The last thing the world needs is a fierce new multinational battlefront on the borderlands of South and Central Asia. But it's getting one anyway.
"Few in the West could find the Pakistani province of Balochistan on a map." Come on, man! That's what Google is for. I've never heard of it, and when I first saw the headline I thought "What is balochristian? Something to do with Charlemagne? :-)
Another brilliant and informative essay from Mr. Kelkar just as we’ve come to expect from him. But I do have one question. He says,
“But another battlefront on the borderlands of South and Central Asia, and indeed Iran, is something the world could do without.”
I might be missing something, but isn’t this an imbroglio that we should be celebrating if not joining India in doing what we can to exacerbate?
How many geopolitical hotspots offer a confluence of events that allow the West to stick it to two of our biggest adversaries (China and Iran) at such low cost?
A destabilized Iran in particular is in American interests. Hopefully we are covertly supplying whatever aid and support we can provide to both Pakistan’s and Iran’s Baluch separatists just as we are hopefully supporting the Separatist aspirations of Iran’s Azerbaijani population which were surely reenergized by Azerbaijan’s defeat of Armenia.
As for China, aren’t they merely imperialists in exactly the same way that Britain, Russia and the Ottomans once were?
Instability in Baluchistan seems like great news; no? Why is this a conflict that Mr. Kelkar would be better off without?
The author is correct in that I had no knowledge of this province and the issues revolving around it. Is there any area of the world that is not in turmoil and conflict?
I will be interested in following developments in this area, but will anyone report on them in western media other than the Cosmopolitan Globalist? I suspect not.
Keep this information coming.