East-West trade and transit corridor from the Black Sea into Europe.


Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan intend to develop a southern or western oil pipeline to transport the Azerbaijan oil reserves, without the need of Russian pipeline networks. America and Turkey have planned the $3 billion main oil pipeline (MEP) would transport Azerbaijan oil through Georgia and Turkey to Turkey's Mediterranean port of Ceyhan bypassing Russia and Iran. The MEP main oil pipeline would give great impetus to GUUAM goals of strengthening both the political independence and economic development of its member states in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Uzbekistan is the anchor of GUUAM in Central Asia. Its 23 million inhabitants comprise almost half the population of the entire Central Asian region. Tashkent has resisted the stationing of Russian troops in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan is self-sufficient in energy and food. Uzbekistan is the second-largest producer of cotton in the world. Uzbekistan ranks fourth in gold production. Uzbekistan has only 34,000-man military force. From July-October 2000, Uzbek military drove off armed Wahhabi terrorists of Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) that invaded from IMU bases in Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan. Uzbekistan would combat the Wahhabi terrorism without seeking Russian help, as the Uzbekistan would prepare to repulse any future threats of Russian neo-imperialism. Uzbekistan feared that Moscow exaggerating the threat of Wahhabi Islamist terrorism in order to re-establish Russian control of Central Asia.


Indo-Pak détente and Indo-China détente would allow India, China and Pakistan compete with Europe to gain access to the oil and gas resources of the Caspian basin countries. Russia is less effective in Central Asia as it is a weak economy unable to dangle carrots to Central Asian republics. Only the United States, India, China, Turkey, Western Europe, Japan and South Korea can provide the capital, technology and managerial skills required to exploit the economic potential along the East-West corridor. Indian, Chinese and Japanese companies are poised to offer the new Central Asia and Caucasus states access to the dynamic markets of the world.


(4) Sino-Indian Caspian Oil Interests

Pakistan must understand that India is on the expansionism mood and would be willing to share with Pakistan colonial goodies in the Central Asia rather than disintegrate India. India should explain to Pakistan that India being one of the top three world powers would rather create new oil colonies and expand than give up Kashmir to Pakistan and disintegrate India. England created Pakistan in 1947, to create a geographic wall between India and oil-rich Iran. United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan supported Islamic terrorism in Kashmir because Kashmir is India’s gateway to Central Asia. America and Saudi Arabia support Islamic terrorists in Kashmir to blunt India’s role in the oil-rich Islamic Caspian Central Asia. India should explain to its counterpart that Pakistan could gain far more revenue in oil transit fees by jointly developing Turkmenistan Afghanistan Pakistan India oil/gas pipeline than it could ever hope to make even if it had got Kashmir Valley. Pakistan could lose its leverage in China if Indo-Pak conflict allowed America control the Caspian oil and gas and forced it to flow westward and blocked its flow eastward to China or southward to India. The oil interests of India, Pakistan, Iran and China coincide in oil-rich Caspian Central Asia and conflicts with the oil interests of Russia, Europe and America. It is in the national interest of Russia that the Caspian oil and gas transported by the northbound oil/gas pipelines that Russia has developed to generate long term revenue for Russia. It is in the national interest of Turkey, NATO, EU and USA that the Caspian oil transported via westbound oil/gas pipelines and inter-connected railway networks passing through Georgia and Turkey, or Georgia and Kosovo. The eastbound oil/gas pipelines would transport Caspian oil/gas via the New Silk Road to oil-hungry China, the world’s 2nd largest economy. The southbound Turkmenistan Afghanistan Pakistan India oil/gas pipelines would transport Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan oil/gas to oil-hungry India, the world’s 4th largest economy. The Caspian oil interests and the national interests of India and China coincide in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. India, China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Tajikistan and Russia have common national interests in controlling the spread of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia financed and the CIA-sponsored Wahhabi Islamic terrorism in Asia, which ironically promoted American oil interests in the Caspian region. India should join the ‘Shanghai Five Forum’ that included Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and China. China regards Pakistan as a Geopolitical hedge, incase India-China rivalry developed into bloody geopolitical competition. China is a counterweight to Russia and America in oil-rich Caspian Central Asia. Pakistan’s Islamic terrorism could threaten China’s Xinjiang province more than it threatened Kashmir. China's geo-political interest in Central Asia steadily increased, however China wary of provoking Russia in what Moscow saw as its traditional sphere of influence. China worried about Muslim separatist sentiment among Uighurs and Kazakhs in its remote, western province of Xinjiang, where Han Chinese comprise less than fifty percent of the population. China seeks common resistance to Wahhabi terrorism, with Central Asian republics members of 'Shanghai Five' forum that included China, Russia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. China sought intelligence sharing and anti-terrorism activities with its Central Asian republic neighbors in targeting anti-Chinese Uighur and Kazakh elements in Central Asia. China feared that Pakistan-inspired radical Muslim activity could enter China via trade routes connecting southern Xinjiang with Pakistan's northern Gilgit region. Central Asian republics consider China as a model of successful transition from a centrally controlled to a market economy. China is a counterweight to Russia and America in Central Asia and a potential investor as well as customer for Caspian energy resources. China outbid Western companies and invested nearly $1 billion dollars in two Kazakh oil fields; this outlay could rise to over $4 billion dollars as the fields are developed. Beijing's China National Petroleum Corporation has signed an agreement to consider building a 2,500-mile pipeline to carry Kazakh Caspian oil across Kazakhstan to China's northeast. China’s need for oil has increased tenfold in the last eight years. China is a net importer of oil since 1993 and China’s domestic production is expected to begin declining in 2010. China developed ties with Central Asia as well as Russia and enhanced its strategic relationship with Pakistan. China regards Pakistan as a hedge against India in the event India and China, the two nuclear-armed Asian giants drift toward ever-widening geopolitical competition in Asia in the decades ahead.


Central Asia matter to American oil colonialism, because Caspian oil and gas reserves, catapulted Central Asia onto the scene of world politics and exerted a strong ripple effect on such states as Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, and India. India and China could enter into military alliance to secure their guaranteed supply of oil and gas resources from Caspian Central Asia. India and Pakistan could become closer allies to profit from the royalties that Pakistan would make from oil and gas transportation to India from Turkmenistan oil and gas fields, via the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India pipeline.


(5) Muslim Heroin Fuels Caspian Oil Game

India should realize that Arab Wahhabi terrorism just a ruse to camouflage operations of global Heroin Cartel under the garb of religious fundamentalism, just as in the past rulers of the Arab Sheikhdoms profited by gold smuggling to India. The Islamic extremism and Wahhabi fundamentalism exports Wahhabi ideology by heroin trade and Saudi Arabia controlled Wahhabi Heroin Cartel by allowing these drug cartels launder drug incomes through Islamic financial institutions. India should realize that Pakistan supports Islamic terrorism, because Pakistan’s ISI and Army earns billions by directly dealing in the global trade of heroin, after Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief and President Zia Ul Haq had officially permitted the ISI to finance its covert operations by heroin trade. The Arab Sheikhs of Dubai and Dammam, Mullahs and Wahhabi fundamentalists, Taliban, Pakistan’s Army and the ISI, Central Asian Muslim extremist movements, IMU of Afghanistan had been and continue to directly participate in the export of opium and Heroin from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Russia and Western Europe. Afghanistan opium and heroin trade finances the corrupt, criminalized economies in UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and organized crime in Russia, European Union and the United States. The Muslim extremist elements and non-religious political and military leaders in these countries directly profit by global heroin trade. The Heroin Cartel, Muslim mafia, Catholic mafia and Russian mafia have compromised the integrity of Pakistan Army, Saudi and Vatican financial institutions, NATO troops, Russian border troops, and government officials in Tajikistan, Uzbeks, Tajiks and Kyrgyz government officials. The ruling elite in these countries split drug profits through elaborate lucrative structure of vested interests, which stretched worldwide. Al Qaeda terrorists and Bin Ladin's network relied on profits of Heroin trafficking profits to finance his international terrorist operations, with the consent of the Western governments, and this continued to this date. Grassroots support for the Wahhabi fundamentalist terrorism based more on pursuing profits from the narcotics trade than with pro-Islamist sentiment. The Fundamentalist Islam’s rallies into Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan from Afghanistan in 1990’s and 2000’s followed narcotics ratlines.


34(6) Covert Operations

(1) Covert Operations are Legitimate

Nations have the legal right to launch Covert Operations against adversaries. India should not weep over Pakistan’s covert operations in Kashmir, but instead of sleeping over it India should launch retaliatory covert operations in Balochistan, NWFP and Sindh. If India lacked the Covert Warfare capabilities to either neutralize or undertake retaliatory covert operations against Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi terrorists, then India should not blame for its deficiency or inexperience in Covert Operations Warfare. Indian should acquire subversive warfare capability to match Chinese and Pakistani subversive warfare capabilities. India enhanced the Subversive Warfare capacity of Pakistan by frequently criticizing the Pakistan’s support to the Kashmiri militants. It is India’s fault not that of Pakistan if India highlighted Kashmir issue and India-Pakistan conflict as the top agenda of Indian Ministry of External Affairs. Indian government cannot blame Pakistan if Indian Ministry of External Affairs refused to invest its diplomatic assets in promoting India’s national interests in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, West Africa, and East Africa. Pakistan continued to play pro-Islamist interventionist role in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Chinese Xinjian, while India refused to play any activist political role in Central Asia, Southern Africa, Congo, Laos and Cambodia and refused to promote the interests of Hindus and Indian-origin peoples overseas. Indian Ministry of External Affairs daily hyped India Pakistan clash at the top of agenda to sabotage India’s great power role in Laos, Cambodia, Central Asia, Congo and civil war prone Africa. The Marxists lobby in the MEA working at behest of China never wanted India to flex its military, political and economic muscle in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America and thereby conspired to hype the India-Pakistan conflict to waster India’s diplomatic resources to keep India weak. India and Pakistan’s political leaders, military Junta and media talk about India Pakistan wars frequently to galvanize their electorate, so that people’s minds remain distracted from the core issues of economic growth, class exploitation economic disparity, exploitation and democratic freedom. In Indo Pak Subcontinent, the four new states of India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka and Maldives Islands were created because the British who were neither Muslim nor Hindu could convince their pet Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Muslim leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah that they get a lock on the governments of India and Pakistan because of the Partition. Had there been no partition then either a Hindu or a Muslim leader would have become the Prime Minister of united India.


(2) Specter of Pakistan’s Ethnic Separatism

India should explain to Pakistan that India has no intention to engineer the second partition of Pakistan. India should explain that Sindhi leader Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was responsible for the 1947 Partition of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, because he wanted to become the Prime Minister of West Pakistan, even when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman enjoyed majority in the Parliament. Bhutto not Indira Gandhi was responsible for the 1971 Partition of Pakistan. Nehru not Jinnah was responsible for the 1947 Partition of India, as neither Nehru nor Jinnah would have become the Prime Minister of United India. India should explain to Pakistan that its insistence that the fact that Muslims are in majority in Kashmir itself should justify the secession of Muslim Kashmir from Hindu-majority India could backfire on Pakistan if India in retaliation supported the demand that Balochistan should secede from Punjabi-dominated Pakistan because Balochs are in majority in Balochistan Province. Similarly, India could support the secession of Karachi as Mohajirs are in majority in Karachi and Sindh Province. Similarly, India could support the secession of Pathans-majority NWFP from Punjab, because Pathans have affinity with Afghans across the frontiers. India should decisively demonstrate India’s capability to engineer the secession of Balochistan and NWFP to stop the Pakistani support to the Kashmiri terrorists.


Once Islam as a religion was misused to partition India, the ethnic separatism resulted in the exploitation of the East Pakistan and Bangladesh was created, when India learning from the tricks England had played to divide and rule. Pakistan failed to survive as a single Muslim nation. The secession of Bangladesh in 1971 raised the specter of further partition of Punjabi dominated Pakistan. Balochistan, Pashtunistan and Sindh would all readily secede from multi-ethnic Pakistan whenever India applied divide and rule policy of England to weaken and partition Pakistan. The fact that Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971 and survived as new state in the 21st Century disproved the pre 1947 Congress assertion that India could not be divided into smaller states as well as disapproved the post 1947 Pakistani assertion that Islam can be the basis of a state and mere religion was a panacea for all problems.


(3) Kashmiri Insurgency Can’t Succeed

Once Pakistan’s military leaders accept that it can’t win an insurgency war against India in Kashmir then it would come around and agree to make oil money in the Caspian basin by cooperating with India. Indo-Pak détente would come about only after Indian Army could convince Pakistani Army that in terms of military strategy Pakistan should not even dream about victory over Kashmir. India should not weep over Pakistan’s support to terrorists in Kashmir, on the grounds of morality and decency. Covert operations are legal and legitimate in the modern warfare. India should militarily convince the Muslim insurgents and terrorists that they could never expect to win the war. India should demonstrate to Pakistani Army that Muslim insurgency has zero probability of success to engineer the secession of Kashmir. India can solve Kashmir insurgency problem by militarily demonstrating to the outside powers that directly or indirectly supported the Kashmir terrorists, whether United States, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia that India would retaliate deep in the Arabian Gulf to choke the support Wahhabi nations give to the Kashmir terrorists in India. The Muslim terrorists of Kashmir are financed by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia with the blessing of the CIA. United States continued to provide diplomatic support to the Muslim terrorists in Kashmir to use them as leverage to gain access to military bases in Pakistan. United States justified its military bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan by offering verbal support to the internationalization of Kashmir issue in the world forum as the internationalization of Kashmir issue would allow American military presence in Kashmir. United States provided safe passage and safe heaven to Osama bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda terrorists during and after 2001 Afghanistan War to leverage the CIA’s ties with Islamic terrorists for destabilizing Kashmir to gain influence or control over India’s policy makers. Pakistani diplomats realized that without the direct foreign intervention Kashmir insurgency would fail to cause secession of Kashmir from India. Pakistan’s game plan is to involve United States militarily in Kashmir, as Untied States intervened to destroy the secular Non Aligned Yugoslavia and Iraq. Kashmir Issue became the top subject for Indian and Pakistani diplomats and subject of numerous articles of many Indo-Pak military, historical and geopolitical journals.


India should demonstrate its military capability to crush any form of Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attacks in Kashmir to wean Pakistan away from its habit of supporting terrorist acts in Kashmir. Pakistan would stop sending terrorists to Kashmir if India could convince it that militarily it is a foolish gamble and could disintegrate if India retaliated by militarily supporting the Mohajirs for the secession of Sindh, or supported Baloch rebels to secession of independent Balochistan, or supported Pathans for secession of NWFP. To Pakistan the issue in Kashmir was simple that an insurgency in order to succeed must either be backed by armed intervention by the neighboring state or by massive financial or military aid from outside. The former was the case in Bangladesh in 1971 when the Bengalis got their country because of Indian military intervention, or it was Kuwait in 1991, which owed its re-birth to US military intervention. The latter happened in Afghanistan or Vietnam with massive US or Soviet/Chinese aid to guerilla forces, or in Spain in 1936-37 with massive German aid to Franco. Pakistan realized that whenever the insurgency was not supported military by outside powers it failed.


India should explain to Pakistan that it would be fool hardy for Pakistan to expect that insurgency could ever succeed in Pakistan. Pakistan should realize that Kashmir insurgency would never succeed because no power can dare to intervene in Kashmir. India has the military capability to defeat NATO or Chinese intervention in Kashmir. Pakistan hoped that either China or United States would militarily get involved in Kashmir insurgency. Pakistan would like United States to invade Indian as NATO forces invaded Yugoslavia and Iraq. Now lets look at the failures of various insurgencies in the 20th Century. Polish insurgency failed because no outside power supported it. The Poles revolted heroically against Russia in 1830 and 1863 but are crushed since no foreign power intervenes or exerts real diplomatic pressure on their behalf. They are overrun in 1939 and are again liberated in 1945 by the Red Army. President Bush nominated Poland as the third occupying Power to rule over a sector in Northern Iraq to help catapult Poland as the leading military power of Western and Eastern Europe. Pakistan should be told that Pakistan being too weak to engineer the secession of Kashmir should stop funding the terrorists because it would cause only more bloodshed of the Kashmiri people without any possibility of the secession of Indian occupied Kashmir and Kashmiri do not have the strength to launch Kami Kazi attacks or commit Hara Kiri. Pakistan should wait like Germany that waited from 1945 to 1988 for the unification of Germany as a result of the Ostpolitik policies of Willy Brandt. Only by peaceful diplomacy could Pakistan ever hope to get Muslim-majority Kashmir and the continued anti-India hostility would result in the secession of Balochistan, Sindh and Pashtunistan from Punjabi-dominated Pakistan if ever India decided to reply to Pakistan in the same coin.


