India-Pakistan Relations

[thakur_ritesh]

In the end, there is no use in talking to Paks unless there is an action taken against the masterminds of 26/11. Until then let them give rope to hang themselves. All India needs to do is to pay lip service.

mate why just the perpetrators of 26/11, if at all there has to be a dialog then all sort of terrorism instigated at the behest of pakistan needs to be stopped. kashmir is as much a part of india as is mumbai where every other month a 26/11 happens and we end up loosing a decent number of our young men fighting out these terrorists.

 

[nandu]

@ Yusuf,Daredevil and thakur_ritesh,Why GOI or Foreign Ministry is not able understand these things? Are they deaf and dumb.It is very frustrating to see them to make same mistakes again and again.In my point view these sold out politician and bureaucrats doesn't have any vision and idea to tackle Pakistan.They talk to Pakistan to hide their own incompetence.

 

[ajtr]

@ Yusuf,Daredevil and thakur_ritesh,Why GOI or Foreign Ministry is not able understand these things? Are they deaf and dumb.It is very frustrating to see them to make same mistakes again and again.In my point view these sold out politician and bureaucrats doesn't have any vision and idea to tackle Pakistan.They talk to Pakistan to hide their own incompetence.

Two things comes to mind.....
1. The present geopolitics in the region and america's battering in Afghanistan has given a wrong sense of thinking to pakistan that they are in strong position hence the cockiness.But we know from our past six decades of dealing with pakistan that they are always tactically brilliant and strategically fools hence they always end up losing.

2.GOI has lot of paitence and it can talk endlessly like kishna menon.but on the other hand pakistanis are impatient thats why they always insist on time bound solutions.Coz may of pakistani rulers know that some time they may end up like Zulfi bhutto on lamp-post or like zia in air crash.Mushy was exceptional that he gave away power to save his skin and ran away to UK in self exile otherwise he too would ve ended like zia or bhutto.

As for the GOI argeering for talks was pure American pressure.Thankfully pakistan in its tactical brilliance sabotaged that one.India is able wore of that Ameican pressure the result of which we gonna see in next 2-3 weeks in afghanistan.Already blackwill has started talking about partitioning the afghanistan and putting the so called good taliban according to pakistan ie the haqqani group on terror list.

AS for pakistan ARmy Dilli is always Dur AST:emot15:

 

[Ray]

Too bad.

All jaw jaw.

Kiyani dropped in and the Minister got cold feet!

 

[ajtr]

Agra again: Qureshi kills peace talks​

NEW DELHI: A day after an extraordinary slanging match in Islamabad, the India-Pakistan peace process was in shreds, having suffered a huge setback, with Islamabad virtually reneging on a painstakingly drawn-up engagement sequence aimed at normalizing ties.

The finger-pointing between the two sides continued on Friday, keeping ties on the boil as Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi carried on with his belligerence displayed at Thursday's press conference in Islamabad that he addressed with his Indian counterpart, S M Krishna.

Picking up from where he left off, Qureshi lashed out at India for being "selective" and "not fully prepared" and reversing gears at the last minute. He even got personal with Krishna, alleging that the minister lacked the mandate and was being tutored on phone all through the negotiations.

Shockingly, Qureshi's tirade at a briefing held for Pakistani media in Islamabad came even before Krishna had left for New Delhi. The serious violation of etiquette drew a strong riposte from Krishna just after he reached Delhi and he quickly refuted the charge that he was unprepared for talks, asserting the mandate given to him was clear and specific.

More than the bad diplomatic behaviour, what preceded it was a serious blow to the peace process. Qureshi turned bellicose after Pakistan's failed attempt to force India to discuss Kashmir even when it doggedly refused to meet the pre-condition: strong and clear action against all perpetrators of the 26/11 attack.

Sources said the peace process was not going to be jettisoned because India did not have the "luxury of not talking to its neighbour". Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao said on television that India wanted to continue the dialogue.
The stated intent apart, the fate of talks was in doubt in the face of Pakistan's attempt to re-order the sequence of talks. The Congress leadership chose the "action-on-26/11 first" approach because it is loath to be seen as having forgotten the Mumbai attacks. It will not acquiesce in any attempt to change the order when Islambad refsuses to accept concrete evidence on ISI and Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed.

For Pakistan to suddenly try jumpstarting talks on Kashmir raises questions about its motives. Is it trying to wriggle out of the peace process under pressure from its army which is keen to push its Kashmir card again, while looking for an excuse not to take action against LeT and stop cooperating in the offensive against its other strategic asset, the Taliban, in Afghanistan?

Whatever may be the case, India cannot oblige Qureshi. Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao told TV channels that the onus was on Pakistan to make amends. Krishna said all core issues and burning problems between the two sides were discussed and considerable work had gone into preparing for the talks. "There was no ambiguity. I have confined myself to the mandate I was given to me," he said while officials later pointed out the Pakistani side was well aware of what was going to be put on the table.

