Afghanistan during the PDPA (People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan)

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
5,095
India
Also, @Abaseen, it's worth noting that if India wanted Akhand Bharat so badly, it would have tried to force or at least bully Bangladesh to join India after it acquired its independence in 1971. However, India never actually did this.
Its just a Hinduphobic propaganda circulating inside Pakistan . India is doing quite well without Pakistan and Bangladesh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
5,095
India
Completely true. If Ukraine and other eastern European nations are worried about overreliance on Russia with regards to key resources such as oil and gas and these fear are considered as legitimate concerns, then Pakistans fears with regards to being completely reliant on a hostile nation 7 times its size for most of its water resources is a completely legitimate concern.
Its not merely about security threat from a 7 times (now 10 times ) bigger nation. The obsession has more to do with 1:1 parity with Hindus generally driven by the arrogance that Muslims ruled India for 1000 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,676
SoCal
Its just a Hinduphobic propaganda circulating inside Pakistan . India is doing quite well without Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Yeah, I mean, after independence, India hasn't exactly shown itself to be revanchist--unlike, say, post-1991 Russia or post-1918 Germany.

Also, @Shaheen, was a part of the reason as to why Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1948 was to secure additional water resources?
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
5,095
India
Yeah, I mean, after independence, India hasn't exactly shown itself to be revanchist--unlike, say, post-1991 Russia or post-1918 Germany.

Also, @Shaheen, was a part of the reason as to why Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1948 was to secure additional water resources?
Pakistani nationalism is defined based on Muslims (we) vs Hindus(they), there is no ethnicity/cultural based nationalism unlike those of Arabs, Turks or Iranians. Hypothetical threat from India has always been a strong component, it also gives justifications to Army's dominance in Pakistan.

Soon after the creation, Pakistan wanted to grab as many territories it can like Kashmir, Junagarh, Hyderabad or Kalat, even the Hindu majority princely states bordering Pakistan. Attacking Kashmir was a blunder for which Pakistan is still suffering until to this day. Nehru was especially interested in Kashmir as he himself was a Kashmiri Pandit.

Actually, in India many people resent Indus water treaty and want it to be scrapped. How can India give most of its water to a hostile neighbouring country. India-China don't have this kind of water treaty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Jan 2019
215
Finland
This topic reminds me of a documentary that touched on the bungled (though ultimately successful) Soviet attempts at Amin's life:

 

Shaheen

Ad Honorem
May 2011
2,569
Sweden
Yeah, I mean, after independence, India hasn't exactly shown itself to be revanchist--unlike, say, post-1991 Russia or post-1918 Germany.



India has been expansionist/revanchist . It has occupied foreign territory via farcical "referendums" (most obvious example being the nation of Sikkim in the 70s*), has actively supported terrorist groups in neighboring countries (Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka), bullied smaller neigbors using its larger size and economy as leverage most recent example being Nepal (East West | Travel Blog by Kunda Dixit | Nepali Times | nepalitimes.com » Blog Archive » LOSE-LOSE), bullied neighbors over resource extraction (Cost of fishing dispute between Sri Lanka and India). Whilst China diplomatically negotiated the return of Macau to China from Portugal, India full out invaded Portuguese Goa.

In the above list I have intentionally excluded Indian hostile actions towards Pakistan. Why India did not annex Bangladesh in 1971? I can think of two major reasons (1) the religious demographcis of India would be altered, especially the Bengali speaking eastern parts of India suddenly becoming Muslim majority. (2) India officially entered the 1971 in the guise of helping Bengali nationalists seeking to break away from Pakistan. With the superpowers involved (SU, USA), Indian annexation would be brazen and potentially lead to conflict with Bengali nationalists who wanted to be in charge of their own destiny.

* Sikkim: Requiem for a Himalayan Kingdom by Andrew Duff
1578736383235.png

Also, @Shaheen, was a part of the reason as to why Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1948 was to secure additional water resources?
Water politics is a tool India uses against its neighbors. Surprisingly not many people know about it but with climate patterns changing, this policy will only amplify in the coming years.

"
In the last few years, there has been palpable anger on the Nepali side of the border in particular.