(4) Neutralize Saudi Wahhabi Terrorists

India should convey to Pakistan that it realized that Saudi Arabia financed the Islamic militants in Kashmir while Pakistan provided the logistic support to Pashtun terrorists in Kashmir. Pakistan would continue to support Muslim terrorists and insurgents in Kashmir so long as the CIA and Pakistani Army believed they would have any chance of success, howsoever remote it may be. Indian army should convince the Pakistani military leaders that Guerrilla armies can never succeed in engineering the secession of Kashmir from India. Some people in Pakistan’s top decision-making elite mistakenly thought in the 1980s that guerrilla war or low intensity operations as presently being waged in Kashmir could solve all military and political problems of Pakistan. Only the demonstration of decisive military capability in conventional warfare as well as in Covert Operations would force the discontinuation of the Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the CIA supported Muslim terrorists in Kashmir.


India should convey to Pakistan And Saudi Arabia in no uncertain terms that continued Pakistani support to Islamic terrorist insurgency would result in the retaliation against the Wahhabi terrorists, who might meet the fate of Dagestani insurgents or Armenians or Nicaragua. India should declare in no uncertain terms its desire to defeat the Islamic insurgency, no matter what costs and repercussions. Pakistan realized that the guerrilla warfare perfected by Sivaji, the father of modern guerrilla warfare, as a savage and protracted military tactics took Maratha guerrilla warfare tactics about eighty years to succeed against Mughal armies, to create the Maratha Empire. The 20th Century’s guerrilla warfare’s history proves that guerrilla warfare had successes as well as failures. Guerrilla insurgency warfare can succeed only when it enjoyed direct support of the local people and military support of the foreign powers at the international level, otherwise it would fail. Imam Shamyl, leader of the Dagestan’s war of resistance against the Russian Czars was one of the most charismatic and brilliant leaders in the history of guerrilla war, yet Shamyl failed and died as a prisoner under house arrest in European Russia. The international conditions did not favor Shamyl’s guerrilla insurgency war and he failed despite all the valor and advantages of adverse terrain. The Basmachis also failed for similar reasons to defeat the USSR in Central Asia in the 1920s and 1930s. Biafra was yet another failure of a secessionist movement. While Dagestan’s guerrilla insurgency failed because of the lack of the foreign support, the Greek insurgency against Ottoman Empire succeeded and Orthodox Christian Greece got independence from Ottomans and established sovereign independent state of Greece as Britain directly supported their cause. But Armenian guerrilla insurgency failed to secure independence from Ottoman or Turkey’s rule as Britain and Americans didn’t support Orthodox Christian Armenia’s independence, as a result Kemalist Turks massacred 400,000 Armenians. Sandino of Nicaragua was a great guerrilla leader of Central America and he eluded the US Marines who hopelessly tried to militarily defeat him but was finally treacherously killed by the Somozas. Nicaragua remained under Somoza’s rule till the late 1970s. Local conditions favored guerrilla warfare in Nicaragua but international conditions were against it and USA determined to defeat any radical movement in Central America. The secession of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Iraq from Ottoman Empire succeeded because of the political, diplomatic and military support of the British and American oil colonialism. There is no oil in Kashmir so the Western powers have no geopolitical interest in supporting the Islamic insurgency in Kashmir.


Kurds guerrilla warfare failed to secure independence of Kurdistan in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Brave Aryan Sunni Kurds despite being morally right, ethnically homogeneous and terrain wise well placed have failed to create an independent Kurdistan. Local conditions favor Kurds but international conditions does not favor them as they are divided into three different countries and the opposition of United States the super power doomed the dream of Kurdistan. There is no ethnic group in the Middle East than warrior race of Kurds that produced Saladin, but all the valor and sacrifice of many decades has so far not brought them any success, because Western powers opposed the secession of Aryan Kurds as after gaining Kurdistan, the Kurds would become the dominant force of the Middle East and could challenge the military leadership of Semite Israel in the Middle East.


(5) India can defeat Insurgents

India should explain the fate of foreign inspired insurgencies in other parts of the world to convince Pakistan that it would lose more than it would gain by pursuing this disastrous path. Pakistan should realize that India can defeat insurgents in Kashmir just as British forces and Gurkhas defeated the communist insurgents in Malaysia in the 1960s, and Communist China’s support failed to secure victories for the Communist insurgents in Malaysia. Communist insurgency in British colony Malaya is yet another example of failure guerrilla insurgency. Malaysia’s distance from Mainland Communist China, ethnic composition of the local population and international involvement doomed the cause of the extremely brave, motivated and tactically sound, Chinese Communist guerrilla warriors of Malaysia.


Pakistan could pay a heavy price for supporting Islamic insurgency in Kashmir, based upon its misguided interpretation of the victory of Afghan Mujahideens against Soviet troops, just as Che Guevera paid by his life for drawing wrong conclusions for Bolivia, based on the success of Cuban revolution. Che Guevera an extremely charismatic and brilliant guerrilla leader is yet another example of failure in guerrilla wars. Che drew wrong conclusions from the successes of the Cuban revolution and paid it with his life while trying to bring a similar revolution in Bolivia through guerrilla war. The ethnic logistic as well as internal conditions of Bolivia were different from Cuba and did not favor guerrilla warfare. The population was largely Mestizo (Red Indian/European mixed) and was far more conservative than Cuba. Distance from main external base country was so great that logistically it was difficult to support Che Guevara’s brilliant war from outside. India can woo Pakistan away from supporting Muslim terrorist insurgents in Kashmir arguing that the Kashmir’s Muslim terrorist insurgents would meet the fate of Dagestan’s Shamyl, Turkey’s Armenians, Kurds etc. Sensible Pakistani military leadership should be shown the specter of military defeat of Pakistani inspired terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan should compare the Kashmiri terrorists and Pakistani military intelligence officers with figures like Che Guevera, Shamyl and Barzani. What is the intellectual caliber and what is the motivation of Pakistani officers working in the ISI secret agencies dealing with Kashmiri guerrilla forces fighting a war of secession in neighboring India? Pakistani army’s best lot doesn’t serve in the ISI intelligence agency, which periodically performed despicable task of petty spying and Heroin drug trafficking rather than any grand strategic intelligence work. Pakistani terrorists and ISI operatives would never succeed in engineering the secession of Kashmir from India, where Che Guevera, Shamyl and many other extremely brilliant motivated and brave leaders failed to achieve the secession. Back in the 1980s Pakistan drew the wrong conclusions from the Afghan Guerrilla war, and Afghan’s victory was mistaken as the success of Islam over Godless Communism. In reality Afghan’s victory against the Soviet troops was the success of a multi-billion dollar CIA sponsored war.


(6) Kashmir is Not Afghanistan

India should explain that in military terms Kashmir is not Afghanistan and Pakistan would have to pay a very heavy price. Kashmir is not Afghanistan by any definition and the growth of militancy in Kashmir is the result of a complicated series of historical processes. It is not simply a case of Islam versus Hinduism but a case of a history of disillusionment of a particular Kashmiri ethnic-religious group with India’s central government, which had earlier lavished Kashmir State with Art. 356 and increasingly bestowed provincial autonomy to a point where a conflict situation was created where the Kashmiri perceived that their ethnic as well as religious right to kill Hindus in Kashmir as they pleased, because for domestic political compulsions Hindu majority would not dare to strike back and hold them responsible for the genocidal acts against Hindus the Muslim terrorists committed in Kashmir, to the open knowledge of the world. Since the very survival of Kashmiri Hindus is at stake the very survival of the pro-right Hindu government in Delhi was at stake unless Hindu-majority secular government at Delhi struck back with overwhelming force to neutralize the foreign terrorists without jeopardizing the democratic process in Kashmir.


India can check the Pakistan-inspired terrorism by explaining to Pakistan in blunt language that BJP-led pro-Right Hindu secular Party would not turn a blind eye to the rape of Hindu women and murders of Hindu men and women at hands of Muslim terrorists in Kashmir as had happened in the past during pseudo-secular governments. Pakistan should be told in very clear terms that Hindu India would retaliate against the perpetrators of the murders and rapes of Hindus with overwhelming force at the time and place of its choosing. India should convince that India could engineer the second partition of Pakistan if it continued to support terrorists in Kashmir that commit murders of Kashmiri Hindus and rape Hindu women and girls. This was largely a result of the Indira Gandhi era when India was transformed from a relatively secular progressive state into a pseudo secular but essentially pro-Islam Hindu bashing pro-Communism secular state with a most negative tendency to destroy Hindu religious autonomy. The Kashmir struggle in this sense has a very little similarity with the East Pakistani struggle against West Pakistani domination, and the principle difference being that the Punjabi Pakistani army men raped and terrorized Bengalis who were also Muslims, and in Kashmir the foreign Wahhabi terrorists murder Kashmiri Hindus and rape Hindu girls in Kashmir in Hindu-majority India. Pakistan supported the pro-Khalistan Sikh guerrilla force in Pakistan after they learnt that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had nurtured and financed the leader of the Sikh terrorism, Sant Bhindrawala to dislodge Akali Dal from power in Punjab. Just as pseudo-secular Indira Gandhi encouraged her protégé Sant Bhindrawala to murder Punjabi Hindus and Akali Dal supporter Sikhs in Pakistan to further her political agenda in Punjab, Pakistan deducted that Congress Party and other pseudo-secularists in India would extremist Muslim leaders even when they failed to condemn or supported the rape of Kashmiri Hindu girls and women in Kashmir at hands of Muslim terrorists. Pakistan thought that pseudo-secularists would not dump their support to the fundamentalist Islamic leaders in Kashmir even when they indirectly consented to the rape of Hindu women at the hands of Muslim terrorists, to secure their electoral support to the Congress Party in the elections.


India should remind Pakistan that Indian Muslims are loyal Indians, including Kashmiri Muslims. Pakistan must remember that the same Kashmiri Muslims betrayed thousands of infiltrators from Pakistan to the Indian Army in 1965. The same Kashmiri Muslim in 1965 viewed India or to be more specific India’s Federal Government differently than it does now. The difference between 1965 and 1999 or 2000 is not about Kashmiri being good or bad Muslims but a radical transformation in Kashmiri Muslim perceptions about India’s Hindu identity and the murders and rapes of Hindus unleashed by foreigner Kashmiri terrorists, financed and nurtured by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The conflict is essentially between centrifugal tendencies in an ethnically and religiously divergent province made further intense by terrorist attacks, murders and rapes carried by Saudi Arabian and Pakistani Wahhabi terrorists. But then Pakistan must remember that in savage war between ethnically different but religiously same West and East Pakistanis in 1971, it was the Punjabi Pakistani Army that raped and terrorized Bengali Muslim women. Pakistani rapists raped Bengali women in 1971 and they continue to rape Kashmir Hindu women in the name of Islamic Jihad in 2003.


India should defeat Pakistan in some war fought somewhere in the world to remind them of the defeat India inflicted on Pakistan in 1971, when more than 110,000 soldiers surrendered to Indian General. India should fight a war with Pakistan perhaps in the Middle East or Africa to convince them that India is no easy walkover for Pakistan. India should decisively demonstrate its military capability to convince Pakistan’s military brass that it would be foolhardy to dream Afghanistan like victory in Kashmir. Pakistan did not forget that the Kashmiri Muslims in India did not want independence but demanded more State rights and to rectify the Indian Federal Governments infringements on Kashmir’s special status relatively slowly from the 1950s and markedly speedily since the 1984 elections. The Pakistan inspired terrorism became more radical following the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan, when many extremist religious groups of Pakistani Pathan or Afghan origin diverted their energy towards Kashmir away from Afghanistan to repeat their victory formula over pagan Hindus. Many people in the highest echelons of Pakistani decision-makers thought that Kashmir could be another Afghan Jihad. The Kashmir situation unfortunately is very different from that of Afghanistan. The Kashmir war being fought there may be outwardly or symbolically a war of Islam with Hinduism in the eyes of myopic Pakistani military Junta, and in reality the issue is far graver for both the successor states of the post-1947 partition of British India, India and Pakistan, and could result in the extinction of the Islamic State of Pakistan.


Kashmir is an ironic Catch 22 situation for both India and Pakistan, which some political scientists have termed as ‘failed states’. Muslim State of Pakistan became a declared failed state when Muslim Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan. Secular State of India came to the verge of a failed state when the pseudo-secular Congress Party in its desperate attempt to win Muslim votes tolerated albeit encouraged Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in Kashmir and allowed Muslim crime syndicates to monopolize lucrative gold smuggling. The core issue till 1947 was the controversy whether religion is the basis of a nation or is geographic compactness, economic viability requirements of external Defense and abstract ideas like democracy and secularism more important. The result was a compromise, India being divided as Muslim and Hindu India, while in reality Muslims were divided into Muslim majority Pakistan and India with a huge Muslim minority. Muslim Pakistan became a failed state when even after separation from Hindu-majority India it failed to find leadership role in the Semite Arab Muslim world in the Middle East, even when many Muslims regarded Pakistan as the new Caliph of Islam, hence the legal custodian over the Islamic Holy cities of Mecca & Medina. All the Muslim Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Afghans that emigrated to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE realized to their dismay that Arabs called Pakistanis as Hindi the term they used to describe Indians.


(7) Promote Secession of Balochistan

India should offer to Pakistan that it would accept the right of Pakistan to aid and support Muslim terrorist insurgents in Kashmir, provided it agreed that India also had the similar right to finance and arm the insurgents in Balochistan and NWFP. India should retaliate against Pakistan by engineering the secession of Balochistan as bargaining tool to force Pakistan discontinue its support to Muslim terrorists in Kashmir. India should accept that any nation including Pakistan has the right to finance foreign insurgents to promote subversion and civil strife. India should not challenge the right of Pakistan to aid, support and finance covert operations in Kashmir. India can force Pakistan to stop aid and assistance to Islamic terrorists in Kashmir, otherwise India would finance and support the secession of Balochistan from Pakistan and acquire direct access to the Turkmenistan Balochistan oil and gas pipeline. American oil colonialism will engineer the secession of Balochistan from Pakistan to secure direct seaport access to the southward Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Balochistan oil and gas pipelines. Balochistan became the weak spot for Pakistan and very likely Balochistan would secede from Punjabi-dominated Pakistan, so that it might federate with Afghanistan to provide direct sea port access at Gwadar to the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan oil and gas pipelines. Balochistan’s geopolitics favors guerrilla warfare, and local conditions favored the guerrillas in Balochistan in the 1970s but without the support of India, international conditions worked towards their defeat at the hands of Pakistani Army that used Air Force to bomb Balochistan rebels. Baloch guerrilla warriors are indomitable men who were superior in minor tactics than any Afghan Mujahideen group. Balochistan would secede from Pakistan and join into confederation with Afghanistan and Turkmenistan to provide uninterrupted seaport access to the oil-rich Central Asian Islamic countries. Baloch tribesmen failed in 1970s to secede from Pakistan not because they lacked valor or because of tactical incompetence but simply because important neighboring country India did not actively help them.


India could force Pakistan end support to Kashmiri terrorists by explaining to Pakistani military Junta about the dissatisfaction and oppression endured by Baloch, Sindhi, Mohajir and Pathan minorities in Punjabi-dominated Pakistan, which Hindu India might exploit to engineer the second Partition of Pakistan. After independence the people of India voted for the Congress Party and people of Pakistan voted for the Muslim League, motivated by vague hopes, unrealistic expectations and impractical ideals. The imposition of Punjabi dominated military dictatorships in Pakistan by the CIA-inspired military coups, shattered the dreams of Baloch, Sindhi, Pathan, Mohajir and Bengali Muslims in Pakistan. Secular or supposedly secular Bharat did not bring prosperity for millions of Indians whether Hindu or Muslim. The class that did the best was the middle class, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh that had most shamelessly collaborated with the British and had little to do with any tangible or concrete anti-British actions. Similarly a pure Muslim government in Pakistan did not save the Pakistani Muslim, Baloch or Bengalis from genocide, discrimination and persecution. The Baloch or Bengalis soon discovered that their new masters were far worse than Outram Sandeman, Jacob or even Clive and Warren Hastings. The new rulers of Indo-Pak were little different from the oppressive Aurangzeb or the Colonial British. Ironically the partition of India was justified with the constitutional rationale that “if India was not divided the Hindus would use a Hindu controlled and dominated army to discipline Muslim provinces. But the Baloch and Bengalis discovered that the Butcher of Balochistan or Bengal Tikka Khan was not a Hindu but a Muslim.


Kashmir issue is more sentimental than substantial and any secession of Kashmir will trigger a process of Balkanization of the Indian subcontinent, which will affect both India and Pakistan. Even if India agreed to withdraw from Kashmir, an impossible dream, India will resort to measures to redress the balance by encouraging separatism in any of Pakistan’s ethnically diverse provinces. Pakistan must not forget that Pakistan is also a multi- ethnic state with very brutal insurgency record in Balochistan, NWFP tribal region and East Pakistan. Poverty and inflation is growing in Pakistan in unprecedented manner and if a Pakistani Muslim youth can become a Jihadi, he can also become an ethnically motivated secessionist. History is not constant and it does not move in straight lines. If there are high mountains in Kashmir there are even higher mountains in the northern areas in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and even more barren and desolate ones in Balochistan. Sindh has been a historically turbulent province whether it was the Talpur times or the Hur Rebellion, the MRD Movement or the MQM Urban guerrilla business. And what does Pakistan has to offer to the Indian Kashmiri, besides four successive and phenomenally corrupt democratic ministries and four military governments, the first three of which hopelessly failed to solve the country’s economic or constitutional problems and the second one leading to the country’s dismemberment. The fourth one’s performance will vindicate its place in history if it steers Pakistan out of 2000 in face of an intensely complicated geopolitical situation. It is an open question but one which only a prophet can answer, and subcontinent’s history has ample proofs of mediocrity at the decision making bureaucracy’s highest level in both the countries.