Speaking on background, sources admitted to a "large hiatus" in expectations voiced by Pakistan and India's "workmanlike" approach to moving a step at a time. This did take the Indians by surprise and the Pakistani "all or nothing, take it or leave it" attitude was clearly intended to put Kashmir at the centre of the talks.

Indian negotiators made it clear that a grand announcement of resumption of composite dialogue could not happen on the basis of assurances that leads on the Mumbai attack will be followed. "Action on terrorism will help convince Indian people that Pakistan is serious. Most of India has not forgotten what happened and is demanding answers," said sources.

The Pakistani move seems to reflect increasing discomfort in Islamabad over the Mumbai investigations. With the needle of suspicion pointing firmly to ISI-backed Lashkar-e-Taiba, the probe could get too hot.

Qureshi's deliberate move to keep up the tirade against India on Friday indicates Thursday's events were not driven by the heat of the moment. Though there was hesitancy in naming the omnipresent Pakistan army, sources admitted the mood had changed in Islamabad at the "political level", hinting at the invisible power structure.

In search of strategic depth in Afghanistan, the Pakistani army has loosened its control of anti-jihadi groups as is evidenced by a rise in infiltration into Kashmir. Keen on reviving its Kashmir agenda and believing it now has more leeway in Afghanistan, a terror-centric engagement with India does not suit the Pakistani establishment.

Indian negotiators were trying to get some sort of a roadmap but denied that any timeframe on Mumbai was offered. They did not raise ISI's role in Mumbai. Headley's testimony and other evidence had already been handed over. The Pakistani attempt to frame time-lines like November for grading progress on all composite dialogue issues was clearly a ploy.

The Pakistani leadership seemed well aware that this drastic reordering of milestones was not likely to be accepted by India. The acrimonious press briefing only served to highlight and sharpen differences and Qureshi's allegations that Krishna was on the phone to Delhi all the time was hotly denied by the minister. "I have not spoken to anybody, I find the statement quite extraordinary," he said.

Krishna said it was not unusual to be in touch with the political leadership but in this case he had not been on the phone. "I was totally cut off from India," he said.

 

[ajtr]

Both agreed on script, rewrite hints at Pak Army hand​

Despite the meeting of the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers falling well short of expectations, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, after a detailed feedback from External Affairs Minister S M Krishna, has decided to persevere with engaging Pakistan and keeping open the doors for dialogue.

While this will continue to remain India's broad approach as interlocutors get back to finding a way forward, sources said there is strong suspicion here that the Islamabad talks went off-script because of the Pakistan Army's last minute intervention, which had problems with India holding the ISI directly responsible for the Mumbai attacks.

Otherwise, the modest outcome of the meeting had all been tied-up well in advance and the understanding was that the Pakistan Army was on board.
...
...

In fact, the joint statement was very much in discussion since June last week. Pakistan High Commissioner Shahid Malik and Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad Sharat Sabharwal were in close touch, holding regular meetings in respective Foreign Ministries, ironing out differences. It was at Malik's repeated urging that India must look to adopt a more flexible approach on Sir Creek, did South Block agree to reconsider its stand only if Islamabad responded to New Delhi's earlier proposals before the Mumbai attacks.
...
...
The hardening of the Pakistani position left Indian interlocutors perplexed as it went against the tenor of the conversation which the two sides had been having at the official levels in the past three weeks.

Still, when Krishna met the PM on return from Islamabad today, it was decided that engagement was the better option even now and that New Delhi must press ahead with its efforts.

 

[ajtr]

Pak haste on composite dialogue the deal-breaker?​

NEW DELHI: At 8 pm on Thursday, Indian and Pakistani delegations had been in discussion for close to seven hours. The Indians were still hopeful of declaring the meeting of foreign ministers a success and felt the waiting media posse could be given something substantial to chew on.

But as is often the case with India-Pakistan meetings, there were more than a few "nearly there" moments as the two sides looked for a formulation S M Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi could take back. Though no one was ready to say there was a hitch, the manner in which the discussions were stretching on began to seem ominous.

The talks stumbled not on terrorism as such, but on Pakistan's desire to restart the stalled "composite dialogue" which would address what it sees as the core issue of Kashmir. Indians had outlined an incremental approach and jumpstarting the peace process to Kashmir did not seem like a good idea even though they were prepared to discuss the deeply divisive dispute.

Well-placed sources said that it was made clear to the Pakistanis that if the composite dialogue, or in other words Kashmir, was to be taken up, there had to be some concrete takeaways on terrorism, more specifically with regard to the Mumbai attacks. This did not mean just quicker trial of seven accused, but several others, including Lashkar-e-Taiba boss Hafiz Saeed.

The Indian side argued that if Kashmir was to return prominently to the table, mere assurances that New Delhi's leads would be investigated would not do. The evidence provided by India pointed to key actors — apart from Saeed himself, there were serving or ex-officers and jihadis like HUJI's Illyas Kashmiri.

Qureshi provided a broad hint of Pakistan's insistence when he said both dialogue and action on terrorism could proceed "in tandem" at the joint press conference. In the face of a persistent question whether the composite dialogue had been reinitiated, the Pakistani foreign minister carefully said that "dialogue has been resumed".

Sources also strenuously clarified that Krishna did not endorse any suggestion that home secretary G K Pillai's remarks on ISI involvement in 26/11 were uncalled for. Krishna himself said "there can be no comparison" with LeT chief Saeed. In fact, the ambush reminded Indians of the infamous Agra summit. Despite being the injured party, India had been prepared to resume talks. Indian negotiators pointed out that composite dialogue was their formulation and was a laudable objective. Apart from the yawning trust deficit, all evidence on planning, the brains trust and equipment pointed to Pakistan, said sources. Mere IOUs of good intentions would not do. In the face of the Pakistani "take it or leave" stance, Indians said they would not deal with ultimatums.

There have been suggestions in Pakistan that it is time to "move on", a phrase used by Qureshi too. This implies that "one cannot be stuck at Mumbai" as Pakistan was doing all it could. "India cannot forget the trauma of Mumbai so easily," sources said, pointing to the specious nature of the argument.

 

[ajtr]

Good Analysis by B.Raman.

PAKISTAN: INDIA'S OPTIONS​

B.RAMAN

Remember Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, who was the Foreign Minister of Pakistan under Yahya Khan? Remember his antics, crude exhibitionism and unparliamentary remarks about Indira Gandhi in the months before the Indo-Pakistan war of December 1971? Remember the way he used to conduct himself in the UN Security Council when it debated the growing tension between India and Pakistan? Remember Benazir Bhutto, his daughter, who was the then Prime Minister,conducting herself hysterically in public in 1989? Remember her going to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, stand before a crowd near the Line of Control, face Indian territory and shout hysterically "azadi,azadi"? Remember the unparliamentary remarks which she used to make about Narasimha Rao, our then Prime Minister?

2. Indira Gandhi and Narasimha Rao ignored with contempt the behaviour of Z.A.Bhutto and Benazir and continued doing what they thought was necessary in India' national interest. We should similarly ignore with contempt the behaviour of Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, and his unparliamentary remarks about Mr.S.M.Krishna, our Foreign Minister, while briefing Pakistani media personnel on July 16 about his talks with our Foreign Minister the previous day.

3. The Government of India, Mr.Krishna himself and Mrs.Nirupama Rao, our Foreign Secretary, need to be complimented for conducting themselves with great personal dignity befitting us as a responsible and mature nation with a mature political leadership in power and for refusing to let themselves be provoked and react in kind against Mr.Qureshi. One of the objectives of Mr.Qureshi was to create doubts in the minds of the Indian public about the credibility and professional competence of Mr.Krishna. Another was to create a crisis atmosphere in the hope of thereby making the West and the Islamic world exercise pressure on India. The Bharatiya Janata Party and some of its leaders and spokesmen are unwittingly walking into the Pakistani trap by their campaign against Mr.Krishna at a time when the political class should stand united behind him.

4. When Z.A.Bhutto and his daughter indulged in anti-India antics and exhibitionism there was no global TV. We had to read about them in the print media and wait for the visuals which arrived days later. There were no live transmissions, no live debates. Only we in India followed closely the antics and exhibitionism of Z.A.Bhutto and Benazir? Most of the rest of the world did not. The international community did not have an idea of the kind of Foreign Minister or Prime Minister Pakistan had.

5. Things are different today. Thanks to the global TV networks, the whole world had an opportunity of watching alive the antics and exhibitionism of Mr.Qureshi and the measured and cultured response of Mr.Krishna and Mrs.Nirupama Rao.It will redound to our credit and make the international community understand----if it has not already understood it--- the kind of Pakistani leadership and the kind of Pakistani Muslim mentality we have to contend with.

6. India's negotiating stance of "action against anti-India terrorism first, rest later" and the growing international understanding of India's stance after 26/11 have unsettled Pakistan. Mr.Qureshi's antics and exhibitionism did not reflect any embarrassment or nervousness over the reported admissions of David Coleman Headley, the head of the sleeper cell of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the 313 Brigade of Ilyas Kashmiri in Chicago, to Indian interrogators about the role of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the command and control of the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai. Such embarrassments are flea-bites for Pakistan and its ISI.

7. Qureshi's antics and exhibitionism reflected his anger and petulance over his failure to bully Mr.Krishna and the Government of India into changing their negotiating stance and accepting the Pakistani position of "talk on all or talk on nothing" ---just as the antics and exhibitionism of Z.A.Bhutto and Benazir reflected their anger and petulance due to their failure to bully Indira Gandhi and Narasimha Rao into accepting the Pakistani viewpoint. We should ignore the antics and exhibitionism of Qureshi and look ahead.

8. What now are the options before India? The BJP has demanded that we call off the talks with Pakistan. This will be an unintelligent option. A time could come when have to act on our own against the anti-Indian terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory----either through direct military or through covert action. We have to convince the international community that we tried all other options to make Pakistan see reason and that only when those options failed, we were forced to resort to military or covert action. There are any number of Governmental statements and doctrines in various countries regarding the circumstances under which covert action would be justified. The most important of these are a speech given by George Shultz, the US Secretary of State under the then President Ronald Reagan, and an introduction to a report on terrorism written by Mr.George Bush, the Vice-President of Reagan and Chairman of the presidential Task Force Against Terrorism. They said that covert action against a State-sponsor of terrorism would be justified WHEN ALL OTHER OPTIONS FAIL.

9. Negotiation is one of the options that has to be tried. You cannot go straightaway into the covert action mode without trying out the negotiation mode. Negotiations could have one of two outcomes. Either Pakistan sees reason and acts against anti-India terrorism thereby obviating the need for covert action or continues to avoid action thereby justifying our resort to covert action. It is, therefore, important that we continue with our negotiations with Pakistan in the hope of establishing normal relations while at the same time reviving and strengthening our covert action capability for likely use if all other options fail.

10. Should we continue to negotiate with Qureshi as if nothing has happened after his insulting behaviour towards our Foreign Minister? Will it not be a poor reflection on us as a nation and as a people and further encourage such behaviour by Pakistan? We should not. At the same time, we cannot refuse to negotiate so long as he is the Pakistani Foreign Minister. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani has the right to have whomever he wants as his Foreign Minister, whether we like him or not.

11. So, the only option available to us to keep the negotiations going while at the same time protecting our national dignity is by confining our future negotiations to the interactions between our Home Ministry and the Pakistani Interior Ministry. We should withdraw the invitation to Mr.Qureshi to visit New Delhi which was issued before he indulged in his antics and exhibitionism and instead invite Mr.Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister, for continuing his talks with our Home Minister. ( 17-7-10)

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: [email protected] )

 

[ajtr]

Pakistan misses the Wagah moment​

Ranjan Roy, 16 July 2010, 03:02 PM IST
About three weeks back, on a rainy morning on the India-Pakistan checkpoint at Wagah, a fleeting moment of cheer appeared like a beam of sunlight through the monsoon clouds. As the massive iron gates creaked open on either side, scores of children from a school in Amritsar rushed with arms outstretched and embraced kids from a Lahore school. Even the harsh glare of the goose-stepping border guards softened. That was a poignant moment that captured what was not to be between India and Pakistan.

In sharp contrast was a joint press conference by Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and India's S M Krishna. No sign that the Wagah moment had percolated to Islamabad. No glimmer of hope that history was being made. Qureshi did say that the mood had changed in Pakistan, implying that civil society wanted peace, but showed no sign that the ruling class was going to change its negotiating rhetoric to reflect that change.

Pakistan is at a precarious point in its political journey towards democracy. Yet its leaders don't seem to have reached that moment of realization. The alpha-male attitude is all too pervasive in the power corridors of Islamabad. The security mindset all too overarching at the negotiating table. Pakistan's rulers are frustrating their own people by taking a meaninglessly tough line in peace talks. Ask any Pakistani and you'll hear an expletive-laden description of its politicians. Instead of using these talks to shore up their credibility as mature managers, Pakistani leaders appear too happy to squander away what little had been achieved at the anvil of parity. The problem is India is being left increasingly little room to negotiate. At a time when we are far from closure on 26/11, it appears both absurd and petty for Qureshi to say that progress against LeT terrorists is being held up because Pakistan doesn't have access to "Mr. Kasab".

Pakistani people understand what its leaders refuse to acknowledge – that peace with India is a necessary pre-requisite for the nation to grow or even survive. Yet talks stall over parity and tit-for-tat issues. Really, how puerile!

The reality is that parity point has long gone. India needs to ooze humility and even offer concessions. But what Pakistan has to realize is that India will negotiate from a position of strength. That's the reality. The two countries have taken a completely divergent political trajectory and that has brought us to this reality. Pakistan can benefit from this. It can leverage on the proximity to a huge market, access to education and technology and the cultural commonality.

On Thursday, there was no signal that Islamabad was prepared to go down that road. Pakistan must understand that India's leadership isn't insecure. That it is backed by a robust economy and a healthy civil society. Most Indians don't obsess with the military getting newer toys and our leaders usually don't power-dress for photo-ops. India has moved towards sensitive governance, far from the security mindset. Our ministers discuss corporal punishment in schools, legislate to bring about gender parity and officials work hard to make sure kids get lunch in schools so they don't drop out. We are glad to have largely left behind our partridge-hunting, polo-playing lot to their own chukkers. There are a few, but mostly confined to their gilt-edged anachronistic cocoons fuelled by voyeurs of history.

 

[ajtr]

"Dialogue between equals cannot be conditional"​

ANITA JOSHUA
SHARE · PRINT · T+
Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Friday said it was ready to show flexibility while engaging with India but insisted that dialogue between equals cannot be conditional.

Briefing the media on his meeting with Indian External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna on Thursday, he added that while Pakistan was ever ready to engage with India, it was neither in a hurry nor ready to talk on Indian terms and conditions.

"If we only stress on issues that are core to India and ignore those of significance to us, then this process cannot move forward," Mr. Qureshi said during an interaction with the media just as Mr. Krishna was wrapping up his three-day visit to Islamabad with meetings with the political leadership of Pakistan. Senior leaders of the Awami National Party and Muttahida Quami Movement called on him in his hotel after which he visited Punjab House for a meeting with Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif en route the airport.

Advocating the resumption of composite dialogue — under whatever nomenclature — Mr. Qureshi said: "I think that whatever we have achieved in four years should not be wasted. We should build on it and not start afresh.''

Pakistan, according to the Minister, from the very beginning has maintained that it was prepared for talks but they should be substantive, meaningful and result-oriented. "If they have a limited mandate for talks, then we can wait till they are ready."

On his silence to Mr. Krishna's charge that Pakistan had not provided a "shred of evidence" to substantiate its contention that India has a hand in the unrest in Balochistan, Mr. Qureshi sought to point out the compulsions of being a host.

As for Kashmir, he said it remained Pakistan's core concern while both countries agreed that terrorism was a common enemy. Stating that Kashmir was a disputed territory and has always been part of India-Pakistan negotiations, he referred to the recent violence in the Valley and said how could Pakistan remain indifferent to it.

During the joint press conference with Mr. Krishna on Thursday after three rounds of talks, Mr. Qureshi had said that Kashmir was taken up and sought to point out that he had got representations from three Kashmir-based organisations to highlight rights violations, imposition of curfew and use of Indian armed forces for maintenance of law and order.

While he steered clear of the reference made to the Inter Services Intelligence involvement in the Mumbai terror attacks by Indian Home Secretary G. K. Pillai, security analysts said that was unnecessary. "India should do quiet diplomacy. The more frontal India is the more difficult it becomes for the Government of Pakistan; especially to deal with other institutions. India is pushing us too publicly and the more it happens, the more it becomes difficult to deliver."

 

[ajtr]

Indo-Pak: out of sync?​

The dialogue process between India and Pakistan has always been a tricky business. The Indian foreign secretary came to Islamabad last month to pave the way for foreign minister-level talks this month. Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna came to Pakistan on a three-day visit this week to meet his counterpart, Shah Mehmood Qureshi. There was a burden of expectation that the talks might deliver something concrete, but realism suggested there would be no breakthrough and that this was just the restart of the peace process. The dialogue process had been stalled after the Mumbai attacks in 2008, thus a resumption of dialogue in itself may be considered an achievement.

India and Pakistan have disputes on many issues, with Kashmir being the oldest and possibly the most intractable. The other issues include Siachen, Sir Creek, terrorism and water, among other bilateral issues.

When Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao met her counterpart Salman Bashir in June, it was decided that no issue or subject is taboo and a comprehensive dialogue will be carried out at the foreign ministerial level but what we saw at the joint press conference in Islamabad on Thursday gave a different impression altogether. It seemed as if Mr Qureshi had a different viewpoint from that of Mr Krishna. The body language at the press conference was equally cold. On the issue of Kashmir, Mr Krishna maintained that infiltration into Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK) was high but Mr Qureshi denied 'infiltration' as the state's policy or that of its intelligence agencies. To add more fuel to the fire, Mr Qureshi made another statement yesterday that Pakistan cannot remain indifferent when there is a curfew in IHK and innocent people are dying. It seems that Kashmir is once again on the front burner.

Siachen has its strategic and tactical importance. Both militaries have an interest in occupying the heights, from where they can cut off the other's lines of communication. This advantage, however, can only come into play in the event of a war. India and Pakistan on the other hand are both embarked currently on taking a turn from the possibility of war to the possibility of peace. On the issue of Sir Creek, both countries are tantalisingly close to an agreement, but it continues to elude their grasp for lack of the requisite political will. On the terrorism front, the whole South Asian region is affected by this menace, particularly Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. These three are afflicted with the same disease in differing degrees. Since terrorists do not respect any borders, there is a pressing need to agree a joint anti-terrorist strategy. As for David Headley's confession and the alleged involvement of the ISI in 26/11, Pakistan must carry out a thorough investigation and if the accusation is found to be true, take the perpetrators to task. Indo-Pak water disputes can also be settled if a concerted effort is made according to the terms of the Indus Water Treaty.

Mr Krishna made it clear that Pakistan has not provided even "a shred of evidence" of India's involvement in Balochistan. This should settle the issue once and for all. Both sides should refrain from political point scoring.

In an inherently difficult negotiating process between these long-time adversaries, one has to be very careful not to say or do anything that puts the process in reverse gear. Thus Mr Qureshi's remarks about Mr Krishna constantly taking calls from Delhi during the meeting were regrettable. Mr Krishna has denied being on the telephone to Delhi and called Mr Qureshi's remarks "an extraordinary statement". It will now require even more effort and diplomacy in order to sustain the dialogue process. It is hoped that this temporary hiccup would not let the process be derailed and better sense would prevail after a cooling off period. *

 

[171K]

Nice article,
But unfortunately you'll never such such an article appear in any widely circulated English dailies in India.

Why not Phenom? I thought India is a democracy! Freedom of speech and all that!

 

[ajtr]

Why not Phenom? I thought India is a democracy! Freedom of speech and all that!

Coz that will be against the interest of usa/west.name any indian MSM they sing tune for the respective country who are involved in their media rather than batting for indian interests.Thank fully majority of india reads vernacular media than the english MSM.

 

[anoop_mig25]

Slightly hawkish but valid points nonetheless

http://www.mid-day.com/opinion/2010/jul/170710-Pakistan-war-India-aggression-foreign-policy.htm

What is more insidious and dangerous is that the Congress seems convinced that hostile action against Pakistan, or even the hanging of Pakistani terrorists, will enrage our Muslims.

Ironical that the biggest insult to Indian Muslims should come from a party that claims to be the biggest champion of secularism.

And let the BJP not fish for brownie points, for its government escorted terrorists to Kandahar, helplessly watched lynched Indian soldiers sent back from Bangladesh hung like animals to bamboo poles, and merely managed to regain Kargil after grave loss of soldiers' lives. And yes, it also gave up our conventional weapons edge with a loud, hollow nuclear noise.


Abhijit Majumder
Executive Editor, MiD DAY

i do n`t agree with the ssiad writer

first war isn`t is very easy and what writer thinks if we attack pakistan it wont give us return gift. it`s very easy to start war but u do not know how/ when to stop it. Is ur goal would meet?.everything has to bee taken under consideration.

second what would Abhijit Majumder if his family member are kidnapped and there is 99% chances that his family would be killed if did n`t fulfill their demands. would he be ready to loose his family?

third can he surely say our nuclear bombs are n`t so effective .And if it is then Pakistan would have taken us during kargil war itself.

its very east to criticizes the system from outside , but this kind of people doesn`t have guts to fight with system or try change it.

i request members not post such articles which doesn't have any logic within it . it is wastage of precious bandwidth of DFI

 

[anoop_mig25]

like i said, we are in no way obliged or responsible to prop up democracy in pakistan, it is the responsibility of pakistanis and if they cant earn and preserve it then they dont deserve it nor is it our fault.

why will the pa not come forward if we were to tell them that we will deal with them directly, forget america, pakistan is desperate for talks, through talks they look to legitimize themselves as a responsible state in the eyes of the wider world which other wise is seen as the largest exporter of terrorism world over, the worst effected country of which is india. just go a few months back when open diplomacy was completely cut off and every now and then pak FM used to say india is shying away from talks, and talks are the only way out, we stop talks now and they will be sweating again.

let us look at the bigger picture, what can pakistan achieve by not talking to us? they backed a full scale proxy war on us but they still could not do a fuck about it, they raised the issue internationally but their calls fell and still falls short for there is no patient hearing for their concerns, heck even the arabs and persians dont give two hoots to what they have to say, forget the rest of the world who have no sympathy for them or for their mission, now they are financing these street protests which really have no effect at all, the only thing, indian media is allowed to cover all this so people assume it is too much to handle, on ground we remain in complete control, one of the best CI ops we have ever carried. so what is it that pakistan is left with? TALKS, and for that they completely depend on us and on our set guidelines. we dont talk kashmir as they want us to and we see the end result as happened in this press meet. so, if we tell the pakistanis that we will deal with the pa on the question of kashmir then they have no other option left but to talk to us and dont forget last when we were directly dealing with them it worked to our benefit, we had them by the collars which made musharraf give in too much than he would have ever liked to have (something only and only their army can do), few of the most peaceful years we have seen in kashmir post insurgency were when he was around. it is simple when you deal with pa you deal with the real face behind terrorism in kashmir. lastly india was most comfortable in dealing with pakistan when we were directly talking to the pa, today for all practical reasons we are largely clueless of whom to deal with there and will our dealing with the civil pakistan govt have any real difference on ground, just see how one visit by kayani to their PM changed the whole tone of the way this whole meet was going on, which till the very last moment was seen as successful.

the bottom line is, in pakistan pa is the state and you deal directly with the state and not with illegitimate babies who have no say in running of the affairs of that country, and for things other than kashmir we deal with those illegitimate babies ofter referred to as "bloody civilians" by the mighty military elites.

PA WOULD NEVER TALK TO US DIRECTLY WITH US UNTIL THEY ARE DIRECTLY UNDER POWER.
FOR MR musharraf HE WAS UNDER DUE PRESSURE FORM AMERICANS TO HAVE BACK CHANNEL TALK WITH US PLUS HE WANTED TO APPEAR AS MODERATE IN WORLD.
UNTIL L 9/11 PAKISTAN UNDER musharraf WAS NEVER READY TO TALK US OR TO ACT AGAINST TERRORIST ACTING AGAINST INDIA
POST 9/11 EVERYTHING CHANGED WORLD WAS LOOKING TOWARDS PAKISTAN AND IT HAD TO ACT . EVERY FOOTSOLDIERS OF TERRORISM WAS SOME HOW CONNECTED WITH PAKISTAN MAINLY TRANNIED IN THE TRIBAL REGION OF PAKISTAN
AND YES HOW COULD SOMEONE FORGET OF THREAT OF PAKISTAN BACK TO STONEAGE BY AMERICANS

AFGAN WAR HAS ONCE AGAIN MADE PAKISTAN ARMY TO BELIEVE THAT TERRORISM IS THERE BEST STATE POLICY AGAINST INDIA OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY.

I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT ONCE AMERICA IS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN . PA WOULD STOP ITS OPERATION AGAINST TALIBAN (AFGAN/PAK TALIBAN). ALL OF THEM WOULD BE DIRECTED TO ATTACK INDIA

THEY DID IN 1987 AND THEY WOULD DO IT AGAIN NOW .

PAKISTAN ARMY IN FUTURE THROUGH ITS USE OF TERRORIST WOULD ACT AGAINST FOREIGN ORIGIN PEOPLE INDIA SO THAT OUR ECONOMY IS BACK TO ITS PREVIOUS GROWTH RATE OF 6%-3%

ITS NOW UP TO INDIA HOW WE ACT. DO WE CONTINUE AS WE ARE DOING NOW OR WE WILL GIVE A STRONG REPLY IN SOME DIFFERNT FORM

I THINK WE ONLY HAD ONE WEAPON LEFT I.E IS TO ATTACK TERRORIST TRANNING CAMPS IN AZAD CAMP . COVERTLY.SOONER INDIAN POLICY MAKER REALIZE IT BETTER FOR US

my assumption is that the only two reasons we talk to them is because we intend to make use of their land as a transit route for our goods to be moved to other destinations, and later on we intend to make use of those 170m odd people to sell our products, so there is certainly a corporate interest in this. the other reason is no matter how much we want to lecture we are independent off international pressure but we do scum to that pressure which wants us to talk to pakistan.

IT THINK ONLY ONE LAND ROUTE WHICH IS BLOCKED IS NORTHERN REGION OF J&K PRESENTLY OCCUPIED BY PAKISTAN. FIRSTLY THAT PART IS DISPUTED AREA . INDIAN ARMY WOULD NEVER WOULD ABLE TO RE-CAPTURE IT BECAUSE OUR POLITICAL CLASS WON`T GIVE THEM MANDATE.

AND EVEN IF THIS PEOPLE WOULD GAVE THEIR MANDATE THEY WOULD CERTAINLY BUCK UNDER INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WOULD NEVER LIKE THAT REGION UNDER INDIA `S CONTROL

EVEN IF THERE IS SOME COMMERCIAL INTEREST, WHY DON`T THIS PEOPLE SUPPORT TAKING BACK OUR LAND BACK TO US.

BUT THIS ISN`T POSSIBLE NOW HENCE WE OUR POLICY MAKERS ARE SUPPORTING IDEA OF CONVERTING LoC AS IB

 

[ajtr]

PA WOULD NEVER TALK TO US DIRECTLY WITH US UNTIL THEY ARE DIRECTLY UNDER POWER.
FOR MR musharraf HE WAS UNDER DUE PRESSURE FORM AMERICANS TO HAVE BACK CHANNEL PLUS HE WANTED TO KNOW THE WORLD THAT HE IS MODERATE........