Nepal blames dyke-like structures along the border that it says block the floodwaters from flowing south into India. During an investigation in eastern Nepal two years ago, the BBC saw structures on the Indian side that appeared to do just this.
"

Another example from Bangladesh

Coming to Pakistan, again India has been threatening Pakistan through its water politics (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/02/22/indias-threats-pakistan-offer-hint-future-water-wars/). If Pakistan had not been proactive in 47-48, India would have attained full control over Pakistans water resources. I think it is pretty much self-evident that Pakistani policymakers knew of this potential outcome when they were establishing their Kashmir policy.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,676
SoCal
India has been expansionist/revanchist . It has occupied foreign territory via farcical "referendums" (most obvious example being the nation of Sikkim in the 70s*),
What was the Indian motive behind this annexation? Also, did the people of Sikkim at least endorse the Indian conquest of their territory after the fact? Is there still a sizable separatist movement in Sikkim even right now?

has actively supported terrorist groups in neighboring countries (Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka),
And then stopped once the Tamil Tigers assassinated Rajiv Gandhi, no?

BTW, based on what I read here, the Tamil Tigers were rather stupid in terms of their strategy:


"Ethnicity, The Tamil Tigers, And Sri Lanka’s Civil War
The question of why the Tamils failed to get a state when so many other minorities, such as India’s Muslims, the Jews of Mandatory Palestine, and the Christians of Timor, succeeded is worth discussing. The basic answer is that the Sinhalese had overwhelming military superiority and a willingness to brutally suppress the Tamils, and no outside power countered that by taking up the Tamil cause. Especially once India disengaged from Sri Lanka following former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination by an LTTE suicide bomber in 1991, it was only a matter of time before the Sinhalese would use their military advantage to snuff out the rebellion, which they did in 2009. India could have been Tamil Eelam’s outside backer, much as the British backed the aspirations of Indian Muslims and Jews in Mandatory Palestine.

Instead the LTTE handled India about as badly as possible. India covertly funded them throughout the 80s, and intervened militarily in 1987 to prevent an imminent Sinhalese victory. India was able to force the government in Colombo to agree to a series of humiliating concessions, which gave the north defacto independence, and set off bloody protests against the government in the Sinhalese parts of the island. Every Tamil group agreed to lay down their arms except the LTTE. This was in many ways the turning point for Tamil Eelam, because the frustrated Indian forces on the island tried to defeat the LTTE militarily to preserve what had been shaping up as a smashing victory for India. The Indian “peacekeeping” force became mired in a war with their former clients, and withdrew from the island in 1990. When the LTTE assassinated Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister who had ordered the intervention in Sri Lanka, in 1991, India washed its hands of the whole business, and essentially turned a blind eye to the vicious Sinhalese assault on the north which eventually ended the Civil War.

The LTTE also threw away an incredible opportunity when the Sinhalese government decided to support them against the Indian forces as a way to get the Indians off the island. The government agreed to a ceasefire with the LTTE in 1989. The LTTE waited until about three months after the Indians left before it broke the ceasefire in spectacular fashion, executing hundreds of policemen who had surrendered to it. The LTTE proceeded to expel 70,000 Muslims from the north of the island. In 1993, the an LTTE suicide bomber assassinated Sri Lanka’s President. A pro-peace party was elected in the south in 1994, leading to a ceasefire in January 1995. This ceasefire lasted four months, before the LTTE bombed two Sri Lankan naval vessels. The LTTE’s actions in the late 1980s and early 1990s were breathtakingly self-destructive. They isolated themselves from what had been a sympathetic India, which was the only country with the ability and interest to make Tamil Eelam a reality, and which had essentially created an independent Tamil state in 1987. They then wasted several opportunities to make a deal with the weak and exhausted Sinhalese, prolonging the conflict and giving the Sri Lankan government and military time to regroup.

While the military decisions by the Tamil leadership were nothing short of moronic, their failure to form a broad tent of Tamil-speakers was perhaps more decisive in their failure to achieve a state. They were unable to reach the Indian Tamils of central Sri Lanka, depriving the rebels of a population situated deep within Sri Lanka that could have put pressure on the Sinhalese population, something the LTTE consistently failed to do. Similarly, the Moors never supported the LTTE, even though it was essentially secular, not Hindu. The effect of this can be seen on the east coast of the ethnic map. The Moors and Sri Lankan Tamils are interspersed all along the east coast preventing a unified Tamil zone there. If the Tamil leadership had succeeded in uniting the Tamil-speakers (and remember the conflict started in part because of the language problem), it could have commanded the support of 26% of the population instead of 12%. Even then, the exact lines of a partition are difficult to map out, because of the distribution of the Tamil-speaking population. A partition would certainly have cause massive population exchanges. Consider this though. Sinhalese-speakers are divided by religion, Tamil-speakers by religion and ethnicity. Every ethnic group except the Moors are divided by religion. The Christians and Hindus are both split between two ethnic groups. Perhaps Sri Lanka is too fractured for a successful revolt to break out. Paradoxically, it may be Sri Lanka’s divisions that keep it united."

bullied smaller neigbors using its larger size and economy as leverage most recent example being Nepal (East West | Travel Blog by Kunda Dixit | Nepali Times | nepalitimes.com » Blog Archive » LOSE-LOSE),
So, India launched a border blockade against Nepal due to the latter becoming too close to China to India's liking?

bullied neighbors over resource extraction (Cost of fishing dispute between Sri Lanka and India).
So, India allows its fisherman to fish in Sri Lankan waters? If so, is this meaningfully different from, say, Kuwait's slant oil drilling back when Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq?