34(7) Clean History’s Baggage

The concept of Pakistan based on the Two Nations Theory. The concept of Bangladesh based on Small States Theory. The history of the 1947 Partition of India is the root cause that bedevils India Pakistan relations. Muslims blame Hindu leaders for the Partition, and Hindus blame Jinnah for the Partition. India Pakistan would become close friends albeit military allies if the historical riddle is solved: Whether Jinnah or Gandhi or Nehru was responsible for the Partition. The problem of India Pakistan conflict including the conflict in Kashmir directly related to the question of the 1947 Partition of India. Muslim Pakistani historians blame Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru for the Partition of India and argue that Mohammed Ali Jinnah had no option but to demand the separate State of Pakistan. Indian historians on the contrary put the entire blame for the Partition of India on Mr. Jinnah and argue that Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru did all they could to avert the Partition of India. Pakistan would neither join the Indian Confederation nor develop closer India Pakistan détente if Muslims believed that Hindus blame Muslims and Jinnah for the Partition of India. India should openly challenge the Two Nation Theory to undermine the legitimacy of Pakistan. India should also challenge the legitimacy of Small Nation Theory to declare that India would never accept the further disintegration of Pakistan. India should explain to Pakistan that 1971 secession of East Pakistan caused by the political ambitions of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto not by the machinations of Indira Gandhi. India should explain to Pakistan that American Oil colonialism partitioned Pakistan in 1971, because Halliburton & CO had discovered huge gas fields in offshore East Pakistan. India should explain that American oil interests might demand that Balochistan might secede from Pakistan and join the Central Asian confederation of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to provide direct Sea outlet to the Central Asian oil-producing countries. India should explain that Pakistan would face secession of Balochistan if it continued covert operations in Kashmir. India wants peace with Pakistan but should be ready for a war with Pakistan in foreign territories. India should reject Two Nation Theory as well as Small Nation Theory. India should offer that Indo-Pak détente could lead to the reunification of Bangladesh with Pakistan if United Pakistan agreed for confederation relationship with India. Many observers feel that Pakistan might agree to join Indian Confederation if it allowed the unification of Pakistan and Bangladesh. India should not oppose the unification of Pakistan and Bangladesh, as it would kill the Small State Theory. Once the Small State Theory gets killed the Two Nations Theory would die a natural death.


(1) Geopolitics of History Writing

History of Pakistan was written by the stooges of the Military dictators that justified the military coups as continuation of the struggle of Muslims of the Subcontinent. History of India written by the socialists and secularists, solely blamed Jinnah for Partition, and gave clean chit to Mahatma Gandhi as well as Pandit Nehru. The history of Bangladesh written by advocates of Small State Theory that promoted ethnic separatism to create Bengal only state. The history books of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should undertake an impartial fresh look at the 1947 Partition of India and 1971 Partition of Pakistan. We can create new South Asia by rewriting history of South Asian States, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.


New history writing would resolve the India Pakistan conflict and pave the way for Indo-Pak détente. The history books in India and Pakistan should be rewritten to be impartially answer the question: Who was responsible for the Partition of India, Gandhi, Nehru or Jinnah? Hindu government of India should explain to Pakistan that new Hindu writers of Indian history agree with many Pakistani historians view that Gandhi and Nehru were no less responsible than Jinnah for the 1947 Partition of India. Muslim rulers of Pakistan would never be comfortable with Hindu leadership of India, if they believed that Indian Hindus blamed Jinnah only and failed to blame Gandhi and Nehru for their role in the Partition of India.


The new history writing and new geopolitics would be the foundation of the new India-Pakistan détente. Prime Minister Vajpayee should start its Summit meeting with Prime Minister Jamali by understanding each other’s geopolitical perspective, as geopolitics and history writing caused most the misunderstandings. The geopolitics has historical ramifications and history writing has geopolitical ramifications and history of national geopolitical thoughts affect the history of nations and thereby history of the world. The job of geopolitics and diplomacy is to formulate foreign policy after making analysis of current geopolitical and current affairs issues related to Pakistan that affected India’s global role as one of the world’s top three world powers.


Diplomats in India as well as in Pakistan have a certain amount of conviction that there are certain psychological hang ups, and certain historical tunnel vision which in Diplomats opinion have contributed, a great deal in adding fuel to fire in the India-Pakistan relations that prohibited India playing its diplomatic role as global power and prohibited Pakistan playing its role as the Caliph of Islam in the Islamic world. The distorted understanding of the lessons of 20th century’s history of India & Pakistan resulted in the harmful foreign policies that harmed the national interests of Hindu India as well as Muslim Pakistan. The Muslim League led Islamic government of Pakistan and Bhartiya Janata Party led Hindu government of India, should formulate India Pakistan policies on a clean slate, realizing that perpetual India Pakistan animosity helped westernized military dictatorships in Pakistan and rule of so-called secular Congress Party in India after independence. Mortals are frail creatures vis-à-vis the forces of history which diplomats and political leaders attempt to approach, understand and analyze in their own tunnel visions to formulate day to day foreign policy, and in the process Diplomats become subjective and passionate, and continue the bad foreign policies, even when these policies proved to be counter productive and harmed the national interests of both the adversaries.


The role of journalists, writers of diplomatic briefs and negotiating diplomats should be to rise above their impulses and historical bias and to infuse some rationality, geopolitical objectivity and sense of South Asian civilization’s destiny, so that world leaders like Prime Ministers Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali could succeed in leaving their strong imprint on history by normalizing India’s relations with Pakistan and India. It is appropriate to say that many of the post-1947 bilateral policies among, India, Pakistan and China, were made on irrational based and majority of the diplomats of these three neighbors were irrational, and they continued to pursue old diplomatic postures, even when these policies were found to be hollow, counter-productive and against their national interests. One typical but vulgar approach in diplomacy is to condemn the motives and policy formation of the adversary nation State, without bothering to analyze the various factors that led the frail diplomat of that adversary to repeat rotten old policies, even when these policies harmed the national interests he vowed to protect and promote. Indian diplomat could persuade the Pakistani diplomat or Chinese diplomat to change the direction and approach of their national policies towards India, by explaining to them that radical change in their foreign policy posture towards India would promote rather than harm their national interests. India should seek Indo-Pak détente based on the new geopolitics rather than on the personal chemistry of the leaders.


(2) Gandhi Nehru Responsible for Partition

India Pakistan would get a great boost if Indian diplomats willing to accept that Gandhi and Nehru were as much responsible as Jinnah for the 1947 Partition of India. Pakistani diplomats should accept that the personal ambitions of Jinnah and Nehru partitioned India in 1947, just as the personal ambitions of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto caused the partition of Pakistan and created Bangladesh in 1971.


India should explain to Pakistan that Indian Hindus do not hold Hindustani Muslims responsible for 1947 Partition. India can solve the India Pakistan stalemate by accepting that Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were more responsible for the partition of India than any other Hindustani Muslim leader, including M.A. Jinnah. So long as India accepted that partition of 1947, represented the will of the Indian Muslims, it kept alive the option of Kashmiri Muslims to opt out of India. Hindustani Muslims and UP Muslims supported Congress Party not the Muslim League as late as 1937. Under instruction of English rulers Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru refused to give 2 seats in UP Cabinet, to force Hindustani Muslims into the Muslim League led by Jinnah.


Foolishness of Nehru to give two more Cabinet seats to Muslim League in the 1937 government caused all the problems. The Muslim League founded in 1906 was on the other hand a Muslim feudal dominated party with its base in UP till at least 1937. In 1937 Nehru foolishly antagonized the UP Muslims who dominated the Muslim League by not offering them any seat unless they left the Muslim League. It was just a question of two seats in the UP Cabinet over which the Hindustani Muslims decided to stand behind Jinnah. Pure Punjabi intellectuals like S. M. Ikram have admitted that Muslim separatism had its origin in the Muslim minority provinces, and that too primarily UP. It is no accident that Mahatma Gandhi fooled Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad to abstain voting during crucial votes to decide whether NWFP region remained with India or Pakistan. Pathans wanted to join India and hated to be part of Pakistan. Mahatma Gandhi was instrumental in handing over Khulna to Pakistan, even when Khulna district declared a part of India by the Commission.


Jinnah, Gandhi and Nehru belonged to the same Cold Blood faction of the Congress Party. Jinnah was totally opposed to any form of violence to seek independence from British. Mr. Jinnah broke away from Congress not over Hindu Muslim issue but over use of violence as a policy to evict the British from India. As late as 1937 Mr. Jinnah described Punjab, which became the cornerstone of Pakistan in 1946 as a hopeless place, which he shall never again visit. Mr. Gandhi and other cold blood Congress leaders expelled hot blood congress leaders from the Congress party. Gandhi and Jinnah both belonged to cold blood Congress Party. 


Majority of Muslims opposed the Partition. Only 10 % of the population of India was eligible to vote in the 1935 Elections and out of these less than half did not vote. The situation was not much different in 1947.


“Muslim separatism which finally led to the division of India in 1947 was not something inevitable, but was a tactical response of the Indian Muslim middle and higher classes to fear of Hindu Brahmin and Kayastha class domination, a valid response but one, which sadly lacked the required great vision.”


(3) Rewrite History for Indo-Pak Detente

New history writing would create a new South Asia. False historical bias and prejudices and wrong geopolitical perceptions cloud Indo-Pak diplomacy. Pre-1935 history has little impact on the Indian Hindu diplomats, while pre-1857 history and Afghan invasions of Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali continue to impact foreign policy of Pakistan. India diplomats must understand the historical perspective of Pakistani diplomats to explain to their counterparts that Indian Hindus do not hold Hindustani Muslims responsible for the 1947 Partition of Indian Empire. Indo-Pak détente would become a reality only after Hindu Indians accepted the fact that Nehru and Gandhi were more responsible for the partition of Indian Empire than Jinnah. Pakistan and Bangladesh would consider rejoining India to form South Asian Federation only when Hindus rewrite Indian history and condemn Nehru and Gandhi for partition of India as much as they condemn Jinnah for the partition. Pakistan would never be comfortable with India so long as Indian writers blamed Jinnah more than Gandhi and Nehru for the 1947 Partition of India. 


A new history needs to be written about 20th Century India, to absolve the Hindustani Muslims of any blame for causing 1947 partition of India, where Gandhi and Nehru were more responsible for the partition than Jinnah. New history books should convince Muslims of India and Pakistan that Hindus do not hold Hindustani Muslims responsible for the partition of India and that Pakistani Muslims would be welcome to join the Indian federation anytime in future. Freud had concluded that majority of men are irrational and make most of their decisions on irrational basis. Majority of diplomats of India, Pakistan and China are irrational because they lack the clear understanding of geopolitical reality especially in the new world order created by America’s conquest of Iraq. Geopolitics helps diplomats become rational and rise above misperceptions of past history. Geopolitics can infuse some rationality in at least a certain diplomats and leaders of India, China and Pakistan, representing 40 percent of mankind.


History is largely a record of crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind, historian Gibbon said. India Pakistan’s diplomatic history above all is merely the story of manipulation of the many, the populace, by the few, the leaders or the dominant smaller classes, in the name of religion, ideology, nationalism and politics, in India as well as Pakistan. The India Pakistan diplomatic history is the story of manipulation of Pakistan’s military coup leaders to impose America-supported military dictatorship justified in the name of India’s occupation of Kashmir. The CIA engineered the military coups led by Gen. Ayub Khan, Gen. Zia Ul Haq and Gen. Pervez Musharraf, so that Pakistan might not become too friendly with India, which would allow India direct land route access to the oil and gas resources of Iraq, Iran, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. It is no accident that democratically elected leaders of Pakistan, Prime Ministers Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benajeer Bhutto and Nawaj Sharief had been friendly to India, unless their democratically elected governments were overthrown the CIA-inspired military coups. The purpose of the geopolitics shall be to explain to the diplomats and the people of Pakistan that Pakistan should formulate its foreign policy towards India based on the scientific principles of geopolitics and that the semi-literate or half-illiterate religious leaders and politicians might have harmed the national interests of Pakistan by subordinating the national interests to the petty vested interests of the military regimes, religious clergy and local politicians. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee should give more credence to democratically elected Islamic Prime minister of Pakistan than to the military dictator Pervez Musharraf, even when latter happened to be a Mohajir the immigrant from India.


Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee can promote India Pakistan peace by declaring that Gandhi and Nehru were more responsible for the partition than Jinnah. Neither the military generals nor the secular Nehru could hope to become the prime minister in United India. Prime Minister Nehru purposely kept the Art. 356 so that he might lead Kashmir to secede from India in case Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose returned to India. Nehru partitioned India because in United India, neither the secular Hindu Nehru nor Kutchi Memon Jinnah could become the Prime Minster of India. Punjabi military leaders would have failed to stage military coup in United India. The Kashmir Conflict and Tibet conflict camouflaged the personal interests of the ruling elites of three neighbors. It is important that diplomats of India, Pakistan and China should realize that they as well as their adversary fooled by the Western oil interests and class interests of the ruling elites that subordinated the national gains to their personal gains. The ulterior motivation of the 1947 partition of India and the India-Pakistan wars had been the oil interests of the America and the personal or class interests of the ruling elite in India and Pakistan disguised in the garb of high-sounding slogans of secularism and Islam. There are many concrete historical examples to prove this assertion. Neither Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan, nor the Tibet conflict between India and China is intractable geopolitical conflict.


(4) Hindu - Muslim Indo-Pak detente

Pro-right Hindu government of India as well as pro-right Islamic government of Pakistan have vested political interests to arrive at Indo-Pak détente, which might get sabotaged by the vested interests of Military rulers of Pakistan and the pro-Congress and pro-Left secular socialist vested interests in India. India should explain that only a Hindu government would have the moral courage to start a new phase in India Pakistan relationship, without getting bogged down in the 1947 Partition issue.


India Pakistan conflict fueled by political compulsions of India’s secular Congress Party and Pakistan’s military dictatorships. The everlasting Kashmir conflict became the lifeline of frequent military coups in Pakistan. India should explain to Pakistan that it is in the political interest of current Hindu Indian government and Islamic Pakistani government to cement Indo-Pak détente, as both governments would get reelected because of this diplomatic coup. Only Hindu government can give concession to Muslim Pakistan and Indo-Pak détente would simultaneously promote the interests of Hindus and Muslims to ward off the invasions of the Christian fundamentalists in the Hindu and Islamic worlds. India can have better ties with Pakistan when India openly promoted Hindu interests and Pakistan promoted Islamic interests in the world. The rise of Pakistan’s stature in the Islamic world would not harm India’s national interests. India should explain to Pakistan that Hindu fundamentalists coexist with Muslim fundamentalist polity and the interests of Muslims better protected during Hindu right-wing government than during pseudo secularist governments of Congress Party and other Leftists. India should explain to Pakistan that the coalition government ruling India does not believe in the Gandhian polity of Ram Rajya and secular polity of India very similar to Akbar’s Mughal polity and Sher Shah Suri’s polity. Gandhi laid the foundation of Pakistan when he forced the Congress Party to support the Khilafat Movement. Gandhi destroyed the Mughal Muslim-Hindu ruling culture by creating the separate identity of Harijan to divide Hindus and by harping on the concept of polity of Ram Rajya in Congress Party. Gandhi alienated Muslim politicians by harping on the half-baked ideals of Ram Rajya and Ahimsa, the Hindu polity of Non Violence. Pre-Partition Muslims and Pakistan’s ruling elite justified the partition of India, arguing that Gandhi had inserted Hindu symbolism in otherwise secular Congress Politics, which made the descendants of the Mughal Empire apprehensive of their future in United India.


The Cold Blood Congressmen laid the foundations of Hindu-Muslim communal riots. Had Hot Blood Congressmen acquired political power, there would not have been any communal riots and India would have remained united. Rather than demand independence to India after the First World War as England had earlier agreed to do, Mahatma Gandhi and his Cold Blood Congress Camp sowed the seed of Pakistan by supporting the Khilafat Movement, which excluded the agenda for the independence of India. The peaceful freedom movement caused the violent bloodletting communal riots during 1947 partition of India. Led by M.K. Gandhi the Congress Party led nation wide movements to demand rights for Muslims during Khilafat Movement and failed to demand that England grant independence to India as it had agreed for India’s support in the WW I. A violent freedom movement would have made India independent after the First World War had British empire no succeeded in hiring M.K. Gandhi in South Africa, who returned to India to support the Khilafat Movement after the First World War, which even refused to demand that England should fulfill its agreement to grant independence to India in exchange for India’s support to Allied powers in the First World War.


