Actually, India has already executed such a strategy before and is not new to it.
And the British used to rule India. Does that still apply today?
Copy pasting past strategies and applying them to future events without any consideration for the different circumstances is worse than just repetition.
The Indian Army overtly trained and armed the Mukti Bahini (Bengali : Freedom Wing), which was instrumental in liberating Bangladesh (then, East Pakistan) in the 1971 war with Pakistan. This guerilla outfit consisted of locals from East Pakistan, who were willing to take on the Pak army.
Funny you managed to miss the fundamental point I was making even though you yourself has stated it above - the last (and only) time India managed to cause another country to break in two led to war, which was my point exactly.
Not even a moron would think that China would just sit back and let Indian trained and equipped Tibetan paramilitaries wreak havoc in Tibet without reply.
In addition, East Pakistan only became modern day Bangladesh because of the 1971 war between India and Pakistan. Is India prepared to fight a war with China to try and annex Tibet? Who actually thinks India is remotely strong enough to do that even if it wanted to?
As things stand, and with the way things are projected to develop in the future, it is far more likely for China to engineer part of India to break away than for India to cause Tibet to break away from China. India is already having a terrible time fighting against Maoist rebels who have no outside support. Imagine how much worse that insurgence could be if China started supplying them with the latest in infantry weapons, encrypted communications gear, supplies and safe havens inside of China. Maybe even send in some special forces teams to train and support them. Then there are all the Kashmir anti-Indian groups...
If the gloves came off, even without going to all out war, China could cause massive trouble for India, by arming and supporting Indian domestic insurgents, and inflict far more damage than India ever could with such tactics.
Your 'strategy' is a blatant non-starter, and India's decision to organize the SFF as it has could easily backfire spectacularly. If Tibetan extremes become more overly violent, India might one day suddenly realize that all those 'refugee' camps having become training camps. If and when terrorist attacks are linked to those camps, India will be faced with a very difficult choice - clear and close down the camps, or risk international ire and Chinese retaliation.
If India chooses the lessor of two evils and closes the camps, the SFF could easily turn into India's Taliban, and turn on their former backers as the Taliban turned on the Americans.
Incidentally, the SFF was instrumental in the Bangladesh war too. Many were awarded after it. So they do have accumulated experience in covert war tactics.
Didn't you suggest that causing a part of a country with boarder disputes with India to break away would solve those boarder disputes for India?
The loyalty of Tibetans towards India is left to the future. But India shall always host His Holiness, the Dalai Lama for all time, because being the birthplace of Buddhism and having many of its holiest shrines, India considers its duty to protect and provide shelter to His Holiness and his followers.
So what happens if/when his (or the next Dali Lama's) followers start resorting to terrorist tactics to try and gain Tibetan independence? Will India still provide sanctuary and shelter to them when doing so would mean all out war with China?
There are no documented reports of the SFF contravening orders from the Indian establishment.
Right, that is why the SFF is not allowed within 10km of the Chinese boarder without explicit orders.
India Army continues to have vast Nepali regiments amongst its ranks, called Gorkhas
Which, with the exception of the Assman Regiments, have Indian officers, COs and line infantry integrated into them at all levels, which is akin to how the British organize their own Gorkha regiment.
To have entire commands comprised almost exclusively of foreign nationals/ethnicity is not a practice anyone else employs, for very good and obvious reasons.
In fact, the Indian Army Chief is the ceremonial head of the Nepali Army and vice-versa
And the British Queen is the ceremonial head of state of Australia. Would Australian military units obey orders issued by the Queen of England?
In the military, loyalty is of paramount importance. Not just under the current circumstances, but under any circumstance. There are no eternal friends or enemies in international relations, only interest. If India is not considering what might happen if and when it's national interest clashes with the interest of Tibetan religious fanatics, then India is being supremely short-sighted.