Wasn't PA talking to us directly all the time all the time generals like ayub khan,Yahya khan ,zia and mushy were in power.All the major agreements like indus water treaty etc were signed during general's rule.And there is difference in 1990s and 2010 and the major difference is those mujaheedins who were only threatening india in 1990s are now threat to whole world.Just wait for timeAfghanistan will either swallow up pakistan or will break it up.The jehadi tumor has too malignant to treat it it will only go away with patient's death.

 

[ajtr]

IT THINK ONLY ONE LAND ROUTE WHICH IS BLOCKED IS NORTHERN REGION OF J&K PRESENTLY OCCUPIED BY PAKISTAN. FIRSTLY THAT PART IS DISPUTED AREA . INDIAN ARMY WOULD NEVER WOULD ABLE TO RE-CAPTURE IT BECAUSE OUR POLITICAL CLASS WON`T GIVE THEM MANDATE.

AND EVEN IF THIS PEOPLE WOULD GAVE THEIR MANDATE THEY WOULD CERTAINLY BUCK UNDER INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WOULD NEVER LIKE THAT REGION UNDER INDIA `S CONTROL

EVEN IF THERE IS SOME COMMERCIAL INTEREST, WHY DON`T THIS PEOPLE SUPPORT TAKING BACK OUR LAND BACKS BUT THIS ISN`T POSSIBLE NOW HENCE WE OUR POLICY MAKERS ARE SUPPORTING IDEA OF CONVERTING LoC AS IB

Look back at the history since independence and try to relegate what india has achieved till now after partition?you will get you answer.

 

[anoop_mig25]

Wasn't PA talking to us directly all the time all the time generals like ayub khan,Yahya khan ,zia and mushy were in power.All the major agreements like indus water treaty etc were signed during general's rule.And there is difference in 1990s and 2010 and the major difference is those mujaheedins who were only threatening india in 1990s are now threat to whole world.Just wait for timeAfghanistan will either swallow up pakistan or will break it up.The jehadi tumor has too malignant to treat it it will only go away with patient's death.

u are right but pakistan would be doing greater service to western world by taking on terrorist acting against western world.this requries price and for pakistan only one thing can compensate them i.e is kashmir. either they get kashmir through settlement forced by international community or wester world must turn their eye away from those terrorist acting against india . i think thats a small price foe western world

Breaking of pakistan in short term may be god for india but in long trem it may be bad

third as event are occurring out in Afghanistan , pakistan is going to get head start in it

 

[ajtr]

u are right but pakistan would be doing greater service to western world by taking on terrorist acting against western world.this requries price and for pakistan only one thing can compensate them i.e is kashmir. either they get kashmir through settlement forced by international community or wester world must turn their eye away from those terrorist acting against india . i think thats a small price foe western world

Breaking of pakistan in short term may be god for india but in long trem it may be bad

third as event are occurring out in Afghanistan , pakistan is going to get head start in it

No pakistan is not taking on the haqqani group in north waziristan who is mainly responsible for the attack s on nato forces in afghanistan.instead pakistan has double crossed usa by promoting haqqani group as good taliban for negotiations with karzai.BTW june causalities of coalition forces in afghanistan were all time high in last 8 yrs of war in afghanistan.Pakistan till nw only took on the TTP of mehsud group in south waziristan and swat which were causing havoc by suicide bombings.BTW there are no good/bad/moderate/afghan/pakistani/punjabi taliban.ALl have been mutated in jehadi groups including kashmiri,LeT,even chinese and uzbeki groups.


THE SUN IN THE SKY:THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAKISTAN'S ISI AND AFGHAN INSURGENTS

pages:6 and 7

Almost all the Taliban commanders interviewed believe the ISI are represented on the Quetta
Shura. One senior southern commander said: 'Every group commander knows the reality –
which is obvious to all of us – that the ISI is behind the Taliban, they formed and are
supporting the Taliban.' He also explained why it was not widely known: 'Every commander
knows about the involvement of the ISI in the leadership but we do not discuss it because we
do not trust each other, and they are much stronger than us. They are afraid that if they say
anything against the Taliban or ISI it would be reported to the higher ranks – and they may be
removed or assassinated ... Everyone sees the sun in the sky but cannot say it is the sun.'

 

[Daredevil]

mate why just the perpetrators of 26/11, if at all there has to be a dialog then all sort of terrorism instigated at the behest of pakistan needs to be stopped. kashmir is as much a part of india as is mumbai where every other month a 26/11 happens and we end up loosing a decent number of our young men fighting out these terrorists.

For the simple reason that we have wealth of evidence from different sources to prove the complicity of ISI and PA in 26/11 attack while other attacks can be plausibly denied in international forums. We can use 26/11 information on Pakistan to brow-beat it for as long as we want and stall the talks and just play lip service. The point you need to remember is we are dealing Paks under pressure form US though GoI doesn't have the mandate of people. I think hell will be unleashed on Pakistan at the time of India's choosing rather than as a reaction to Pakistan's shenanigans.