India was partitioned because Cold Blood Congress leadership eliminated patriotic freedom fighters from the leadership of the Congress Party. Violent Civil Wars keep the nations united and non-violent Civil Wars cause more deaths by civil riots and religious riots and result in the partition of the nations. Non Violent Civil Wars of Yugoslavia partitioned multi-ethnic Yugoslavia. The Spanish Civil War of Spain of 1930s was a civil war afflicting Spain a nation with one race, one country, one religion, and one sect. The Spanish Civil War was a struggle between the feudal-clergy-military junta and the republicans asking for more equitable distribution of resources. There was no question of Two-Nation Theory based on the basis of race or religion, but the Spaniards fought savagely for three years. The Spanish Civil War and Chinese Civil War and Soviet Bolshevik Revolution didn’t result in the partition of these countries because these were bloody civil wars. The Spanish Civil War resulted in the fighting between the Republicans and Monarchists under Franco that killed 1, 600,000 Spaniards. In the Russians Civil War fought from 1917 to 1922 the casualties; killed only, were ten million. Russian killed Russians simply because one was from Denikin Kolchak or Yudenich’s White Army and another from Trotsky or Lenin’s Red Army. Even a Menshevik Communist killed another Russian simply because the other man was a Bolshevik Communist. The Chinese Civil War lasting from 1911 with uneven intervals till 1949 was equally brutal with Chinese killing Chinese in the name of an ideology conceived by a German of Jewish ancestry to liberate the workers of the world.


(5) Assert India as Educational Super Power

Pakistani leaders justified the creation of Pakistan arguing that Muslim Middle Class stood no chance to compete with better educated Hindu Brahmins and Kayasthas. India should explain that Indians are the world leaders in education and Pakistan could also become an educational power if it joined forces with India.


Had Muslims guaranteed a certain percentage of jobs, as the reservation of the scheduled classes, then Muslims would have opted for the United India, because Muslim League was primarily a Party of UP Muslims and had little mass support in West Punjab, and NWFP. Punjabi Muslims and Pathan Muslims voted for India and UP Muslims voted for Pakistan, however even after Partition, UP Muslims continued to live in India. Pakistan was created in 1947. Muslims were weak in education and couldn’t compete with Hindus in open competitive examination for Civil Service. Had there been reservation for Muslims in the government Jobs there won’t have been Partition in 1947. Francis Robinson has made a remarkable study of the UP Muslims and has proved, with concrete facts and figures that it was while defending a position of strength, during the period 1860-1923 which was threatened by introduction of local; government and the competitive examinations that the UP Muslims decided to opt for separatism, which became the basis of Pakistan Movement. The point is that all these political developments were more related to individual leaders and class interests than ideology as is propagated in India and Pakistan.


Pakistani Muslims have a grudge that Hindu Brahmins and Kayasthas leapfrogged over other castes and Muslims in Educational process and dominated the Indian Civil Services and other government jobs to the detriment of Muslims and it led to the Partition. India should explain to Pakistan that Hindu India had always been the educational super power and continued its dominance in the Software and Information age and Brahmins by tradition had been a highly educated caste. English tried to create a divide between Hindus and Muslims, Bengalis and Gujaratis, Punjabis and Gujaratis. English used Hindu Gandhi to give Hindu color to Congress Politics to make Muslims feel alienated in Congress politics. English political machine hyped the leadership of Hindu M.K. Gandhi a new comer in Congress Politics and Muslim Mohammed Ali Jinnah a new comer in politics, by providing them truck loads of hired supporters during Congress Party meetings so that the patriotic leaders from Bengal and Punjab become sidelined and denounced as Hot Blood Congress, while Gandhi and Jinnah eulogized as Cold Blood Congress. Since Muslims were the dominant ruling elite in India in 1757, after 1857 British promoted the policy of ethnic separatism to weaken the social cohesion of Indian Empire, by focusing on Hindu Brahmins in education, as Brahmins were traditionally educated class in India. From 1864 to 1885, the reader may note that this was Bengali Hindu dominance vis-a-vis other provinces which had similar Hindu majorities; thus the dominance was more provincial and ethnic than religious. From 1864 to 1885, 2,153 Indians from Bengal Province (Bengal Bihar and Orissa) passed the B. A. examination as compared to 272 from NWP and Oudh (Modern UP), while only 107 candidates from Punjab (which at that time had two large non-Punjabi enclaves in the Trans Indus territories and the Hariana Districts) passed B. A.


England purposely hired M.K. Gandhi from South Africa, a Hindu working for Muslim clients and his father had worked as Vazir of the Muslim Nawabs in Kutch Gujarat, to weaken the dominance of Bengali and Punjabi politicians. England promoted Gujarati leaders as Gujarati community in contrast to Punjabis are by nature peaceful and money minded. Kutchi Gujarati population wise and education wise was way behind Bengal. Mohd. Ali Jinnah was a Gujarati Memon Muslim a minority among Muslims and Gandhi a Gujarati Bania a minority among Hindus. England focused in undermining the dominance of Bengali culture in East India by engineering the Partition of India. The Bengalis took the lead and were viewed as a threat by the UP elite both Hindu and Muslim in the 1880s. In 1886 Pundit Ajudia Nath a leading UP Hindu made a statement before the Public Service Commission against recruitment to government posts by competitive examination since the learned Pundit felt that UP men were backward in English education compared with maritime provinces of Bombay, Madras and Bengal and candidates from UP and Punjab could stand little chance in open competition against the maritime province candidates, from Bombay and Calcutta.


(6) Decline of Punjab and Bengal

Bengal and Punjab led the freedom struggle in pre-Partition India during 20th Century and it antagonized English rulers and they specially targeted to partition Punjab and Bengal. Unification of Indian Subcontinent would catapult the Punjabi and Bengali race to the top of the political ladder in the united India. West Punjab and East Bengal seceded from India because England deliberately punished Punjabi and Bengali freedom fighters. Pakistani Muslims especially Punjabi Muslims had a grudge that the interests of the Punjabi community would have been undermined in the United India. It had been the policy of Indian Empire to keep United Punjab unindustrialized and agricultural lands, as England wanted to recruit Punjabi soldiers for the Army. India should explain that it was not the Hindu conspiracy that English rulers partitioned Bengal and Punjab to eliminate the domination of the Punjabis and Bengalis in the Freedom Movement. India can live with the domination of Punjabis in Pakistan and it does not harm India’s national interests.


The populous Punjab was as much discriminated during English rule as populous Bengal and they partitioned Punjab as well as Bengal during 1947. England recruited Gujarati Bania Gandhi and Gujarati Memon Jinnah to catapult leaders of less populated desert lands of Kutch as counterweight to popular leaders of populous Punjab and Bengal and North India. It had been a deliberate policy of the British to deny industrialization of Punjab, Northern Indian Hindi belt and Eastern India Bengal except Calcutta so that neither Punjabis nor Bengalis could claim national leadership. England hated Punjabi Lala Lajpat Rai, Sardar Bhagat Singh, Bengali Sri Aurobindo and Subhas Chandra Bose and Hindi speaking Chandra Shekher Azad. England sold the idea of separate identity to Muslims, arguing that they stand no chance in educated Hindu dominated united India. England destroyed the textile manufacturing factories of Bengal and Uttar Pradesh and established new textile factories in Gujarat and Maharastra and Jute mills in Calcutta so that the Jewish, Parsee, Gujarati and Bania capitalist class of Bombay and Ahmedabad and English and Marwari Jute and Tea industry capitalists would take the leadership away from patriotic leaders of Bengal and Punjab, which caused great consternation among the Muslims of West Punjab and East Bengal, as English deliberately did not allow any industrialization of Punjab and East Bengal. As education advanced in UP the Hindus of other provinces came closer. Being the larger community and more dominant in terms of education, business assets and representation in the professional and civil servant classes. The Bengali and Punjabi Hindus were in a position of strategic advantage to dominate post British politics of India after the British withdrew from India. Even this was a class affair since the Hindus who dominated the Congress were from Brahmin and Kayastha classes while the older Hindu dominant classes, namely the Rajputs, Jats and Marathas were then relegated to the political background by virtue of being less educated and financially insolvent or bankrupt.


(7) White Paper on 1947 Partition Riots

Only when the perpetrators of the 1947 Partition and the subsequent riots are identified and condemned or vilified that Indo-Pak rapprochement would become possible. Pakistan would be afraid to join India so long Hindus believed that Jinnah was more responsible than Gandhi and Nehru for the Partition of India and the Partition riots. Honest evaluation to the role that Viceroy Louis Mountbatton, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohammed Ali Jinnah played in the Partition of India and the deaths of millions during Partition riots where British Army remained silent spectator even in cities where there were large Cantonment, would go a long way towards India Pakistan amity and Indo-Pak détente. There is a great need for Official White Paper on 1947 Partition Riots.


India and Pakistan should set up an impartial Commission to issue a White Paper on the 1947 Partition Riots to identify who were responsible for this ghastly acts, and why did the British Army Cantonment did not intervene to protect helpless victims. India and Pakistan should explain to their people that the communal riots that broke out after the Partition in 1947 were the direct result of the conspiracy hatched by Governor General Mountbatton, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President Mohammed Ali Jinnah that ruled out the use of British forces to control communal riots in India and Pakistan. It appeared that these three leaders wanted to exacerbate the communal riots to make the artificial partition of India permanent. In this respect thus both the countries were partial failures. The 1947 Partition of India was logically a neat solution but future developments proved that things were not as simple as both Nehru and Jinnah deliberately avoided taking preventive measures to avert looming communal riots that some believe that these two national leaders might have conspired these heinous communal riots by giving misleading conflicting orders to the Army and Police. The course which future history took proved that the premises of Mountbatton, Nehru and Jinnah the three great leaders were fallacious, and these 1947 communal riots could have been averted. It raised the doubt that the present terrorist attacks in Kashmir might have the blessing of the unseen hands of those very forces that caused the 1947 communal riots, namely the Christian West, Pakistan’s military regime and the silent consent albeit support of the pseudo-secular Congress Party and Nehru dynasty.


India should realize that the communal riots deaths during 1947 Partition of India left deep psychological divide in Muslim psyche in Pakistan. India and Pakistan should publish an impartial White Paper on 1947 Communal riots to lay the foundation for the India Pakistan Détente. Leaders of India and Pakistan should sit with a clam mind and issue a White Paper on the 1947 Communal riots to identify the role Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohd. Ali Jinnah, Lord Mountbatten and Mahatma Gandhi played in the massacre of millions of innocent Hindus and Muslims die to their failure to deploy armed forces in Lahore and Amritsar as many of the communal deaths took place in Lahore the seat of the British Military Division in 1947. The communal riots of 1947 are cited as the vindication of ‘Two Nation Theory’ in Pakistan as a matter of fact. The atrocities committed by Muslim mobs on non-Muslims and vice versa, mostly in West and East Punjab were acts of a hostile mob against defenseless unarmed people who were perceived as belonging to an enemy country and thus an ideal pray for rape, loot and slaughter.


The communal riots problem of 1947 had a deeper connection with the British failure to keep a large purely British force to restrain the Indians from killing each other in a situation where no purely Indian force, whether purely Muslim or purely Hindu force could have effectively controlled the wild mobs. Both Jinnah and Nehru never foresaw the amount of carnage and slaughter that would accompany the transfer of power and partition and it is suspected they deliberately allowed the mayhem to continue so as to make the artificial Partition of India permanent. Nehru even vetoed the proposal of keeping British troops to control the mob by stating “I would rather have every village in India put to the flames rather than have the British Army after August 15.” The ironic part is that communal riots and atrocities are never wholly ethnic or even religious and they were more to deal with group perceptions regarding another group. The atrocities of the Pakistan Army in 1971 in East Pakistan when the Bengalis despite being Muslims were perceived as enemies or traitors and the official Pakistani policy endorsed all killings of Bengalis as necessary. The situation was made more emotionally charged by similar atrocities committed by Bengali mobs against Punjabis and Bihari Muslims, the non-Bengali civilians in the four weeks before the army action.


(8) Two Nation Theory -Smaller State Theory

India should debunk Two Nation Theory because Pakistan misused it to promote insurgency in Kashmir. India should debunk Two Nation Theory, as it would erode the legitimacy of Pakistan itself. India should explain to Pakistan that India does not support the Smaller State Theory and that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto not Indira Gandhi was responsible for the 1971 Partition of India. India should convey that secession of Balochistan would not be in the national interests of India, as it would entrench United States in the region. India should develop arguments to convince the fallacy of the Two Nations Theory and Smaller State Theory to undermine the ideological foundations of Pakistan.


It is in the common national interests of Pakistan and India to undermine the Smaller State Theory and jointly argue that smaller nations should join with the neighbors to form regional confederations like European Union. India should explain to Pakistan that England partitioned India to control oil resources of Iran and Iraq and the Two Nations Theory was their ideological ploy to realize the interests of oil colonialism. The terrorist problem in Kashmir is directly linked to the twin theories: the relevance of the “Smaller State Theory” and the “Two Nation theory.” India should directly debunk the “Two Nation Theory” as well as the “Smaller State Theory” to convince the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan inspired terrorists that the secession and subsequent secession of Kashmir is impossible as neither the Two nation theory nor the Smaller State Theory are relevant in the age of Supra National States, such as European Union. India should periodically espouse its support to the dream of creating Greater Indian empire to quell any dreams of the separatists that have the freedom to espouse their beliefs in the democratic process. The continued survival of Bangladesh proved that the smaller states could survive but only as the military dictatorships or as the dependency of the foreign power, namely United States. The separation of East Pakistan in 1971 and the resultant creation of Bangladesh proved that mere religion of Islam was no panacea for all political problems. That Islamic religion was an important aspect of man’s life but was not an absolute basis for nationhood of Muslim-majority states. Bangladesh further proved wrong the pre-1947 Congress assertion that India’s provinces could not survive as smaller states.


In Kashmir the issue is once again at stake. Ironically Kashmir is a vindication of the “Smaller State Theory” just like Bangladesh rather than a proof of Islamic identity as we in Pakistan are inclined to believe. Kashmir is no Afghanistan, which was an unproductive country far away from the Great Russian heartland. It has been a province of the Indian Union for half a century just like Sindh or Balochistan are provinces of Pakistan. It’s not an uninhabited desert like Sinai or something like Algeria with many hundred miles of sea in between France and Algeria. How on earth do we expect that the Indians would withdraw from Kashmir without a major war or a multi-billion dollar logistically backed hi-tech guerrilla war like Afghanistan? The morons in Pakistan who make Pakistan’s strategic decisions fallaciously imagined that Kashmir could be yet another Afghanistan, resulting in the victory of the heroin drug traders. The Pakistani men in charge of overseeing the guerrilla war do not have a fraction of the acumen of Mao tse tung, Lawrence of Arabia or Che Guevara, nor any ideological commitment of Ho Chi Min. India should explain to Pakistan that dogs should not dream of the grandeur of Lions, lest they be killed and eaten by tigers. India should warn Pakistan to eat its national pride on the issue of Kashmir, lest Pakistan forced into a humiliating political retreat, reminiscent of the 1971 surrender of Pakistani Army.


(9) Ruling Elite Unfit to Rule

India should explain to the people of Pakistan that its military leadership unfit to democratically represent the will of the people of Pakistan. India should explain to Pakistan that it holds no grudge against Pakistan as it is very likely that these problems arose because the incompetence of the ruling elite in India as well as Pakistan as both were unfit to rule so the new leadership should undo the wrongs of the past. The people of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and even China realize that India has the functioning democracy they lacked. The political system in Pakistan is no match to that of India. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief and Benajeer Bhutto envied the political stability in India and must have wished that they would be better had Pakistan rejoined India into a newer Confederation of South Asia. The military coup led by Pervez Musharraf an action of 12th October albeit necessary and decisive was taken once personal careers were under danger of termination and the situation was that of a clash of personalities rather than a clash of ideas. It would be unwise to risk the continued existence of Islamic State of Pakistan on a clash with India when Pakistan’s political leaders and military generals lack the strength of conviction and high moral integrity. Pakistani thinker accept that the danger is not that a particular class in Pakistan is unfit to govern but that every class is unfit to govern. In the subcontinent one thousand years of subjugation has destroyed the leadership qualities of all the classes that dominate the society and the secular elite continuously fool the common man in India in the name of secularism and socialism and military elite in Pakistan and continuously fool the common man in Pakistan in the name of Islamic fundamentalism. Danger is not that a particular class in Pakistan unfit to govern but that every class is unfit to govern as they depended upon the foreign agencies like the CIA to remain in power. Pakistani military writers accept that Pakistan lacked the military potential to physically invade Kashmir as well as lacked the economic potential to finance the proxy war. The foreseeable result is that the fate of the Kashmiri will be something similar to that like the Polish people of East Europe and Kurds of Asia minor.


India should explain to Pakistan that Kashmir joined India because they did not accept the Two Nation Theory, which was the very foundation of the creation of Pakistan. India should explain to Pakistan that Pakistan could not conquer Kashmir in 1947-48 and in 1965. General Ayub Khan was more a politician than a soldier. Pakistan should never expect India ever give up a piece of valuable real estate without a war, and Pakistan can never defeat India in any War. It should be stupid for Pakistan to expect that Americans would help in getting Kashmir back for Pakistan. Kashmir joined India instead of Pakistan in 1947 because of lack of appeal of the concept of Pakistan to the Kashmir Muslims and the Muslim Prime Minister of Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah.


India should explain that common man of neither Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India were responsible for the communal deaths, as these deaths were caused by the hired agents of the England. Atrocities in 1947 or 1857 or 1971 were committed because the multitude knew that there was no central coercive authority to protect a particular community, which was momentarily perceived as enemy or exploiters. Lord Roberts of Kandahar adopted a novel way of dealing with the Kabul mob in the Second Afghan War. He erected gallows in the city and hanged anyone suspected of being a potential trouble creator. The affect was positive and Kabul thereafter remained more tranquil and calm.


Even in 1947, Muslim Pakistani hated Muslim Afghans more than they hated the Hindu banias, who charged higher interest rates. In those days Pan Islamism was not yet in vogue. The Indians whether Muslim, Sikh or Hindu had different perceptions about Afghans who were much hated because of their raids on India from 1739 to 1799 as mercenaries of Persia or as Abdali’s army. During these raids these Afghans had indiscriminately looted all Indians whether Muslim Indian or Sikh. Ahmad Shah Abdali’s army was carrying from Delhi to Afghanistan was so heavy that the Akhnur bridge of boats over the Chenab collapsed while the looters baggage train was crossing it.


(10) History Affects Indo-Pak Options

History rather than religion played greater role in determining the animosities of Pakistani Muslims. It should be noted that Hindus that came from interior provinces such as Multan faced communal riots only in Lahore, the city with the large Military Cantonment, located near the borders of India.


Hindu India can develop closer ties with Muslim Pakistan historical animosity that moved Pakistani Muslims in 1947 and even today has less to do with hatred towards Hindu India but hatred towards other tribes that caused destructions in the past. Pakistanis hate Afghans more than they hate Indians. Afghans hate Pakistanis and love Indians. Afghanistan did not recognize Pakistan for many years. Had President Bush not sent troops to Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance soldiers would have butchered all surviving Pakistani and Saudi Taleban terrorists and mercenaries. In 1947 Pan Islamism was not yet in vogue. The Indians whether Muslim, Sikh or Hindu had different perceptions about Afghans who were much hated because of their raids on India from 1739 to 1799 as mercenaries of Persia or as Abdali’s army. During these raids these Afghans had indiscriminately looted all Indians whether Muslim Indian or Sikh. They should also not forget the extremist germs in the Pathan psyche. How the Hindustani Rohilla Pathans dealt with the de jure Mughal Emperor of India once they blinded him. How they made the Mughal Princes wear female clothes and dance. They should also not forget that finally Shah Alam not rescued by the Punjabi, Pathan or Afghan Muslims but by the Hindu Marathas. There is a unique true story of ethnic hatred, which has little to do with religion. This story is based on the experiences of the Ranghar Muslims of a village Chak 130 LGB or Nao Rohtak in district Lyallpur. Many serving military officers and soldiers settled in that village in the 1880s as a colonist of the newly created Chenab Colony. The settlers in that particular village were mostly Ranghar Muslims from East Punjab districts of Rohtak and Hissar. These men hailed from the old Bengal Cavalry villages like Kanar, Kalanaur, Jatu Satna and Jamalpur. Most of them in the 1880s were serving or had retired from Skinners Horse, 1st and 3rd Punjab Cavalry and 19 Lancers. They hated the Punjabi Sikhs and Muslims and Pathan Muslims who in 1857 had committed countless atrocities in Rohtak and Hissar district as part of Hodson’s Horse or as part of General Van Cortlandt’s force. Pakistani policy makers must remember is, that Pakistan’s Muslim men galvanized to do Jihad will not stop at Srinagar and their next destination that is if they survive Kashmir will surely be the Penthouses in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad.


Major (Retd) Agha Humayun Amin, published an very incisive article “Stray Reflections on Geopolitics and History Writing,’ which outlined the view point of Pakistani military rulers that Pakistan realized that military insurgency in Kashmir has no chance of success unless some major foreign powers, namely United States of China were to directly involve in Kashmir. Major Amin pointed out the historical baggage the Indian and Pakistani diplomats carry while negotiating India Pakistan relations and the divisive issue of the communal riots deaths in the 1947 Partition riots and the role of Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi in the 1947 Partition of India continued to bedevil the bilateral relations. History of India should be rewritten and the White Paper on the 1947 Partition of India and the 1947 Partition Riots would go a long way towards creating Indo-Pak amity. Many of the arguments presented in this section, represented the views of the Pakistan’s authors notably Major Amin.


34(8) Checkmate Pakistan

(1) Neutralizing Islamic Strategic Depth

India can neutralize Pakistan’s Islamic Strategic Depth by developing closer military and economic ties with Iran and closer ties with Western occupation troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan developed closer ties with Saudi Wahhabi terrorists to develop Pakistan’s Islamic depth in the region West of Pakistan to develop its covert operations capability in the East regions of Pakistan especially Kashmir. India can weaken Pakistan by developing alliance with Iran and Afghanistan and by supporting anti-Pakistan Afghan operatives. India can neutralize Pakistan’s leverage of Kashmir militants by nurturing Northern Alliance soldiers undertake retaliatory operations in Pakistani Kashmir and Balochistan. India should consider joining American Camp to deploy Indian troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The events in Afghanistan even while under American control affects India especially Kashmir. Indian diplomats must find a way to play a role in America controlled Afghanistan to neutralize Islamic terrorists that Pakistan nurtures in Pakistan-Afghanistan border regions. India should warn Pakistan that India would play Afghanistan Card by destabilizing the Pakistan’s NWFP Tribal region, much in the same manner that Pakistan exploited the Afghanistan militancy to cause civil unrest in Kashmir. India must become militarily involved in Afghanistan and Central Asia to neutralize Pakistan’s support to Kashmir militants. Afghanistan is the enemy of Pakistan. The Northern Alliance troops are mortal enemy of pro-Pakistan Al Qaeda terrorists. The mountainous regions of Afghanistan and Kashmir provide a single geopolitical ground. Pakistan wants to support Islamic terrorists to create insurgency in Kashmir. India should realize that the military objective of Pakistan is to harness the power of Islamic Mujahideens to destabilize Kashmir so that Kashmir could be destroyed like Afghanistan. President Bill Clinton authorized the military coup in Pakistan to overthrow the government of democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief because he had agreed to befriend India and arrest Osama bin Laden. After the 12 October 1999 military coup in Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf increased the interference in Afghanistan in pursuit of 'Strategic Islamic Depth' against India. The powerful Pakistani military Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) supported a "joint venture" of radical Afghan, Pakistani, Arab and other foreign Muslim extremists inside Afghanistan. Pervez Musharraf compensated for the Taliban's waning popularity inside Afghanistan by committing increasing Pakistani military manpower and resources to suppress the anti-Taliban Afghan resistance, led by Ahmad Shah Masood in northern Afghanistan and ISI played important role in the murder of Ahmad Shah Masood. After the conquest of Afghanistan in 2001, the CIA and the ISI joined their resources to recruit Islamic activists and Al Qaeda terrorists that were given safe passage by Coalition troops to undertake destabilizing operations in Central Asia and Kashmir. Pakistan’s policy to create Fundamentalist Islamic Depth by harnessing the power of Islamic terrorists continued unabated even after the America’s conquest of Afghanistan. The Afghanistan crisis is connected to Kashmir terrorism, undercutting prospects for a peaceful resolution of India Pakistan conflict and raised the specter of greater war in the region. The ISI coordinated areas in chaotic Afghanistan, NWFP, Chechnya, and India’s Northeast to sustain the Kashmir uprising. Inside Pakistan Pakistani jihadi religious parties scour the populous Punjab and elsewhere in Pakistan to recruit fighters for Kashmir, first cycling them through the joint venture training camps inside Pakistan occupied Kashmir and after training, Pakistani Jihadi join extremist Wahhabi Arab radicals for trip via road and mountain paths to Indian Kashmir. India should hire Tajik and Uzbek Afghans and Northern Alliance soldiers to destabilize Pakistan. India should retaliate by supporting the Northern Alliance operatives in creating chaos in POK Azad Kashmir.


(2) Afghan Kashmir Terrorism Linkages

Pakistan cemented ties with the CIA and Afghan Mujahideen heroin cartel to finance Islamic covert operations in Kashmir. India has no option but to hire Northern Alliance war veterans to neutralize pro-Pakistan terrorists in Pakistan. The Wahhabi terrorists that destroyed Afghanistan would attempt enter Kashmir with open connivance of Pakistan and the United States. India should seek direct role in Afghanistan to check Wahhabi terrorists shift their operations from Afghanistan to Indian Kashmir. India should warn Pakistan that if Pakistan continued to hire war veterans of Afghanistan to destabilize Kashmir, then India would do the same and hire pro-Indian anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance war veterans to undertake counter-terrorist raids on Pakistani terrorist training camps. Pakistan led by Pervez Musharraf determined to destabilize Kashmir by mobilizing Wahhabi Pashtun terrorists for undertaking terrorist acts in Kashmir. The war veterans of Afghanistan need jobs and only job they can do is that of a war fighter. India has no option but to hire Afghan war veterans, and deploy them to destabilize Pakistan lest Pakistan hired them to destabilize Kashmir. India's failure to cultivate Afghan war veterans reinforced the Afghanistan-Kashmir connection. New Delhi concerned about Pakistan’s ISI and China encouraging anti-Indian separatist movements stretching in an arc of disgruntled ethnic groups from Christian Mizos and Nagas in the North east region bordering Burma, Bhutan and Bangladesh to Muslim Kashmiri terrorists in the north-west border work against India turning a blind eye over Pakistan and Saudi Arabia inspired Wahhabi terrorism in Kashmir. India should be prepared to deter any foreign powers from militarily exploiting insurgency in the land frontiers to destabilize India. It is only the pro-Hindu right conservative ruling Bhartyiya Janata Party leaders could afford to offer any meaningful compromise on Kashmir. Ruling Hindu party does not consider Muslim Pakistan a challenge to Hindu India, after Indian military successes in two and a half wars since partition in 1947. India enjoys ten to one advantage in size of the economy. India enjoys a four-to-one conventional military edge and is virtually certain to retain possession over the two-thirds of Kashmir on its side of the International Line of Control dividing Kashmir. As the bull's eye for Pakistani pressure on India, Pervez Musharraf presented Pakistan’s leadership as nuclear maniac saying that Kashmir conflict is also the potential fuse of a powder keg that could explode into mankind's first nuclear weapons exchange. India saw through the nuclear bluff as a ruse to allow 3rd nuclear power to target India and Pakistan with nukes during the India-Pakistan War while blaming Pakistan for preemptive strikes against India. India remembered that President Nixon and Secretary Henry Kissinger had threatened Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that United States might use nuclear weapons if India attempted to take over Pakistan occupied Kashmir after Pakistani Army surrendered to India in 1971 in East Pakistan.


India should hunt Wahhabi terrorists worldwide to undermine the life support of military government in Pakistan. India should exploit diplomatic advantage in sustaining the inter-connected Kashmir and Afghan conflicts, by offering military cooperation to America in Afghanistan to hunt Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists. India’s counter-terrorism diplomacy has been the correct strategy to isolate Pakistan internationally by cementing anti-terrorist co-operation between India and United States and Israel. India should seek military alliances with the allies of the United States that wish to counter the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan supported international joint venture of Wahhabi Muslim terrorists based in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. Active Indian collaboration with America, Israel, and Russia against international Islamist militancy served New Delhi's broader goal of weakening and isolating Pakistan in the Subcontinent and the Middle East. Prospects are dim that short of another Indo-Pakistani war, India and Pakistan will end their bloody stalemate in Kashmir for the foreseeable future and the nuclear stalemate ruled out the conventional war between India and Pakistan across the frontiers. The intractability of the Kashmir stand off puts more weight on Afghanistan as the future battleground for India Pakistan conflict. India and Pakistan must identify a battleground outside the Subcontinent where India and Pakistan could undertake massive military confrontations without risking nuclear exchange. It is the military objective of Pakistan to cause mayhem in the civilian populations in Kashmir as it did in Afghanistan during Taliban regime, and in Kashmir savage, inconclusive terrorist fighting continues to produce thousands of civilian deaths annually, continuing deterioration of agricultural and transportation infrastructure, and worsening poverty. Military rulers of Pakistan creating terrorist mayhem in Kashmir to justify the false Two Nations Theory, without which Pakistan would cease to exist and become part of India overnight. India should join forces with United States to hunt Al Qaeda terrorists worldwide, because the Wahhabi terrorists provide the life force to the sustenance of the artificial state of Pakistan.


(3) Afghanistan Factor in Kashmir

India should become one of the foreign powers that support rival factions in Afghanistan to develop pro-India cadre in Afghanistan by training Northern Alliance war veterans. India has no option but to join the ‘Outer Ring’ of foreign powers that directly played the classical Divide & Rule policy in Afghanistan by supporting one or more rival ethnic warlords in Afghanistan, because Pakistan financed Islamic terrorism in Kashmir had its roots in Pashtun Vs Northern Alliance rivalry in Afghanistan. The 'outer ring' of the foreign powers that compete for influence over Afghanistan and Central Asia present geopolitical impediments to peace in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Central Asia. From 1980 onwards for twenty years foreign powers, first the Soviet Union and then after 1988 Pakistan and Saudi Arabia sought establish their hegemony in Afghanistan and failed to subjugate Afghanistan. It re-validated the historic futility of subjugating the independent-minded, xenophobic Afghans. America and the NATO would also fail to subjugate Afghanistan whenever, Northern Alliance soldiers got any support from Russia, China and India. Peter Tomsen, former American Special Envoy to the Afghan Resistance, is at present Ambassador in Residence, University of Nebraska at Omaha, wrote incisive article, “Geopolitics of an Afghan Settlement” Journal of International Affairs, Dec 2000-Feb 2001. The many of the ideas that linked joint CIA and Pakistan’s operations in Afghanistan in 19980s and 1990s to the present Islamic terrorism in Kashmir developed from the above article.


(4) India’s Pashtunistan Card

India should engineer the secession of Pashtunistan Pakistan to force Pakistan accept Indo-Pak détente. Father of Pashtunistan movement Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan wanted NWFP province to join India rather than join Pakistan and Mahatma Gandhi forced him to abstain voting during second voting and with only 15% voter turnout NWFP forced to join Pakistan in 1947. India should warn Pakistan that India would do for the cause of Pashtunistan, whatever Pakistan did for the cause of Kashmir. India should give tit-for-tat ultimatum to Pakistan. India should support the demand of Pashtun National People’s Party for the creation of pashtun homeland. Throughout the post independence history Afghanistan strategically, colluded with India to pressure Pakistan. Pakistan's support for radical Wahhabi Muslim domination of Afghanistan has in part been based on keeping the Pashtunistan issue suppressed. Afghan Pashtun tribal leaders still cite Pashtunistan as an unresolved problem. Small Pashtun parties on the Pakistan side of the border, such as the Pashtun National People's Party, call for the creation of a Pashtun homeland.


American oil colonial interests demanded that Balochistan and Pashtunistan should secede from Pakistan and joined into confederation with Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to provide direct seaport access to the oil-rich land-locked Central Asian countries, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan. If Pakistan exercised its right to support and nurture subversive operations in Kashmir than Indian government should exercise the Pashtunistan Card in joint venture with the Afghanistan government. India should directly warn Pakistan that India would play the Pashtunistan Card if Pakistan continued to play the Kashmiri terrorism card against India. Like the Afghanistan-Kashmir linkage, the Pashtunistan controversy constitutes another major obstacle to resolving the Afghan war. Rarely mentioned by Pakistan, it is an important factor in Islamabad's strategic calculations.


The Pashtunistan has historic roots, and on 13 June 1947, worried about Britain's rush to terminate control of its Indian empire, Afghanistan sent a diplomatic note to the British Indian Government asserting that the overwhelmingly Pashtun inhabitants of the region between the Russo-British agreed 1893 Durand line and the Indus River were Afghans and must decide themselves whether to join Afghanistan, Pakistan or India, or to become independent. The Afghan regime in Kabul was rebuffed by the British and later the Pakistanis. Afghanistan continued to support Pashtunistan following Pakistan's independence. On 30 September 1947, Afghanistan voted against Pakistan's admission to the United Nations and initially withheld diplomatic recognition of Pakistan. Pashtun people of NWFP had voted to join India. Mahatma Gandhi working for promoting British colonial interests, sabotaged NWFP joining India by misguiding Khan Gaffar Khan to abstain voting and as a result of the abstention the pro-Pakistan vote with only 15% votes made NWFP a part of Pakistan. Mahatma Gandhi made India lose the NWFP Province in West Pakistan and Khulna Province in East Pakistan. Mahatma Gandhi was the principal architect of the 1947 Partition of India and responsible for the loss of NWFP and Khulna provinces to India.


India should cast its lot with the moderate tribal leaders of Afghanistan and oppose Wahhabi fundamentalists. During the three hundred years of their rule in Afghanistan before 1978, the more moderate Pashtun tribal aristocracy successfully kept Muslim extremists like the Taliban from exploiting religion to gain influence and power. Pakistan’s military rulers traditionally supported the Wahhabi and fundamentalist Islamic leaders that believed in the Islamic Empire of the Muslim Umma, the community of Islamic believers. Pro-Pakistan radical Muslim Afghans like Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, Burhanuddin Rabbani and Taliban mullahs opposed the demand of Pashtunistan and argued in favor of uniting with the Muslim umma (community of believers) wherever it may be, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East or Central Asia. The Taliban Pashtun mullahs in exchange for undermining the Pashtunistan movement sought the direct help of Pakistan's military to militarily help them withstand opposition to Taliban terrorism from Afghan Pashtun tribal leaders and Pashtun Pathans of NWFP. Pakistan's mortal fear of Pashtunistan resulted in Pakistan’s opposition to a broad-based Afghan government as well as Pakistani favoritism for the Afghan Wahhabi Muslim fundamentalist. An inter-ethnic political coalition in Afghanistan and NWFP would inevitably sideline the pro-Pakistan Wahhabi fundamentalists in favor of pro-India traditional tribal and clan leaders. Pakistani Army have effectively blocked emergence of a religiously moderate Pashtun tribal alternative to the Wahhabi Pashtun Muslim radicals through weapons transfers, financial means and assassinations, such as the 1999 assassination of prominent Popalzai tribal leader, Abdul Ahad Karzai, in Quetta.


(5) India Iran Detente

India should sign Defense Pact with Iran to protect Iran from any future NATO attacks. India and Iran are both Aryans and belong to the same Civilization. National Interests of India and Iran coincide in Afghanistan and Central Asia. India should align with pro-Iran factions in Afghanistan to neutralize Pakistan’s growing influence in Afghanistan. Iran has much to gain from a broad-based political settlement in Afghanistan, as peace in Afghanistan would offset mounting instability to Iran's west in the Middle East. Iran shares a cultural, linguistic affinity with northern Afghanistan's non-Pashtun elements, which suffered the most under Wahhabi Pashtun Taliban rule. Tehran resents the atrocities Wahhabi Arabs and Sunni Pashtuns inflicted upon the Shiah Hazara minority in Afghanistan. Iran fears the Wahhabi Sunni extremism moving northward into the new Central Asian republics would produce more barriers to Iranian influence in the Caspian basin. Iran and Pakistan have competed for influence in Afghanistan, supporting rival Afghan factions. Tehran's principal goal in Afghanistan has been to resist the ascendancy of any Pakistan or Saudi Arabia supported Wahhabi fundamentalist Sunni government in Kabul. During the rule of the Soviet-supported Afghan Communist regimes in Kabul Iran-backed Shiah Mujahidin received minimal representation in Mujahidin institutions. This exacerbated already strained Afghan Shiah-Sunni tensions as well as Iranian-Pakistani mistrust. Tehran perceived Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support to Taliban as a coordinated attempt to isolate Iran in Afghanistan.


Iran had lost all its political leverage in Afghanistan during Taliban rule 1996-2001. During 1992-1996, the four years period the fractious Sunni-dominated Mujahidin regime occupied Kabul, before the Taliban seized Kabul in 1996, Iran, through delivery of weapons and logistical support to Shiah warlords managed to establish two corridors of influence inside Afghanistan. First pro-Iran corridor extended from the Iranian border through the central Shiah Hazarajat to Shiah-dominated west Kabul. The second pro-Iran corridor extended along Afghanistan's northern tier via Shiah-populated Mazar-e Sharif and across the Amu Darya into the Central Asian republics. The Pakistan-Saudi supported Taliban victories in central and northern Afghanistan in 1996-98 destroyed what foothold Iran had managed to develop along those two corridors. Iran may see benefit in continuing political and military deadlock in Afghanistan as it denied Pakistan strong foothold in Afghanistan in the aftermath of American victory in Afghanistan. Anti-Pakistan Afghan regimes restricted Pakistan's capability to export its light industrial goods to markets in Central Asia and the Caucasus, where government-subsidized cheap Iranian consumer exports have proliferated. A peaceful Afghanistan would offer an unwelcome alternative to Iran for pipelines to carry Caspian basin oil and gas across Afghanistan to South Asia. Karachi and the new deep-water port at Gwadar would be a rival to Bander Abbas as a major international shipping outlet connecting the Indian Ocean with central Eurasia. Iran is concerned that pro-American Afghan government could provide a larger opening for American and Turkish economic and political influence in the Caspian Central Asian region.


34(9) Great Power Detente

(1) Pakistan Created Sino-US Detente

India should realize that the key to India-Pakistan relations and India-USA relations lied in Beijing China and Sino-Indian détente would make India a legitimate Super Power. India must acknowledge the diplomatic finesse of Pakistan’s diplomats that resulted in the epoch breaking Henry Kissinger’s visit to China and changed the world politics. China is the key to anti-India bias of the Nixon Administration, Carter Administration, Reagan Administration and Clinton Administration, because the Kissinger’s foreign policy based on the Sino-US strategic ties. United States became anti-India after 1971 primarily because the entire foreign policy edifice of the American foreign policy based on the bed rock of Sino-US détente and Sino-Pak détente was essential part of it. Pakistan could sell to President Nixon and Henry Kissinger that in 1970’s the national interests of United States and China coincided in Pakistan in 19870. Pakistan’s diplomats changed the course of history by cementing the Sino-US détente. Pakistan cultivated China after the U2 crisis and ultimately impressed upon Dr. Henry Kissinger the need to develop USA-China détente to weaken Soviet Union. If India could develop Indo-China détente than Indo-Pak détente would automatically come about and could lead to the India-China-Pakistan alliance. Pakistan’s military leaders Sino-Pak détente and sold the idea to Dr. Henry Kissinger when United States didn’t maintain any diplomatic ties with China. Dr. Kissinger returned the favor when he warned Mr. Indira Gandhi that India United States might use nuclear weapons if India tried to take over West Pakistan after Pakistani Army surrendered to India in 1971. In 2001 when Pakistan provided military bases to United States during Afghanistan War, United States returned the favor when it refused to condemn Pakistan when, President Pervez Musharraf warned India that Pakistan would use nuclear weapons if Indian troops crossed the Kashmir borders. After independence India befriended Soviet Union and military regime of Ayub Khan befriended United States and gave military bases to pentagon to fly U-2 missions. USA gave US Aid program for Pakistan and in exchange operated spy planes such as the U-2 against Russia from Peshawar in Pakistan. During 1960s President General Ayub Khan had great relations with the US. After US Air Force Major Gary Powers' U-2 was shot down by the Russians, Mr. Khrushchev, the Russian Premier threatened to make Pakistan one of its first targets in case of war, thereby Pakistan asked the US government to curtail its reconnaissance flights over Russia. Pentagon realized that it could no longer over fly Russia safely and therefore did not need any bases in Pakistan any more. Pentagon severed special relations with Pakistan and left it all alone to fend for itself against India. Pakistan had virtually no protection against a hostile India, and Pakistan turned towards China for help and managed to develop strategic ties with China and it helped Pakistan to keep India at bay. Pakistan convinced the US that it would be in the best interest of the United States to develop relations with China, and that Pakistan would be happy to act as an intermediary. These relations would not only help the US and China economically but would provide the US with a formidable ally against Russia, thus helping to maintain the balance of power in the world. To this effect, several high level meetings took place between senior Pakistani and US officials, the US Ambassador to Pakistan, his charge de affairs and Dr. Henry Kissinger actively participated in this equation. Thus result was the historical secret visit of Dr. Henry Kissinger to China.


(2) Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

India should draw serious conclusions from Afghanistan War as its after effects created the Wahhabi terrorism in Kashmir. India refused to get involved in the Vietnam War and the Afghanistan War and consequently failed to make any gains from either of these two wars. White maritime Super power suffered military defeat in the Vietnam War. White continental super power the Soviet Union suffered military defeat in Afghanistan War. Pakistan played in Afghanistan War the role China played in the Vietnam War. United States played in Afghanistan War the role Soviet Union played in the Vietnam War. Had Soviet Union succeeded in occupying Afghanistan for long time, then history would have been different and the Cold War would not have continued into the 21st Century and United States would not have dared to attack Iraq.


India should thank Pakistan for the sacrifices it made to force Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. Pakistan contributed more towards the disintegration of the Soviet Union than the United States as the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan ended the Soviet Brezhnev Doctrine and exposed the Soviet Achilles’ Heels in oil-rich Caspian Central Asia. The national interests of India and Pakistan coincided in Afghanistan during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. United States indirectly supported the Mujahideen freedom fighters in Afghanistan, but refused the direct involvement in Afghanistan. Russia returned the favor in American invasion of Iraq in 2003, when Russia refused to supply military hardware to Saddam Hussein. Soviet invasions of Afghanistan didn’t promote India’s national interests and India refused to support Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. India contributed towards Soviet defeat in Afghanistan by not opposing Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan. India didn’t like the idea of using force to impose Marxist leadership in Non Aligned Afghanistan. Had Soviet expansionism succeeded in Afghanistan, there was a danger that Soviet Union might have militarily supported the Communist regime in India by supporting the Communist Party of India’s takeover of India. United States supported Pakistan to defeat Soviet aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan turned it into Pakistan’s occupation of Afghanistan. The geographical location of Russia did not afford it any access to any warm water ports, thus reduced Russian Navy’s strike capabilities during the severe Russian winters. To expand its global reach Russia decided to conquer Afghanistan and then cross through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean ports of Gwadar. Russian move towards war water ports threatened to upset the equilibrium of the Western World, as Russia’s entry into the Indian Ocean could provide it with first strike capabilities against US Sixth Fleet and make Russian Navy more formidable. Pentagon could not just let the Russians have access to the Indian Ocean. US entered into an arrangement with Gen. Zia Ul Haq to help raise a militia in Afghanistan to counter the Soviet threat to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is well suited for this type of guerilla warfare because of its terrain and Afghanistan’s terrain is so harsh that no foreign occupation force has ever been able occupy Afghanistan ever since the days of Alexander the great, including the British. The Mujahideen Militia was trained and supported both militarily and financially through Pakistan by Saudi Arabia and the United States. Mujahideen training camps were set up in Afghanistan and Pakistan for that specific purpose and this arrangement between the US and Pakistan continued for almost a decade during 1980s and early 1990s.


India should lead the world opinion to demand the prosecution of King Fahd and the grand Mufti of Mecca for the crime of genocide in Afghanistan, as Saudi Arabia supported terrorists massacred hundreds of thousands of Shiite Afghan tribesmen, as it would go a long way in eradicating Islamic terrorism in Kashmir. Saudi Wahhabi Taliban Massacred Shiite Afghans to wage Sunni religious wars on Shiite Muslims. After the departure of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, the interest of the United States in Afghanistan waned and Saudi Arabia took over Afghanistan through Osama bin Laden and redirected the fury of Sunni Islamic fundamentalism to annihilate Shiite Islam and financed the genocide of Shiite Afghans, which required the prosecution of King Fahd for Crimes of Genocide by International Criminal Court at The Hague. India should demand the prosecution of Sunni militants in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for crime of genocide of Shiite Afghans, as it would neutralize Wahhabi terrorist attacks in Kashmir. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership should be tried for war crimes and for crime of genocide when they committed genocide of Shiite Afghans. Saudi Arabia committed war crimes and crime of genocide in Afghanistan when it massacred many hundred thousands Shiite Afghans. America’s war in Afghanistan to expel Soviet troops finally resulted in the Saudi Arabian occupation of Afghanistan and Sunni massacre of Shiite Afghans. Saudi Arabia financed Pakistan’s de facto occupation of Afghanistan and in exchange got the consent of Pakistan and United States to wage genocidal attacks on Shiite Afghan tribes forcing them to convert into Sunni. United States consented to the massacre of Shiite Afghan tribes by Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalists. The war against Soviet Union became the war on pro-Iran Shiite sect in Afghanistan. Saudi Wahhabi unleashed the military power of the Mujahideens to murder and massacre Afghan Shiite tribes as the war of Sunni over Shiite sect. While training of Mujahideen continued the USA feared that the northwest part of Afghanistan bordering Iran (majority Shiite population) might join Iran and become a greater Iran. In order to avoid this situation from developing the US, once again through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, pushed for the strengthening of the Mujahideen and an element of religion was added to this war. Thus the Mujahideen turned into the Taliban. "The message that was taught was that anyone who did not follow the religion of the Taliban must be killed. " In these Madrassas, Bin Laden and the Taliban's taught an extremely distorted view of Islam to young children and adults alike. The message taught was that anyone who did not follow the religion of the Taliban must be killed. If the killers died in these attacks, they would become martyrs and go to Heaven. The Taliban then went after the Shiite population of Afghanistan with a vengeance. They were well armed against the Shiites of Afghanistan. They massacred men, women and children indiscriminately. Entire villages and towns of Shiites were massacred. According to the Taliban, if you were not following their (distorted) religion, you basically had no right to live. After the success of the Taliban in the northwest region of Afghanistan, they turned their attention towards the Shiite intellectuals of Pakistan and would launch small teams to assassinate them. These assignations took place over several years and several thousand Shiite were assassinated. Kashmir being a mountainous region was a natural terrain for the Wahhabi Saudi terrorists and Taliban and therefore the Taliban expanded their role into this region. This proved to be a big help to the Pakistan army. It no longer had to suffer casualties on the Kashmir Border on a regular basis. As the Taliban started to get out of hand the US saw what was inevitable and tried to bring Taliban under control. By this time neither Pakistan, nor Saudi Arabia had much control over them. By 2000 the Taliban were now completely out of control and threatened anyone who did not agree with them. King Fahd and Saudi Arabia turned the CIA financed wars against atheist Communist Soviet Union into Saudi Arabia financed Sunni genocidal wars on Shiite Afghan Muslims, which should be prosecuted by International Criminal Court at The Hague for Crimes of Genocide and War Crimes.


(3) Caspian Great Oil Game

India can promote Indo-Pak détente and Sino-Indian détente by arguing that national interests of India, Pakistan and China coincided in the Caspian oil region. It is in the interest of China that pipelines runs eastward so that oil flows from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to the Chinese markets. It is in the interest of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan that the southward route of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan oil pipelines transport Caspian oil and gas to the Pakistani seaport of Gwadar and Indian markets. Russia wants the oil pipelines to flow northwards. Turkey, Euroepan Union wants the Westbound oil pipelines to transport Caspian oil and gas to European markets.


Collin Powell favors the Southward pipeline route, the Turkmenistan Afghanistan Pakistan India oil gas pipeline, proposed by UNOCAL, which would promote peace and stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz favored Eurasian Eastward pipeline route, to create the Great Silk road to connect Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to Ceyhan terminals in Turkey. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz might engineer the secession of Balochistan Province from Pakistan to create new Confederation of Balochistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to provide secured oil/gas pipeline route from oil-rich Caspian Central Asia to the Gwadar port on Balochistan coast on Arabian Sea.


The New Great Game is all about control of the enormous oil reserves recently discovered in the Caspian Sea region. Since the oil and gas reserves of the Caspian basin are in landlocked countries, the Caspian great oil game boils down to the Oil Pipeline game. India and China are the natural markets for Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan oil and gas reserves. The West wants to keep conflicts alive in Afghanistan, India and Pakistan so that it could sabotage the southward route of the Turkmenistan oil/gas pipeline that would become the transport corridor to Balochistan port of Gwadar and Indian markets. Beneath the soil of Kazakhstan, alone, is enough buried treasure of 50 billion barrels of oil to surpass the legendary wealth of the Arab sheiks. Saudi Arabia has only 30 billion barrels left. Unable to take the shortest route, through Iran, Russians plan to build a pipeline to the Black Sea from Turkmenistan. But Islamic rebels are on the rampage in the Chechnya region, through which this Russian pipeline must pass through. It explained why Saudi Arabia and United States financed Chechnya Islamic rebels. United States may militarily intervene in Iran to foil the attempts to build the Turkmenistan Arabian Sea pipeline through Balochistan province of Iran. Route through Iran is the shortest route. Russians want to build a pipeline to the Black Sea from Azerbaijan, but Islamic rebels are on the rampage in the region in Grozzny.


Southern Route of Turkmenistan-Gwadar

Secretary of State Collin Powell supports the southward route of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan oil/gas pipeline to transport Turkmenistan oil/gas to the Balochistan port of Gwadar. India should support the faction led by Collin Powell as the oil pipeline could move into India from Pakistan to supply Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan oil and gas to India’s populous markets. Unocal's plan would extend Turkmenistan's existing system west to the Kazakh field on the Caspian and southeast to the Pakistani port of Karachi on the Arabian Sea. Unocal pipeline would run through Afghanistan. After the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa prompted President Bill Clinton authorized strikes against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, and Unocal pulled out of the pipeline deal. The new pipeline plan could bring revenues totaling $100 million for Afghanistan, a country with no effective infrastructure that has been ravaged by 22 years of war. The relatively moderate wing of the Bush administration, centered around Colin Powell's State Department, seems to be sticking with the original UNOCAL route, south to Karachi: this is reflected in Powell's concern to keep Pakistan intact and within the American sphere of influence. If the Powell faction wins out, the route through Pakistan will not destabilize the region and we will be spared the extension of the war throughout the Middle East.


