Go though his posts.
He is intellectually dishonest and pushes a clear agenda.
Also
@Baibars_1260
Please comment on this given your stated rationale for your positions in other threads.
In December of 2020, in another significant development, Indian Army Chief General MM Naravane had visited Saudi Arabia. It was the first time any Indian Army chief had visited the west Asian country in what is a clear sign of growing ties between New Delhi and Riyadh.
zeenews.india.com
Should Pakistan target SA now as well?
Off topic.
But will answer
and with references to Bangladesh.
Let's bust some myths first.
There is no such thing as "Islamic Ummah" anywhere in the world today. It may have existed in the time of the first four Rashidun Caliphs, though even here three of the four were assassinated by rival factions. Language, culture, tribal pride did matter then and does today. Self interest counts.
The Saudis participated with Christian European Imperialism to defeat the Ottoman Empire and slaughter the Turks. Now the Saudis could very likely team up with India and defeat Pakistan and slaughter Pakistanis. A weaker power always seeks the alliance of a stronger power against its superior enemy. India is the strongest military power in the region, though in an ultimate war using weapons of mass destruction this will not matter.
But India's alliance is still much sought after if Pakistan or possibly Iran has to be kept in check.
In the pre-nuclear age Bangladesh did exactly what Saudi Arabia is doing today and used its alliance with India to defeat Pakistan in the Civil War. However, Pakistan's Civil War defeat was not total unlike normal Civil Wars where the winning faction gets control of the entire nation. Pakistan retained control of its vital, strategic and far more defensible Western territory along with its rich mineral
and water resources and natural beauty. Pakistan also retained control of the core of its armed forces allowing it to rebuild and threaten India's territories .
Thus Pakistan's defeat was not like Germany or Japan in World War 2.
Pakistan deftly used its international clout to get back its prisoners and territories from India. But most important was India's desire to give preference to building relations with Pakistan over Bangladesh. I never knew this until yesterday when I read the excellent study on this subject that has been done by Princton University Scholar
Gary J Bass in his paper "
Bargaining away Justice" . Reading this paper with declassified information now available is an eye opener for Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis, As a Pakistani I felt quite relieved to read this document, and it made me look very differently on India 50 years after our Civil War. I am hopeful that if sense prevails now as it did then we can still avoid nuking ourselves. Then as of now Bangladesh was peripheral to the interests of both Pakistan and India.
Following is clear after reading this paper :
1. Bangladesh is never going to get any sort of "apology " from Pakistan.
2. India is not going to pressurize or intercede with Pakistan on Bangladesh's behalf for war reparations, apologies, trials of "war criminals " nor will any other nation. Bangladesh is alone in dealing with Pakistan ( unless it joins a future war with India against Pakistan ).
3. India is primarily concerned with avoiding a showdown with Pakistan, and will look to only display as much military posturing as to prevent a full blown war. There was a brief moment of madness in February 2019 but for now matters are likely to be quiet.
4. Optics aside, Pakistan has no real interest in negotiations or improved relations with Bangladesh, and the last thing Pakistan will discuss is the Civil War. If it had not been for the prisoners of war held by India, Pakistan may never have recognized Bangladesh and nor would the majority of Muslim nations as well as China.
5. Military incompetence has consequences. In the third week of December 1971, Bangladesh and India were at the peak of their friendship and power backed by the Soviet Union. Yet they were not strong enough to crush Pakistan in the West. The fighting in the West was by India alone, but India's failure to break Pakistan ultimately resulted in Bangladesh making a humiliating compromise on prisoners of war trials.
6, So Bangladesh's dependence on India resulted in severe lack of maneuvering room.
Returning to General Narvane and India Saudi relations, Pakistan has nothing to be worried about the visit or joint exercises. Militarily there is no threat, other than the existing threat from India alone. The economic angle is more for Pakistan to worry about. Therefore Pakistan doesn't need to "target" Saudi Arabia . Unlike the India Bangladesh alliance in 1971 a potential Indo-Saudi Arabia alliance is not interested in getting into a slugging match with Pakistan. There is no "Mukti" movement anywhere, Pakistan has no territorial disputes with Saudi Arabia. Even India doesn't imagine Saudi troops fighting in Kashmir or making an amphibian landing in Gawadar .
Saudi Arabia is worried about Yemen and Iran and is attempting to posture in front of Pakistan because it didn't get the support it needed to fight in Yemen. The international order is changing with the rise of China, but there is still a risk of madness by a king who carves up a journalist or a leader who believes radar doesn't work in cloudy weather.
Pakistan has been in a war economy for twenty years so common economic factors determining economic progress such as stock market, etc. don't count. Vietnam had no stock market and it's economy was a tiny fraction of the USA but it had a competent army and the support of China and the Soviet Union. Likewise Pakistan has an existential struggle to fight and it matters little what the size of the GDP is.
