Comment by Riaz Haq on June 30, 2024 at 9:20am

Fidato
@tequieremos
Sara Adam, who has worked as a data analyst in the CIA, has made a startling claim that India has paid Mullah Yaqoob and the Afghan Taliban $10 million for extra judicial killings of Kashmiris and Sikhs inside Pakistan.

https://x.com/tequieremos/status/1807153558195716216


---------------

Sarah Adams was speaking on Shawn Ryan Show, the video of which was uploaded on 10th June on YouTube. She claimed that India has given the Taliban $10 million and has been taking care of the personal security of Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada (the supreme leader of the Taliban). She claimed that India could also be behind the killings of the pro-Khalsitan elements.

She said: “So I was trying to find the US money but then there’s all these other pots of money right and so then you’re kind of like okay what’s happening with them? India does this thing where they give a little bit of money. I told you how there’s Mullah Yaqoob, Mullah Omar’s son, he has another brother Daud. India kind of works with him and they give him money. It’s just kind of like the little things they do with the Baloch like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan). It’s like the things they do to poke Pakistan. They have that going on which I knew about. Then I heard they gave $10 million to Mullah Yaqoob. They went up a step and it’s like well what’s this 10 million for and what are they doing with it? The 10 million went to fund the Gecko base. I’ve never worked in the Gecko base. So it is now the location of Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada’s personal security.”

Sarah Adams said: “It’s like the Indian government or you know probably Intel service is funding his personal security. This makes no sense and it’s not even tons of money compared to what we’re putting in so I have all these questions. What is India getting and also really what’s the Taliban getting because they don’t give a damn about $10 million? This is going to sound like the craziest thing ever but what the Indians and the Taliban are doing, I kid you not, India is using the Taliban’s network to assassinate Kashmiri militants in Pakistan.”

The ex-CIA officer revealed, “They’re using the Taliban networks and then they’re doing these assassinations. They’re happening all over Pakistan like in Lahore, Karachi and other parts. This is really risky for the Taliban if people find out. It seems like it could rock the boat. They are using their networks and are the Taliban networks that good to take out senior Kashmiri people? Maybe and maybe they’re not. The interesting part and my theory is that India gains what they’re gaining. These are terrorists and some of these guys they wanted for 30 years. I went through a list of 18 of them. I don’t know if they’re all dead. Pakistan could have heard India had come to kill them and put some of them in a safe house. So there are 18 targeted. I went through all 18 to make sure I knew who they were because I’ve worked on Kashmir forever and to see what group they were. I went through all of them and they were the groups you can imagine, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Hizbul Mujahideen and the last one was Al Badr Mujahideen.”

Comment by Riaz Haq 18 hours ago

India’s Great-Power Delusions
How New Delhi’s Grand Strategy Thwarts Its Grand Ambitions
Ashley J. Tellis

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/india/indias-great-power-delusions

Since the turn of the century, the United States has sought to help India rise as a great power.

--------

In military terms, it is the most significant conventional power in South Asia, but here, too, its advantages over its local rival are not enormous: in fighting in May, Pakistan used Chinese-supplied defense systems to shoot down Indian aircraft. With China on one side and an adversarial Pakistan on the other, India must always fear the prospect of an unpalatable two-front war. Meanwhile, at home, the country is shedding one of its main sources of strength—its liberal democracy—by embracing Hindu nationalism. This evolution could undermine India’s rise by intensifying communal tensions and exacerbating problems with its neighbors, forcing it to redirect security resources inward to the detriment of outward power projection. The country’s illiberal pivot further undermines the rules-based international order that has served it so well.

-------

An illiberal India is also likely to be less powerful. The BJP’s policies have polarized India along ideological and religious lines, and the unresolved issues about how India’s changing demography is to be represented in parliament threaten to exacerbate regional and linguistic divisions. This makes India look increasingly like the highly divided United States. Polarization has been bad enough for Americans, hobbling their institutions and fueling democratic decay. But it will be even worse for India, where the state and society are much weaker. Polarization, for example, could intensify the armed rebellions against New Delhi that have long been underway, creating opportunities for outside powers to sow chaos within India’s borders. Those conflicts could also spill over into India’s neighborhood, as the ideological animus against Muslims exacerbates tensions with both Bangladesh and Pakistan. Polarization would also increase India’s internal security burdens, consuming resources that New Delhi needs to project influence abroad. And even if polarization does not create more internal troubles, it will undermine New Delhi’s efforts to mobilize its population in accumulating national power.

----------

The United States has tolerated these Indian behaviors in the past in part because both countries were largely liberal democracies. As both proceed down the path of illiberalism, however, they will no longer be tied by shared values. Transactional habits may come to dominate the relationship, and Washington could demand more of New Delhi as the price of partnership. Trump’s approach to India in his second term has already signaled such an evolution. Indeed, India’s inability to match China in the future, as well as its commitment to multipolarity, which is fundamentally at odds with American interests, will be deeply inconvenient for the United States. India, it seems, will partner with the United States on some things involving China, but it is unlikely to partner with Washington in every significant arena—even when it comes to Beijing.

If New Delhi cannot effectively balance Beijing in Asia, Washington will invariably wonder how many resources and how much faith it should invest in India. A liberal United States might continue to support a liberal India because helping it would be inherently worthwhile (provided that the costs were not prohibitive and New Delhi’s success still served some American interests). But if either India or the United States remains illiberal, there will be no ideological reason for the latter to help the former.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page