Eurasian Route of Great Silk Route

The war-hawk faction, led by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, seems to be going for the Eurasian route. Eurasian Great Silk Route will connect Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan oil pipeline through Tbilisi Georgia to Ceyhan Turkey. Clinton administration created the Taliban, with the cooperation of the Pakistani intelligence service and Saudi assistance. During Clinton administration as recently as 1999, U S taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official, all in the hopes of returning to the days of dollar-a-gallon gas. Pakistan, naturally, would pick up revenues from a Karachi oil port facility. When the Taliban turned against their sponsors in Washington DC, however, the Great Oil Game took a different turn. During the Clinton era, a whole sub-department was created to facilitate the extraction of oil profits from the Caspian Sea region, and the Bush Administration has certainly not abolished this. The war-hawk faction, led by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, seems to be going for the Eurasian route, which would placating the Pakistanis irrelevant and unnecessary for the American administration. The factor of Islamic terrorism and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, another factor, aside from oil, is involved in this equation. If the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz group triumphed and there are some disturbing indications that this is indeed the case, then the entire Middle East could be plunged into war, with US soldiers in the thick of it. Georgia's president, Eduard Shevardnadze, welcomed European and US support for the 'Great Silk Road idea. The plan, backed by Washington and American oil companies, including Chevron, is for a pipeline taking Turkmenistan and Kazakh oil to Baku, the Azerbaijani capital, through Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, and through eastern Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. "


Decline of Wahhabi OPEC

President Bush’s Iraq conquest and Afghanistan conquest was not so much attempted seizure of Iraq oil or Turkmenistan gas, as an effort to shift the gravity of world oil production from the Arabian Peninsula to the Caspian republics of the Caucasus and Russia. United States led by President Bush and Neo-conservatives could be on the plot to destroy the Saudi Arabia and to bring the entire oil-producing Arab world under colonial occupation of the United States. The radical Neo-Conservatives, energized by 9/11, advocates a preemptive American first strike against Saudi Arabia, and, indeed, against the whole Arab-Muslim world. The neo-conservatives feared that a war on Iraq their cause of the hour, would not destabilize the House of Saud, but may lead to a spike in oil prices if supplies are interrupted due to military failures in the campaign. The neo-conservatives wanted to shift the focus of oil extraction efforts from the Arabian Peninsula to the Caspian region and the construction of a Turkmenistan oil pipeline. In the wake of Sept. 11 President Bush’s close relationship with Bin Laden group and many Saudi nationals that were under FBI investigation came under tough scrutiny by American media. Saudi Arabia is America’s allies, but who needs an ally whose citizens fly airplanes into American buildings?


Oil Factor in the Demise of Soviet Union

The United States, in league with Saudi Arabia, also successfully destroyed the Soviet Union in the 1980s by lowering oil prices. Russia's refusal to join with OPEC in limiting oil production is key to understanding the much-heralded Russo-American alliance. For every dollar decrease in the price of oil, Russia loses a billion in revenue. The Russia-America is a Russian conspiracy to destroy OPEC in general and to destabilize Saudi Arabia in particular to increase Russian market share of global oil trade. Crown Prince Abdullah, heir to the House of Saud, is not likely to be as compliant as his predecessors, and the long-standing deal between the Saudi princes and US oil interests shows signs of unraveling. Once the oil starts flowing, it won't take long before Kazakhstan replaces Kuwait as the land of Mercedes Benzes and pure gold jewelry."


The Vietnam War drained the vital life out of the US economy during the late sixties and early seventies and Japan emerged as the principal challenger to United States. Soviet economy collapsed due to increased military industrial complex. Japan emerged as the world’s 2nd largest economy because United States spent too much of its economic resources on military industrial complex. The Vietnam War destroyed America’s economic competitiveness. The financial shock of a prolonged Mid East conflict could well be far worse, unless United States could loot the oil and gas of Iraq without having to pay for it.


34(10) Nationalism & Religion

India should explain to Pakistan that Papacy and British Empire had conspired to create Pakistan on a false pretext of Two-Nation theory to advance the agenda of Oil Colonialism. Papacy had caused the communal riots in Ireland and Yugoslavia to engineer the secession of Catholic Ireland from Great Britain and the secession of Catholic Slovenia and Catholic Croatia from Yugoslavia. The partition of India engineered by Papacy and Oil Colonialism to undermine India’s direct geographic borders with Oil-rich Iran and Iraq. Had India attained independence by means of violence, Indian Empire would have emerged independent united and Pakistan would not have existed as nation. Papacy and British Empire stroked the concept of Religion as the basis of state to undermine the multi-religious Ottoman Empire and Indian Empire. Had Subash Chandra Bose returned to India, there would never been Partition of India.


Protestant Reformation Roots of Nationalism

The 25-member European Union represented the end of the age of Nationalism and patriotism. European Union would be anti-Protestantism and anti-Reformation. The European Union could be the Pope’s Hidden Hand that ruled the world. European Union would be anti-Protestantism and pro-Papacy because the Protestant Reformation challenged the claims of the Universal Church and Universal Empire. Pope is the hidden hand that would rule the European Union. The foundation of European nationalism based on the foundation of the separation of the Church and State and the refusal of the Catholic Kingdoms to bow down to the rapacious demands of the Papacy. The Roman Catholic Church had been against the concept of powerful empires, States and nations, as it sought to develop the power of the Catholic Church out of the dying corpses of the Empires and states. The Protestant Reformation laid the basis of nationalism in Europe and undermined the Church of Rome’s claim to be the Universal Church and unifying principle of the Universal State. The Catholic concept of the Universal State negated the concept of the independent nation states, even when they followed the Catholic religion. The Universal State principle of Church of Rome negated the concept of the multi-ethnic multi-religious empires. The rise of Church of Rome historically harmed the rise of Europe. The Protestant Reformation unleashed religious conflicts that played an important role in the creation of Europe's principal nation-states. Political leaders used religion to consolidate their own power, turning themselves into both political and religious leaders. Before full-blown nationalism, religious passion was the one popular emotion that could bring masses of people into the streets, and Europe's rulers understood that it could be used to make or break a state. The Counter Reformation 30-years Wars allowed Richelieu to develop French nationalism and to keep Germany divided which delayed the birth of German nationalism. The Protestant Reformation unleashed religious conflicts that played an important role in the creation of Europe's principal nation-states. Political leaders used religion to consolidate their own power, turning themselves into both political and religious leaders. Before full-blown nationalism, religious passion was the one popular emotion that could bring masses of people into the streets, and Europe's rulers understood that it could be used to make or break a state.


West Promoted Religious Nationalism

The religious intolerance is the "original sin" of ethnic nationalism and separatism. Papacy promoted the concept of Religion as the basis of state to dismember multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic multi-religious Ottoman Empire and Indian Empire. Papacy exploited the religious divide in the multi-religious empires to promote Religion is central to ethnic nationalism and separatism. Ethnic Nationalism and separatism begins with an act of demonizing a religious "other" and creating a sense of community by defining an "us" and a "them." Recognizing this allowed American Oil colonialism to promote smaller religious sect of Wahhabi Islam and used it to promote the secession of the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire. Western support to Wahhabi intolerance, fundamentalism and separatism caused the spread of Islamic terrorism, the contemporary phenomena of Islamic fundamentalism and Arab nationalism. Ethnic nationalism thus began to emerge by piggybacking on the passion of religious conflicts and communal riots.


European conspirators and Papal agents stroked the communal riots in Yugoslavia to disintegrate multi-ethnic Yugoslavia. Serbs, Croats and Muslims were killing one another in the Balkans, because Papacy stroked the fire of the eternal and atavistic origins of ethnic violence. The foreign intervention and the organized crime created the communal riots in Yugoslavia, as different groups had lived in relative harmony under the Ottoman Empire and even under Tito. Faced with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, the West is more open to looking at the role of Wahhabi intolerance that the West promoted in the Arabian Peninsula after the First World War as the sole cause of Islamic terrorism, intolerance and fundamentalism.


Spanish Inquisition Created Nationalism

The birth of nationalism dates to a time when religious intolerance ravaged Europe. In 1492, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, who united Castille and Aragon to form the new kingdom of Spain, ousted the Moors from Southern Spain and decided to expel the Jews from their territory. The Spanish Inquisition was a central mechanism in consolidating power and conferring legitimacy on the new Spanish State.


Anti-Papacy Roots of Nationalism

Anti-Papacy movements and Protestant Reformation gave birth to nationalism and patriotism. European monarchs started to directly appeal to the people to carry out the Protestant Reformation and in the process the citizenry developed nationalism and patriotism. England in the 16th century got rid of holy images in the church and replaced them with the royal coat of arms, so people worshipped not the pope and saints but worshiped the monarch as the head of the church. Protestant Britain, Sweden and Holland saw their countries as the new Israel, the holy nation that was superior to the Papacy. European rulers and America’s Founding Fathers exploited fear of outside interference, demonizing the Roman Catholic Church to rally people around the throne and national government. The British Crown's defiance of the Church of Rome strengthened the power of the state and sharpened the definition of what it meant to be English. Queen Elizabeth I finally had Mary Queen of Scots, her Catholic rival, executed, and made attendance at Protestant Anglican religious services mandatory. Queen Elizabeth I had come to represent "the link and identity between the Protestant and national causes." Protestant Religion and Anti-Papacy was a 16th-century word for nationalism." Catholic Catherine de Medici, Queen Regent of France, exploited religious passion and organized massacre of Protestant Huguenots to please Pope. After trying to mediate between the Catholics and the Huguenots, she manipulated anti-Huguenot feeling and in 1572 helped plot the infamous St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, in which more than 15,000 Protestants were slaughtered in and around Paris.


Papacy & Secession of Catholic Ireland

Papacy Engineered secession of Catholic Ireland

Papacy historically encouraged Catholics to secede from the non-Catholic states to form separate Catholic states. Pope engineered the secession of Catholic Ireland from United Kingdom in 1919. Pope engineered the creation of dominion status of Canada and Australia to weaken the stronghold of Anglican Church in Canada and Australia. Papacy and American and British oil colonialism resorted to two-nation theory to argue that Muslims of Indian empire needed a separate state of Pakistan based on Islamic religion to protect the interests of Muslims. Papacy for Islamic State building enlisted religion, to promote ethnic nationalism and separatism in the multi-ethnic and multi-religious empires. Papacy disintegrated Yugoslavia by promoting communal riots primarily to engineer the secession of Catholic Slovenia and Catholic Croatia.


French Revolution Created Nationalism

Before the birth of nationalism the royal families of Europe married across national lines, and no one worried much over whether a German sat on the throne of England, Italians ran France, or Spaniards governed Austria. Early modern states were fundamentally different, multilingual, multiethnic entities in which the sense of nation had not yet been firmly established. The kings of Spain governed over modern Belgium and Austria, as well as parts of what are now France, Italy, Slovenia and Croatia. French Revolution was the critical event in establishing French nationalism. After the French Revolution, French rulers did require obedience as well as homogeneity, and wanted that people read the same books, identified with the same history, saw themselves as having something innate in common and as part of a national project. Nationalism implied a program to make people have similar historical and cultural perspective.


Literacy Essential for Nationalism

The increased identification of nationality with language in the late 18th and 19th centuries caused the print revolution and widespread literacy, which emerged as crucial factors in the formation of nationalism. Pre-Revolution kings of France cared little that most of their subjects spoke various languages post-revolutionary leaders began to insist on standardized language and education. Hapsburg Austro-Hungary Empire in the 1780's made German the official language of administration. The increased complexity of modern administration with the need for a vast bureaucracy of literate bureaucrats made Latin impractical and the use of vernacular German essential. The introduction of the vernacular German as the Official language of the Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire, alienated the non-German tribes, the Magyar, Romanian, Czech and Italian subjects developed new sense of themselves as discriminated minorities with their own national identities, and it resulted in the disintegration of the Hapsburg Empire. .


Armed Civil Wars Deter Secession

India would have emerged united had armed Freedom Movement secured Freedom at 1947. Had Indian naval Mutiny of 1945, India would have emerged independent undivided. India was partitioned because the Cold Blood Congress leadership had connived with the British rulers to expel Hot Blood congress leaders. Nationalism is soaked in blood. "Terrible to say, less blood proved less binding, for nothing is as powerful a basis of mass passion and cohesion than killings. Both literacy and industrialization played important role in the creation of full-blown 19th-century nationalism. The period of religious strife in 16th- and 17th-century Europe forms an important precedent and created a kind of proto-nationalism.


Illiterate Wahhabi Nationalism

Wahhabi intolerance and fundamentalism exploited illiteracy to crate Islamic nationalism to promote the interests of American Oil Colonialism. The De-Colonization process and the freedom movement in the third War led by highly educated leaders after the Second World War. American oil colonialism gave political power to illiterate Wahhabi Muslim clergy to ward off the claims of the educated nationalist leaders in Arabia, so that American could continue to loot the oil wealth of Arabia. Nationalism can come about only with literacy and a nation of voting citizens. Religion was a crucial part of identity in many preliterate societies. The spread of literacy played a very important role in the freedom movement in India. Most of the common people who resisted the British Raj in India could not read or write, but they felt passionately Indian, but the leadership was highly educated and most of them were educated in England. The Russians who put up a fierce resistance to Napoleon's invasion were often illiterate but had a strong sense of holy mother Russia and the land as scripture.


34(11) Secession of Baluchistan

Second Partition of Pakistan & Baluchistan

In Kashmir Pakistan is raising the issue of Right of Self Determination Not Islam. Pakistan cannot claim that Kashmir belongs to Pakistan because Kashmir is predominantly Muslim Province of India, as Muslim-majority East Pakistan rebelled and the Bengali rebellion and secession in 1971 put an end to the Two Nation Theory, the ideological basis of the artificial state of Pakistan. Pakistan can no longer claim Kashmir on the basis of religion. Pakistan is trying to take over Kashmir on the principle of right of self-determination of Muslims of Kashmir. Pakistan claims that in new Century Muslims of Kashmir wants to join Pakistan. Pakistan accepts that during 1965 war the Kashmiri Muslims didn’t support Pakistan and on the contrary had informed Indian police about the Pakistani infiltrated that had entered Kashmir. The Pakistanis no longer harp about Indian perfidies in Junagadh and Hyderabad. Free elections, full integration and the sheer fact of Hindus being the major community in these two onetime princely States ended Pakistan’s argument on Junagadh and Hyderabad. Pakistan’s case on Kashmir rests upon the more exalted principle of self-determination. Kashmir continues to be an issue. Kashmir is predominantly Muslim and the demand for self-determination has confused democratic India as democracy is all about the will of the people. Let us see how the issue of the Self Determination of the ethnic minorities that are majorities in specific provinces could be utilized to partition Pakistan and bring about the secession of Baluchistan province, NWFP Province and Sindh Province from Punjabi-dominated Pakistan.


Land of Baluchistan

There are 7,500,000 Baloch in Pakistan and 2.5 million Baluch in Iran. Total Baluch areas totaled 532,000 sq. kms in Pakistan and Iran. The Pakistani province of Baluchistan is a mountainous desert area of about 350,000 sq kms and has a population of over 7,500,000 or about as much as Jammu and Kashmir's population. Baluchistan borders Iran, Afghanistan and its southern boundary is the Arabian Sea with the strategically important port of Gwadar on the Makran coast commanding approach to the Straits of Hormuz. Quetta is the capital of Baluchistan. The Baluchistan population consists mainly of Baluch and Pathans. Like the Kurds, the Baluch are also a people ignored by the makers of modern political geography. There is an Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan spread over an area of 182,000 sq kms and with a population of over 2,500,000, majority of its people are Baluch. Iranian Baluchestan’s capital is Zahedan.


Ancient History of Baluch People

The Baluch are an ancient people. In 325 BC, after his abortive India campaign, as Alexander made his way back to Babylon through the Makran desert, the Greeks suffered greatly at the hands of marauding Baluchis. The legend has it that they originally came from near Aleppo in Syria and there is much linguistic evidence to suggest that they belong to the same Indo-European sub-group as the Persians and Kurds. They came into Islam under the shadow of the sword of Mohammad bin Qasim's conquering Arab army in 711 AD. Through most of their history the Baluch administered themselves as a loose tribal confederacy. Before Baluch came to Baluchistan provinces of Iran and Pakistan from Syria, the Baluch lands inhabited by Tamil speaking Brahui tribes, the people of the Indus Valley civilization. By 1000 AD Baluch were well settled in their present homeland. As relatively late arrivals in the region, the Baluchis had to battle earlier occupants of the lands such as the Brahui tribes who still abound around Kalat. The Brahui language belongs to the Dravidian family of languages and is close to Tamil. Quite clearly, the Brahuis are the only Dravidian survivors in northern India, after the Aryan invasion. A restless people, the Baluchis naturally pushed eastwards towards the more fertile regions watered by the Indus River, but Indian Mughal Empire stopped the march of Baluch towards Indus river basin.


Brahuis Tribe Speaks Tamil

Unlike the Dravidians of Mohenjodaro and Harappa who disappeared without a trace, the Brahuis made one last hurrah when they asserted their power in Kalat. By the 18th century Kalat was the dominant power in Baluchistan and the Khan of Kalat was the ruler of the entire region. But the Brahuis paid for it by getting assimilated into the majority Baluchis. The Brahui language still survives in small pockets but only by just. British India's Defence Services Staff College at Quetta in the early 1940s would often tell of hearing local tribesmen serving in the Staff College speaking a language that sounded remarkably like Tamil.


Baluch Khan of Kalat and British Empire

The British first came to the Baluchistan region in 1839 on their way to Kabul when they sought safe passage. In 1841 they entered into a treaty with Kalat. In the wake of Lord Auckland's disastrous invasion of Afghanistan, the British annexed Sind. The British annexed Sind in 1843 from the Talpur Mirs, a Baluchi dynasty. On June 27, 1839 Ranjit Singh. After the formal surrender of the Sikhs on March 29, 1849 and the annexation of Punjab, the British now had a long border with the Baluchis. But learning from their disastrous experience with the Afghans they preferred to keep out of harm's way on Baluchi assurances of the inviolability of their borders. In 1876, the British however forced another treaty on the Baluchis and forced the Khan of Kalat to lease salubrious Quetta to them. The Khan's writ still ran over Baluchistan, but now under the watchful but benign eye of a British minister. That the Khan of Kalat was not considered another insignificant prince was in the fact that he was accorded a 19-gun salute. With security assured and largely unfettered domestic power the Khan led lavish and often eccentric lifestyles. The Khans of Kalat, like the rulers of Hyderabad and Kashmir, they enjoyed the greatest degree of autonomy possible under the system established by the British as long as whimsy was within reason and not inimical to British interests. This arrangement prevailed till 1947. The urge to be independent rulers burned equally bright in all three of them. The Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, went further than Hari Singh of Kashmir and Osman Ali Khan of Hyderabad. He declared independence, while the other two dithered and allowed events to overtake them. I was apparent that the Baluch population supported the Khan of Kalat for the independence of Baluchistan. The Baluchis, like the Pathans of NWFP, were not too enthused with the idea of Pakistan. In the NWFP the separatist Muslim League led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah was actually rejected in elections. Yet eight months after the Khan's assertion of independence the Pakistanis forcibly annexed Baluchistan. But Baluchi aspirations for an independent state were not quelled completely.


1973 Baluchistan War of Independence

In 1973 a war of independence broke out in Baluchistan. For five long years there was total war. At its peak the Baluchis raised a force of 55,000 combatants. Nearly six Pakistan Army divisions were deployed to fight them. The Pakistan Air Force was deployed and PAF Mirage and Sabre fighter jets carried out strikes all over rural Baluchistan. Pakistan made a widespread use of napalm bomb documented by scholars like Robert Wirsing of the University of Texas and Selig Harrison. Iranian Army joined Pakistan Army in the military action against Pakistan. The Huey Cobra helicopter gun ships of its Army Aviation were widely used against Baluch rebels. The last pitched battle was fought in 1978. In the Pakistan-Baluchistan wars more than 5,000 Baluchi fighters and 3,000 Pakistani soldiers died. Civilian casualties were many times that. The Baluchi War for Independence was crushed by Pakistan but the aspirations continue to flicker and would flare up whenever India decided to support secession of Baluchistan. Mehran Baluch, a prominent Baluch leader said: 'Baluchr tragedy began in 1947, immediately after the creation of Pakistan. The colonialist army of Pakistani Punjab forcibly occupied Kalat at gunpoint.' Even now a struggle continues in Baluchistan. Leading Baluchi leaders like Sardar Attaullah Mengal, Sardar Mahmood Khan Achakzai and Nawab Khair Baksh Marri, heads of the three great Baluch clans, have been leading protests over the economic exploitation of the region's great natural resources to the exclusion of the local people. Marri and hundreds of his supporters are under arrest.


Indira Gandhi supported Baluchistan Freedom Struggle (1973-1977)

Indira Gandhi government actively supported from 1973 to 1977, the democratic aspirations of the Baluchis and Pathans. India trained Baluchi fighters in the deserts of Rajasthan. We also provided them with financial and diplomatic assistance. With Bangladesh free, Indira Gandhi reckoned that Sind, Baluchistan and Pakhtunistan should follow. After Indira Gandhi’s electoral defeat in 1977, Atal Behari Vajpayee became the Janata government's foreign minister, and he made his first misguided and woolly-headed attempt to normalize relations with Pakistan in 1977. Morarji Desai withdrew Indian support to various Baluch movements struggling for self-determination in Punjabi-dominated Pakistan. L K Advani, Atal Behari Vajpayee and Morarji Desai betrayed G M Syed's Jiye Sind movement. Vajpayee's assurances to Zia Ul Haq, ensured that the Baluchis were forced to leave their camps in Rajasthan and all financial, military and diplomatic assistance was cut. Even though the Janata Party regime did not last very long, the damage was done. Zia Ul Haq initiated the policy of 'death by a thousand cuts' to destroy India. Pakistanis want to talk to us about self-determination.


South Asia should Reunite

India should lead for the reunification of India. Let us all united again and lead the Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist worlds. Pakistan and Bangladesh should reunite. Indian and Pakistan should reunite. Burma and Afghanistan should reunite. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, the lands of Emperor Babur should rejoin Indian Mughal Empire. India and Pakistan should sign Defense Pact and lead Asia and Africa. Pakistan is the Caliph of Islamic world and should control Mecca & Medina. India is the religious leader of the 1.5 billion Buddhist world. The old dogs that partitioned India and revered as Father of India or Father of Pakistan or Father of Bangladesh were all people with small minds manipulated by Christian colonial empires. Let us all reject the legacy of the Old Dogs of the subcontinent and, let new leaders of the Subcontinent unite to form an Aryan Federation of South Asia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. Nuclear Pakistan is destined to rule the entire Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia to propagate Deobanndi sect of Islam and Sufi Mysticism. India wishes Pakistan a success as the New Caliph of Islam. SAARC troops should control Iraq, Liberia, and other troubled spots.


( ) Hindu Muslim Fundamentalists are Friends

The religion and pro-right movements are taking big leap in India and Pakistan. Pakistan should look west and create Islamic Empire as descendant of Mughal Empire. India should look east and create Greater Indian Empire. Rise of Islam in Pakistan does not threaten rise of Hinduism in India. Rise and empowerment of Hinduism and Islam as political religions does not harm the   civilization interests of India and Pakistan. Hindu India wish Pakistan become the Caliph of Islam and lead the Islamic world and control the Mecca & Medina some day as the Caliph of Islam.


( ) Islam Fundamentalism is Curse on Pakistan

British Empire selected spy Mohammed Ali Jinnah to destroy the imperial legacy of Great Mughal Empire Muslim-Hindu Empire by promoting false doctrine of Two-nation theory so that Indian empire might not have direct frontiers with oil-rich Iran. In 1971 Muslim Bangladesh separated from Muslim Pakistan. It is very likely that non-Punjabi Sindh, and Baluchistan would secede from Pakistan in 2005 and join into confederation with Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, so that the Turkmenistan Oil could be exported through Baluchistan port of Gwadar. American Big Oil should support the secession of Baluchistan and Sindh from Punjabi-ruled Pakistan. Pakistan needs second partition, so that landlocked countries of Central Asia could have direct Sea Outlet through Baluchistan. More than 60% people of Sindh and Karachi want to rejoin India. 95% Baluch wants to secede from Pakistan. The secession of Baluchistan would be in the national interest of USA, India, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Islamic State of Pakistan is a failed state, an artificial state that destroyed the great concept of Mughal Caliphate.


Tamil Dravidian Indus Valley Civilization

The maritime colony of Indus Valley Civilization was a Tamil speaking goddess-worshipping Hindu Civilization and Brahui tribe of Bluchistan even today speaks Tamil. Dravidian Tamil Hindus dominated Indus Valley civilization, Kush Civilization of Ethiopia, Pharaoh's ancient Egypt, Maya Civilization of Mexico; Inca civilization of Peru, and in Southeast Asia Dravidian Hindus ruled Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Philippines for tens of centuries. Rawana was a Tamil and ruled even heavens, that included Siberia, Mongolia, Central Asia. The Aryan Bond of North India would bring Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Krygyzstan into confederation with India in form of Aryanastan. The Dravidian heritage of India would bring confederation with Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Mexico, Peru, Madagascar, and Ethiopia. Whatever civilization world has is the result of the Aryan Civilization and Dravidian civilization. The decedents of Aryan and Dravidian Civilization presently control quarter of the world and it is high time that they should all unite under the Aryastan-Dravidistan Federation. This is how we look at Aryan and Dravidian heritage. If we add the Mughal heritage then as Caliph Pakistan the entire Islamic world can confederate with India. The entire Brown race of the world can unite under the United Brown States.


Secession of Baluchistan

India and Afghanistan can join forces for the secession of Baluchistan from Pakistan if Pakistan continued to adopt anti-Indian policies. Afghanistan should engineer the secession of Baluchistan and Pashutnistan from Punjabi-dominated Pakistan, so that Baluchistan may join Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan into a political confederation, so that the oil of Turkmenistan could have sea outlet in Baluchistan port of Gwadar. Afghanistan is mortal enemy of Pakistan as Pakistani Taliban raped Afghanistan.


South Asian Health Care

Hindu Indians displayed their true love not false love, when they bonded with 2-year old Noor Fatima suffering from heart problem. India should ease visas and even allow emergency entry into India without visas for children with medical emergencies. India is world's healthcare power as medicine is Knowledge industry like IT and software. Even if India and Pakistan are at war for medical treatment of children, Indians borders should be open for children from Pakistan, whether India and Pakistan are at war or at peace. India and Pakistan are both Aryans and share the same blood, same race, same food, same habits and same love and hate. Even, today in villages the brothers may fight and kill each other, but even at the height of wars, the children of the two warring sections enjoy the same family love at each others house without any fear and share food while their parents shooting each other. To the Muslim children Pakistan, the elder brother Hindu India's House and Hospitals are open and they have a right to best treatment in India, as they are coming to the house of their Tau (Muslim father's elder Hindu brother), and vice versa.


34(12) Assassination Risks to Vajpayee in SAARC 2004

(1) Visit showed Hindus are brave

First. Many Indians feared that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee would return in coffin after a Summit meeting with Pakistan in 2004, just as Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri returned in coffin after a Summit Meeting with General Ayub Khan of Pakistan in Tashkent in 1965. Lal Bahadur Shastri was murdered because he had decided to develop atom bomb.

Second. The visit of Indian Prime Minister so soon after the assassination attempts on Pervez Musharraf proved beyond doubt that democratic leaders are brave and prepared to risk their lives for promoting national interests. Common sense dictated that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee should not have visited Islamabad to attend SAARC Summit in January 2004, as he was likely to return in a coffin.


Third. Foreign secret services murdered the Prime Ministers Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and Royal Family of Nepal and ordered the overthrowing of the elected governments of Prime Ministers Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Nawaj Sharief, to destabilize South Asia. The foreign agencies were responsible for the murder or death of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Nuclear Scientist Homi J. Bhabha, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, Prime Minster Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, President Zia Ul Haq, Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Prime Minister Zia Ul Rahman. Prime Ministers Shastri and Indira Gandhi were murdered to derail India’s nuclear program. Sri Rajiv Gandhi was murdered to destabilize India after the fall of the Soviet Union. The nuclear program of Sri Vajpayee has made him a marked man in the eyes of the Christian West determined to keep nuclear technology out of Hindu hands. Nuclear policy of Sri Vajpayee had made him a marked man.


Fourth. The Western agencies planted a bomb in the plane of President Zia Ul Haq and American Ambassador also died to remove the suspicion of the Western involvement. Perhaps the Punjabi generals would align with Osama bin Laden and Dawood Ibrahim to assassinate Prime Minster Vajpayee along with President Pervez Musharraf to clear the involvement of government of Pakistan. Simultaneous removal of Mohajir Pervez Musharraf and Sri Vajpayee would suit the national interests of Western powers, Saudi Arabia and strengthen the Punjabi domination of Pakistan. President Bush invaded Afghanistan to provide safe heaven to Osama bin Laden, Taleban and to restart the Opium/Heroin production of Afghanistan. Western agencies could murder and put blame on Al Qaeda, just as they falsely laid blame on LTTE for the murder of Sri Rajiv Gandhi and falsely laid blame on Sikhs for the murder of Srimati Indira Gandhi. Sikhs didn’t murder Indira Gandhi. LTTE didn’t murder Rajiv Gandhi. Lal Bahadur Shastri didn’t die of heart attack in Tashkent. It is possible that the entire political leadership of SAARC nations could perish during the 2004 SAARC Summit. It is difficult to imagine, how Prime Minister Vajpayee could return alive from Islamabad after attending the SAARC Summit.


Fifth. It was rumored that Indian officials were directly involved in the plots that assassinated Prime Ministers Shastri & Indira Gandhi. It is difficult to imagine that the supposedly killer Beant Singh would have left Ms. Sonia Gandhi and R.K. Dhawan as the live witness to guarantee his death by hanging. It is possible that Ms. Sonia Gandhi and Sri R.K. Dhawan might have been involved in the conspiracy to murder Indira Gandhi. It was rumored that Sri Swaran Singh was involved in the conspiracy to murder Lal Bahadur Shastri in Tashkent, otherwise it is difficult to explain why the first phone call that came from Soviet Union to India to inform about the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri came at the private phone number of junior Minister of Information Ms Indira Gandhi not the President of India. It is not impossible that senior members of elite diplomatic cadre might be conspiring to eliminate Prime Minister Vajpayee, who is pursuing foreign policy out of the Box, to bring back the traditional foreign policy of Nehru dynasty. How otherwise can one explain that the Ministry of External Affairs OK’d the visit of Sri Vajpayee to Islamabad. When Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supported Muslim terrorists could dare to attack Indian Parliament in Delhi, what would stop them from blowing up the SAARC Summit in Islamabad.


Sixth. In war and geopolitical chess one must assume that the adversary enemy is bright enough to spot every strategic opportunity that arises and could act upon it at the moments notice. India’s policy planners must assume that the hidden enemy is bright enough to spot the strategic opportunity that lies in the possible assassination of Sri Vajpayee in Islamabad, especially in the 21st Century, when the covert operations became the favored instrument of international diplomacy. It is prudent to avoid the repeat of Tashkent Summit or the First World War. Pentagon forecast big India-Pakistan war before 2015, and it could turn out to be 2004 War if assassination takes place.


Seventh. Why do the military generals overthrow their elected governments in Pakistan, Indonesia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Peru and other pro-US governments, whenever ordered to do so by the CIA? The CIA controlled the top military brass of these countries and put into place the promotion policies of the officers that only the pro-CIA officers could get promotions in the army, time after time. The loyalty of the military brass in Pakistan is towards the CIA not towards their military or civil President or Prime Minister. Similarly, the colonial Britain secured the loyalty of the top bureaucrats in India and Sri Lanka by controlling the promotion process in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Foreign Service and Indian Police Service (IPS). It was a great blunder of Sri Sardar Patel that he allowed Indian Civil Service (ICS) to control the Indian bureaucracy, who were loyal to the foreign imperialist colonial power Britain and opposed to the rise of Independent India. The senior ICS cadre controlled the promotion process and plum postings of the IFS and IAS cadre in a manner that only such people could get promoted to the top posts as were more loyal to the Nehru dynasty than to the elected Prime Ministers namely, Sri Lala Bahadur Shastri, Sri Guljari Lal Nanda, Sri Morarji Desai, Sri Charan Singh Sri V.P. Singh, Sri P.V. Narasimha Rao, Sri Dewe Goda, Sri Chandra Shekher and Sri Inder Kumar Gujral. During the first and second term as the Prime Minister of India, many of the top IFS & IAS officers were more loyal to the Nehru dynasty than to Sri Vajpayee. The Mandarins of the IFS, IAS cadres are highly vulnerable to the influence of the foreign agencies that could influence their career promotions and plum postings. The CIA knows about the stashed loot and bribes that these top IFS & IAS officers have stashed in foreign banks and it frequently use this knowledge to browbeat them to toe the CIA line in domestic power disputes.


34(13) Conclusion




© 2006 Copyrights All Rights Reserved Author: KALKI GAUR

Kalki Gaur Books are as follows:

Kalki Gaur, “GLOBAL CLASH OF RACES” (2006)






Kalki Gaur, “GNOSTIC BIBLE” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “POPULIST MANIFESTO” (2006)

The complete text of 5,000 pages of Books by Kalki Gaur available for free download at following Kalki Blogs for academic and non-commercial usage.

http://360.yahoo.com/gaurkalki   ; 

http://360.yahoo.com/clashofreligions  ; 

http://360.yahoo.com/diplomacyofcivilizations  ; 

http://clearblogs.com/kalkigaur/  ; 

http://kalkigaur.blogstream.com/  ;

http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/  ;

http://my.opera.com/kalkitv/blog/  ;

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/  ;

http://diplomacyofcivilizations.blog.com/  ; 




© 2006 Kalki Gaur Copyrights All Rights Reserved, Email: kalkimail@gmail.com