Whilst China diplomatically negotiated the return of Macau to China from Portugal, India full out invaded Portuguese Goa.
China has been unwilling to diplomatically resolve the South China Sea dispute, though. For that matter, China isn't exactly being very diplomatic in regards to pressuring other countries to avoid pressuring it over its treatment of its own Uyghur minority.

In the above list I have intentionally excluded Indian hostile actions towards Pakistan. Why India did not annex Bangladesh in 1971? I can think of two major reasons (1) the religious demographcis of India would be altered, especially the Bengali speaking eastern parts of India suddenly becoming Muslim majority. (2) India officially entered the 1971 in the guise of helping Bengali nationalists seeking to break away from Pakistan. With the superpowers involved (SU, USA), Indian annexation would be brazen and potentially lead to conflict with Bengali nationalists who wanted to be in charge of their own destiny.
Do you think that India would have been willing to outright annex Bangladesh in 1971 had neither the US nor the USSR been actively following events in Bangladesh during this time?

* Sikkim: Requiem for a Himalayan Kingdom by Andrew Duff
View attachment 26129

Water politics is a tool India uses against its neighbors. Surprisingly not many people know about it but with climate patterns changing, this policy will only amplify in the coming years.

"
In the last few years, there has been palpable anger on the Nepali side of the border in particular.

Nepal blames dyke-like structures along the border that it says block the floodwaters from flowing south into India. During an investigation in eastern Nepal two years ago, the BBC saw structures on the Indian side that appeared to do just this.
"

Another example from Bangladesh

Coming to Pakistan, again India has been threatening Pakistan through its water politics (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/02/22/indias-threats-pakistan-offer-hint-future-water-wars/). If Pakistan had not been proactive in 47-48, India would have attained full control over Pakistans water resources. I think it is pretty much self-evident that Pakistani policymakers knew of this potential outcome when they were establishing their Kashmir policy.
Very interesting! That said, though, I can't help but wonder if your post here has a bit of a double-standard--as in, when India uses force to acquire territory, it's bad, but when Pakistan does it (in regards to conquering its own part of Kashmir in 1948), then it's more acceptable because at least Pakistan is fighting for its own water security.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
5,095
India
India has been expansionist/revanchist . It has occupied foreign territory via farcical "referendums" (most obvious example being the nation of Sikkim in the 70s*), has actively supported terrorist groups in neighboring countries (Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka), bullied smaller neigbors using its larger size and economy as leverage most recent example being Nepal (East West | Travel Blog by Kunda Dixit | Nepali Times | nepalitimes.com » Blog Archive » LOSE-LOSE), bullied neighbors over resource extraction (Cost of fishing dispute between Sri Lanka and India). Whilst China diplomatically negotiated the return of Macau to China from Portugal, India full out invaded Portuguese Goa.
I don't see anything wrong in annexation of Goa into India its an Indian land what business some colonial power had in India, despite your Macau example Pakistan never waited to annex Kalat/Balochistan into Pakistan and Tibet and Xinjiang(East Turkestan) into China.

Sikkim was a former British princely state, it got transformed into India's proctectorate after the British left India with defence being the Indian responsibility as the king never wanted to relinquish his monarchy to accede with India, since many foreign countries especially China were eyeing on Sikkim, Sikkim's integration with India didn't go well with critics.

Nepal and Sri Lanka's obsession with India is to tame their minorities ethnically related to Indians. (Tamils in the case of Sri Lanka and Madhesis (identical to UP-Bihar people) in case of Nepal). Even without provocation, Sri Lanka meddled in 1971 India-Pakistan war letting Pakistan to use Sri Lankan ports against India. Its India obsession is also the main reason Hambantotta ended up as a Chinese colony(just like British once colonized Hongkong) and Gwadar may end up like this in the future due to mounting debt due to Chinese projects.

The case of Nepal is peculiar, they wants to tame the Madhesi, cutoff their ethnic ties(roti-beti ka risha) with Indians, dominant Communists in Nepal want to create a bigger space for Chinese influence.

Pakistan itself has issues with all neighbouring countries Iran, Afghanistan, Iran and even the Uyghur of China have found refugee in terror camps of Pakistan in places like North Waziristan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist