India-Pakistan Relations

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
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.
Is this the best the india can do?Until the the next 26/11 and again GOI can beat its chest, print dossiers in multiple copies and browbeat pakistan with evidence.Isn't it like giving murderer the evidence and giving him the mandate to decide his own sentence on the heap of 170 dead bodies.Sorry but its shear impotency of GOI that it got itself cornered in this position.Today GOI cant retort, when pakistani says we are also victim of terrorism by countering it with that pakistan is victim of its own terror but india is victim of terror perpetrated by pakistan.India lost that mandate when PM manmohan singh accepted this at havana.Whatever people say him about being good finance minister or administrator but then in foreign affairs he is big zero. the biggest harakiri he did in foreign affairs like iran vote,havana and S-e-S mistakes are simply unpardonable.
 
Last edited:

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Frauds' own country


The Pioneer Edit Desk

Qureshi symbolises Pakistan's deranged state

For all the atmospherics, the high-profile meeting between the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers unravelled at a late night Press conference. It became apparent that the two Governments agreed on almost nothing substantive. Pakistan repeated its old charge about Indian involvement in the Balochistan insurgency, despite India saying it had "not received a shred of evidence". More important, Islamabad claimed infiltration into Jammu & Kashmir, across the Line of Control, by Islamists and militants was not its problem and that India should deal with it singlehandedly. How India can deal with infiltration that is sourced from territory under the control of the Pakistani state defies reason. On 26/11, a terrorist outrage that the Jamaat-ud-Dawa'h, a thuggish Islamist cabal based in the heart of Pakistan, planned and carried out, the Pakistani Prime Minister baldly told his Indian visitor that no credible evidence had been shared with Islamabad, never mind the mountains of documents sent across over the past year-and-a-half. As for the revelations of David Coleman Headley, the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba operative whom Indian investigators questioned in Chicago in June, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi was positively dismissive. Headley has apparently confirmed that not just JuD leaders and Pakistani non-state actors but even senior officials of the Inter-Services Intelligence were involved in plotting the November 26, 2008, attacks on multiple high-profile targets in Mumbai with ghastly consequences. Not only did Mr Qureshi brush aside this embarrassing reality, he actually attacked an Indian civil servant, Home Secretary GK Pillai, for briefing the media on the Headley confessions. Mr Qureshi claimed this was an attempt to sabotage the so-called peace process with Pakistan and compared Mr Pillai's supposed 'provocation' with nasty and brutish hate speeches by the JuD chief, Hafiz Saeed. That a polite and correct Indian civil servant, with an impeccable professional record, is categorised with one of the world's most dangerous criminals, a man who rivals Osama bin Laden in his potential for evil, speaks volumes for Mr Qureshi's sensibility as well as his sense of hospitality. More than anything else, it is a commentary on the Pakistani state — rotten, degraded, unable to prevent its inevitable collapse, listless in the face of a sectarian civil war involving various brands of Islamists, each more vile than the other. In maintaining his dignity and refusing to be drawn into a war of words, Minister for External Affairs SM Krishna did the right thing. He had been sent on a fool's errand and did the best job in the circumstances.

Where does the revived India-Pakistan dialogue, meant to bridge what the Prime Minister calls "trust deficit", go from here? Mr Krishna has invited Mr Qureshi for the next round of talks in New Delhi. Should he come — and which Pakistani wouldn't want a respite from his blighted country? — Mr Qureshi will no doubt use his fake accent and false bravado to resort to more grandstanding. The familiar cycle of India-Pakistan rhetorical battles will restart. This can actually be deeply damaging for New Delhi because it will trivialise the complicity of agencies of the Pakistani state in executing terror attacks against India, and could completely sideline the issue of bringing the masterminds of 26/11 to justice. Given the level of American pressure on the Prime Minister, it is unlikely India will refuse to talk. Even so, a hard message has to be sent. Pakistan may be a joke. Terrorism isn't.
 

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
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


but how u convince western world that there does n`t exist good and bad terrorist.this idea/theory of good & bad terrorist was promoted by Pakistan if Pakistan is successful in preventing terrorist from tragetting western assets then u easily conveince western world about that good and bad terrorist do exist. there must be separate strategy to deal with them .

what u are telling i had been telling the same that Pakistan is not going to act against terrorist acting against India. so India must do something another. we cannot now see another terrorist act begin carried out in our country.if we didn`t act with iron feast then it would lead to bad sign that india is weak country

and acting against meshud group all would stop once america is out of Afgan. there would some peace treaty between PA and meshud group.
 

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
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
but how u convince western world that there does n`t exist good and bad terrorist.this idea/theory of good & bad terrorist was promoted by Pakistan if Pakistan is successful in preventing terrorist from tragetting western assets then u easily conveince western world about that good and bad terrorist do exist. there must be separate strategy to deal with them .

what u are telling i had been telling the same that Pakistan is not going to act against terrorist acting against India. so India must do something another. we cannot now see another terrorist act begin carried out in our country.if we didn`t act with iron feast then it would lead to bad sign that india is weak country

and acting against meshud group all would stop once america is out of Afgan. there would some peace treaty between PA and meshud group.
 
Last edited:

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Request all members to post anything related to India and Pakistan relations here. Be it talks or any news or announcement concerning the relations between the two countries
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
Is this the best the india can do?Until the the next 26/11 and again GOI can beat its chest, print dossiers in multiple copies and browbeat pakistan with evidence.Isn't it like giving murderer the evidence and giving him the mandate to decide his own sentence on the heap of 170 dead bodies.Sorry but its shear impotency of GOI that it got itself cornered in this position.Today GOI cant retort, when pakistani says we are also victim of terrorism by countering it with that pakistan is victim of its own terror but india is victim of terror perpetrated by pakistan.India lost that mandate when PM manmohan singh accepted this at havana.Whatever people say him about being good finance minister or administrator but then in foreign affairs he is big zero. the biggest harakiri he did in foreign affairs like iran vote,havana and S-e-S mistakes are simply unpardonable.
What do you expect with a peace-nick as the PM??. If it is not for the hawks in Group of Ministers like PC and Pranab, MMS would have gone ahead and would have ceded a lot of space to Pakistan and their wishes. GoI needs to stall any talks or concessions given to Pakistan by MMS and PMO, and PC is doing the job of hawk by releasing news of ISI's complicity in 26/11 and thus stalling the talks. We should thank our stars that there are some hawks in the cabinet of MMS.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
What do you expect with a peace-nick as the PM??. If it is not for the hawks in Group of Ministers like PC and Pranab, MMS would have gone ahead and would have ceded a lot of space to Pakistan and their wishes. GoI needs to stall any talks or concessions given to Pakistan by MMS and PMO, and PC is doing the job of hawk by releasing news of ISI's complicity in 26/11 and thus stalling the talks. We should thank our stars that there are some hawks in the cabinet of MMS.
I.K.Gujral Redux.Always does immense damage to india.On the side the person is born across wagah will have more chances of softcorner for pakistan.Even now MMS can do a lot if he wish to ie convert pakistans worst nightmare about india into reality.for the starter start with supporting proxy war inside it and stopping indus water.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
but how u convince western world that there does n`t exist good and bad terrorist.this idea/theory of good & bad terrorist was promoted by Pakistan if Pakistan is successful in preventing terrorist from tragetting western assets then u easily conveince western world about that good and bad terrorist do exist. there must be separate strategy to deal with them .

what u are telling i had been telling the same that Pakistan is not going to act against terrorist acting against India. so India must do something another. we cannot now see another terrorist act begin carried out in our country.if we didn`t act with iron feast then it would lead to bad sign that india is weak country

and acting against meshud group all would stop once america is out of Afgan. there would some peace treaty between PA and meshud group.
Did india convince western world for formation of bangladesh????If not then why now??India cant deal with pakistan until it depends on west for their nod.For it india has to do it alone by itself.USA/west /china just use indo-pak conflict to further their gains/interests in the region.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Actually, India should take a break till Pakistan yelps for talks.

It is bandied by Pakistanis that both India and Pakistan is under the terrorist threat.

True.

But there is a great difference. Pakistan has internal terrorists (home grown by their ISI) and India is ravaged by terrorists of Pakistan, again nurtured, equipped, trained and financed by the ISI.

ISI is the common denominator and it runs Pakistan.

The latest Indo Pak talks got de-railed after good old Kayani had a chat with the Ministers!

He terrorised the Pakistani Ministers into submission and poor Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi (if that is his name) went into a tizzy of boorish cussedness only to prove that he is more loyal to the King than the King himself!

India should not be worried about Pakistan and its terrorists. Instead of wasting time, it is time to reply with the same coin and more :wink: . Mistake this not as suggesting war. Not at all!

A little bit of indirect aggressiveness will shake the US to realise that it has to act more strongly with Pakistan or else things could go out of hand. It is the US that requires to be shaken and not stirred and not Pakistan!

The US is taking India too much for granted!
 
Last edited:

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
The day after: India raps Qureshi's etiquette



NEW DELHI: Shah Mehmood Qureshi really couldn't complain about S M Krishna's phone etiquette. During the day-long negotiations, at several times, the entire Indian delegation was left alone in Qureshi's room in the Pakistan foreign office, while the Pakistan delegation stepped out to consult their bosses. In any diplomatic negotiation, it's perfectly normal for officials to stay in touch with their headquarters. Therefore, there is complete mystification in the Indian camp about Qureshi's bellicosity, said sources familiar with the Islamabad.

In the run-up to the talks, the two sides had worked on the confidence-building measures that would be announced during the visit. These included a set of meetings between commerce secretaries (to kickstart trade), water resources secretaries (to look for cooperation in this area) even parliamentarians to meet each other. With this, India was going to indicate that it was ready for launching the full spectrum of dialogue. A meeting of surveyors general would also have been scheduled to resolve the Sir Creek issue.

But this would take time, because after Mumbai, India wants Pakistan to take some credible action on terrorism, which would prompt further opening up by India.

But Pakistan, said sources, would have none of it. The Indian delegation went in the talks believing that the agreements were a done deal, when Qureshi sprang a "roadmap" on them, insisting that talks on Kashmir, peace and security and Siachen should happen simultaneously. They wanted a calendar of events culminating in the foreign ministers' next meeting in Delhi at the end of the year.

As Pakistan PM Yousuf Gilani's remarks on Saturday made clear, the Pakistani side took Manmohan Singh's assurance that "all issues would be discussed" more literally than the Indian side. Gilani said, "Pakistan wants the continuation of dialogue with India. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has assured me that all issues will be discussed." Qureshi said, "We are very serious about normalising our relations with India."

India was not ready to take the big jump into the core issues just yet, without Pakistan taking any action on terrorism. Certainly, on issues like Siachen, the Indian government was not yet ready to take the plunge.

Given the Pakistani objections, the Indian side even worked on some drafting language that took into account positions on both sides. By scheduling a foreign secretaries' meeting they hoped to take care of two of the three issues -- J&K and peace and security.

But this was not acceptable to the Pakistani minister, who took the my-way-or-the-highway road. In retrospect, what Pakistan understood from resumption of dialogue and what India understood were very different, what foreign secretary, Nirupama Rao called a "difference in perception".

For the Indian side, the signal was that Pakistan did not want to negotiate. The reason remains a bit of a mystery. It could be that the Headley revelations about ISI involvement in Mumbai was the straw that broke the camel's back in the Pakistan army establishment and they found the home secretary's revelations to be an excuse. Or it could be that Pakistan thought that pushing India to talk on Kashmir when there was ongoing turmoil in the state was the right thing to do.

Whatever, it has brought back memories of the 2001 Agra summit, which also ran aground when Pervez Musharraf wanted to put Kashmir as the "core" issue in a joint statement and refused to budge.

Then, as now, India's intelligence on the inner workings of the Pak army mind remains sketchy. And that is always a problem.

The way forward is less clear, though evidently India will have to fix the breach, even if Pakistan doesn't. Krishna and Qureshi are scheduled to meet next week in Kabul during the peace conference. Whether they decide to move on will be watched carefully. The Indian proposals on resumption of dialogue are still valid, say sources. So if Pakistan wants to pick up on them they can.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Timeline on Siachen, Kashmir talks was the deal-breaker at Islamabad


SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN

Pakistan Foreign Minister Qureshi overruled his officials over draft of common talking points
India and Pakistan had agreed to a rough schedule of meetings between different sets of officials as envisaged by the composite dialogue process but the inability of the Indian negotiators to firmly commit to a resumption of Defence Secretary-level talks on Siachen led Pakistan's Foreign Minister to walk away from the deal at hand.

Nevertheless, according to sources on the Indian side, the fact that the two countries agreed dialogue was the only way forward meant the Foreign Ministers' meeting was still "positive". Another plus was the Pakistani side's acknowledgment — for the first time since 2008 — that the gains made in back channel talks on Kashmir during the Musharraf years "were important and useful," the sources told The Hindu on Saturday.

The sources said External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna travelled to Islamabad with a proposal that would have seen the two sides beginning talks on trade, tourism and other issues almost immediately while leaving formal parleys on Jammu and Kashmir, 'Peace and Security', and Siachen for a later date with the foreign secretaries to be tasked with working out the modalities for that.

"We wanted to move ahead with CBMs first because they are easier," the sources said. "We made it clear we were willing to discuss the other three issues too but said we need a certain catalysing process. They are more complex so it is better to start with what is more easily achievable."

"Since June, we had been talking of starting meetings between various secretaries — commerce, water resources, culture — and the Pakistanis were very much on board with this idea," the sources said.

Sir Creek

On Sir Creek, India said it was ready to discuss any Pakistani response to its last proposal and was willing to hold a meeting of the Surveyor-General from the Indian side and the Additional Secretary of the Defence Ministry from the Pakistani side.

The sources said officials from both sides worked past lunch on July 15 to produce a draft of common talking points for the joint ministerial press conference that was scheduled for later that day. Though not a joint statement, the draft spelt out a mutually acceptable framework for future meetings and included language that worked around obvious differences on a timeline for the resumption of talks on Siachen and Kashmir.

But when the Pakistani side sent the draft to Shah Mahmood Qureshi for his approval, the Minister shot it down, the Indian sources said. Pakistani officials were not available for comment.

Mr. Qureshi had an all-or-nothing attitude, the sources said. "They wanted us to accept a calendar of meetings which would have amounted to a resumption of the composite dialogue in all but name "¦ It seems there was a lot of emphasis on optics from their side. They want to put Humpty Dumpty together again. But the fact is [he] fell off the wall. It is not as if we can immediately go back to the situation pre-Mumbai "¦ We need progress on terrorism."

The sources said India was proposing that action on the terror front would "catalyse" the process of talking on what Pakistan considered 'core issues'. "But we didn't put specific goalposts other than to say action against terrorism should be expeditious and should lead to the unravelling of the Mumbai conspiracy."

Fresh efforts were then made to rework the language of the 'talking points'. This time, the Pakistanis wanted specific timelines for the resumption of discussion on Kashmir, peace and security, and Siachen. Since it was a given that the two Foreign Secretaries — who normally handle Kashmir and 'peace and security' in the composite dialogue — would be meeting again, it was relatively easy to blur over the fact that India had not yet agreed formally to resume discussions on the subject. But Siachen proved a harder nut to crack. Apart from the absence of a timeline, the Indian desire to refer to future interlocutors on the subject as "relevant officials" rather than the two Defence Secretaries was another obstacle. As the evening wore on, the Indian side, which acknowledges being in touch with New Delhi on several points, categorically told the Pakistanis that their mandate did not include agreeing to a firm commitment to resume dialogue on Siachen.

Though the heights of Siachen proved insurmountable, the sources say other factors may also have been at play in ensuring the talks ended inconclusively. The Pakistani side did tell the Indians how Home Secretary Gopal Pillai's statements on the involvement of the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate in the Mumbai attack had evoked anger in Islamabad.

Asked about Mr. Qureshi's claim of "instructions" being sent from Delhi, the sources said this was natural and that he too left the room with his officials at one point. "Clearly he was answering to a higher authority. And though he is a Maqdoom, that authority was not God!," they added.

The sources said it was unfortunate that the "petulance" of Mr. Qureshi's remarks on Thursday and Friday had deflected attention away from what the two sides had discussed and highlighted only the "atmospherics". But they said India intended to keep its own rhetoric down so as to allow temperatures to subside.

The Indian side acknowledges that as matters stand, there are no official meetings planned or scheduled between now and December, when Mr. Qureshi indicated he might come to Delhi for a return visit. But the sources hoped the Pakistani side would realise the need to continue engagement. A meeting of the bilateral judicial commission to review the question of prisoner repatriation is due and India hopes Pakistan will convene it soon.

The sources said that although Mr. Krishna and Mr. Qureshi will be in Kabul next week for an international conference, no meeting between them was being envisaged as of now.


"We wanted to move ahead with CBMs first because they are easier"
Qureshi had an all-or-nothing attitude, say sources
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Belated laments

Published: July 18, 2010
Print Facebook Digg StumbleUpon Text Size
IT defies explanation that Foreign Minister Qureshi needed an overnight rest to realise that his Indian counterpart, with whom he had a long discussion at Islamabad on Thursday, was "ill-prepared" for the talks. At the joint press conference, he had kept quietly listening to Mr Krishna's observations, without as much as raising an eyebrow. A look at the reports about the talks, however, would suggest that the Indians were, on the contrary, well-prepared, focused and clear-headed. They kept hammering, perhaps, the sole item on their agenda i.e. their perceived terrorist threat from Pakistan. Mr Krishna's statement, "India wants prompt action regarding confession of alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba activist, David Headley, regarding the Mumbai attacks," contains no ambiguity that should go with his being ill-prepared. Nor does the assertion that he was "here to see what action Pakistan has taken so far" call for more than one interpretation. If anything, it was a veiled threat. We should also note his reaction on returning to New Delhi after he had been informed of Mr Qureshi's outburst. Mr Krishna peremptorily maintained that unless the issue of terrorism was addressed, "all other efforts will be futile". At Islamabad, he told the media that he had reminded his interlocutors that India awaited the fulfilment of Prime Minister Gilani's commitment that Pakistani territory would not used against India for terrorist purposes. Mr Qureshi kept listening!
The 'allegation' about Krishna-New Delhi phone contacts during the course of the meeting simply falls flat on the ground that there is nothing amiss nor unusual for a delegation on an important mission in a foreign land to consult home or receive instructions from it. It is an accepted diplomatic norm to establish contact in case of need. Even if Mr Krishna had not denied Mr Qureshi's so-called allegation and said that he had been on the telephone line with headquarters, it would not merit any comment. It would, though, definitely raise laughter in diplomatic circles. That Islamabad ceded a lot of ground to New Delhi was also evident from Mr Krishna's other remarks that remained unquestioned by our Foreign Minister. One wonders why our leaders accuse India of involvement in terrorist acts in Pakistan, if they do not have the courage to confront it with facts. This is not the first time that New Delhi has openly stated that it has not been given any proof. Even Mr Krishna's shamefaced denial of any human rights violations in Indian occupied Kashmir went unanswered, though these abuses are no secret from the world. It is this shocking lack of reaction that our Foreign Minister showed, which has prompted the PML-Q to decide to submit a resolution against him in the National Assembly. If anyone, it was Mr Shah Mahmood Qureshi who was ill-prepared and confused.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
After the talks




Sunday, July 18, 2010
In the aftermath of the situation in which newspaper headlines have played tirelessly – and inevitably – on the dialogue between the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers which led nowhere at all, we now see a blame game unfolding. The Indian media has accused Pakistan of trying to pin down talks, notably on Kashmir, to a timeframe and thereby sabotaging them. Meanwhile, the Pakistan foreign minister has himself lashed out in still harsher terms, accusing his Indian counterpart, S M Krishna, of adopting a rigid approach, of engaging regularly in telephone conversations with New Delhi and of failing to display flexibility. Mr Shah Mehmood Qureshi has pointed out that Kashmir was always on the agenda for talks and he can hardly be blamed for bringing it up. The points raised by Mr Qureshi are possibly valid – but the last thing we need at this point in time is further bitterness or a return to the unconstructive finger-pointing exercise we have seen since November 2008. There is no doubt at all the talks were a huge disappointment; there is embarrassment in Islamabad where many had hoped to make a more triumphant announcement and perhaps win some of the international approval Pakistan so desperately seeks. But this is no reason to abandon maturity and poise. It is important for the process of dialogue to move on; as it rolls along it may hit a less bumpy portion of road and gain pace. But trading jibes and making accusations will only hinder this.

Pakistan has insinuated that the Indian prime minister was not aware of the line Mr Krishna would take. It is questionable if Islamabad should attempt to embroil itself in New Delhi's affairs or any power struggles there. The main challenge for both countries must be to create trust, and continue to work towards building accord. The hardest tasks are not easy ones. It took years of struggle and patient negotiation to build peace in South Africa, in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the world. Particularly in the case of India and Pakistan that have thrice since 1947 faced each other across battlefields, instant results cannot be expected. The history of recent tensions makes this still more unlikely. Diplomacy, if it is to succeed, requires patience and the ability to persevere with effort in the cause of national interest. Islamabad and New Delhi would do well to immediately pour cold water to douse anger. They must understand that we have, as nations, no alternatives but to work towards peace. War is simply not an option. Neither is a continuation of the tensions that have eroded trust and contributed immensely to the problems faced today. The leaders of both countries have frequently asserted their desire to build trust. This should inspire their ministers and others in key places to carry on with the initiative and ensure that the peace process can be carried on, even if it moves forward one miniscule step at a time.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Actually, India should take a break till Pakistan yelps for talks.

It is bandied by Pakistanis that both India and Pakistan is under the terrorist threat.

True.

But there is a great difference. Pakistan has internal terrorists (home grown by their ISI) and India is ravaged by terrorists of Pakistan, again nurtured, equipped, trained and financed by the ISI.

ISI is the common denominator and it runs Pakistan.

The latest Indo Pak talks got de-railed after good old Kayani had a chat with the Ministers!

He terrorised the Pakistani Ministers into submission and poor Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi (if that is his name) went into a tizzy of boorish cussedness only to prove that he is more loyal to the King than the King himself!

India should not be worried about Pakistan and its terrorists. Instead of wasting time, it is time to reply with the same coin and more :wink: . Mistake this not as suggesting war. Not at all!

A little bit of indirect aggressiveness will shake the US to realise that it has to act more strongly with Pakistan or else things could go out of hand. It is the US that requires to be shaken and not stirred and not Pakistan!

The US is taking India too much for granted!
Manmohan shing must stop playing peace tunes till situation in Afghanistan becomes clear.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
He will do good to india by not visiting.....:emot15:
Qureshi to visit India only for 'meaningful' talks

Press Trust Of India
Posted on Jul 18, 2010 at 10:04 | Updated Jul 18, 2010 at 12:04


0
Islamabad: Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi on Sunday upped the ante by saying he was unwilling to travel to New Delhi for talks unless India is prepared to hold a "meaningful, constructive and result-oriented" dialogue to resolve outstanding issues with Pakistan.
"I do not want to visit India for a leisure trip. I want to go for meaningful, constructive and result-oriented talks if the right atmosphere prevails and if they are fully prepared (for talks)," Qureshi said after addressing a joint news conference with visiting British Minister Sayeeda Warsi.
Mr Qureshi had created a stir on Friday by disclosing that someone from New Delhi was directing the Indian delegation over telephone. 48 hours after the Pakistan Foreign Minister made that explosive personal attack against SM Krishna, he has made another dramatic turnaround.

In an interview to The Dawn newspaper Qureshi said that it was not Krishna whom he was referring to but one of the Indian delegates who was receiving instructions from New Delhi.
He was responding to a question from reporters on whether he would travel to New Delhi for talks in view of Indian government's current position. Following a meeting with Qureshi in Islamabad on Thursday, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna had announced that he had invited his Pakistani counterpart to visit India for the next round of their parleys.
Qureshi reiterated his assertion that Krishna had come to Pakistan with a limited mandate. "At our talks, I said that they (Indian side) should raise terrorism if it was among their priorities because it is also our concern. You can raise (the) Mumbai (attacks) but we have our concerns," Qureshi said.
Among Pakistan's concerns is the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, where curfew has been imposed and there are killings, he said.
Qureshi contended that India raised its concerns and "then became selective" in taking on Pakistan's concerns. "If you (India) are answerable to your people on terrorism, we too are a democracy and have to satisfy our people," he said.
Qureshi said he had not raised any issues with Krishna that were not part of the eight components of the composite dialogue. This was done because Pakistan does not want the four years of efforts made through the composite dialogue to go waste, he said.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Totally wrong report there are many eager to come to india to visit jannat courtesy tour operated by indian army

'Chill' sees number of visitors from Pak drop by nearly half



NEW DELHI: The chill in India-Pakistan ties and the recent tightening of visa norms have translated in a drop in tourist arrivals from Pakistan by a whopping 46.7% in one year. While this is a major decline, the largest drop in tourist arrivals in sheer numbers came from Bangladesh (48%), followed by UK (16%) and Japan (12%).

The number of tourists from Pakistan dropped from 85,529 in 2008 to 45,628 in 2009. The number of tourists from Bangladesh came down from 5.4 lakh in 2008 to 4.58 lakh in 2009.

Travel industry experts say the decline can be attributed to the restrictive visa regime with Pakistan. Both countries insist on city specific visas and emphasis police reporting within 24 hours of arrival. In fact, recently, the home ministry asked the Indian mission in Islamabad to send all visa applications from Pakistan to be vetted by the ministry.

Tourist arrivals registered a decline of 3.3% in 2009 as compared to 2008. This came at a time when the world was badly hit by economic slowdown. The slowdown turned the tide temporarily and while India continued to be a favourite destination for US and UK, there was a drop in arrivals from both countries. The highest number of tourists continued to come from US with the number dropping marginally from 80.4 lakh in 2008 to 80.3 lakh in 2009.

Tourists from UK declined from 7.76 lakh in 2008 to 7.48 in 2009 while arrivals from Japan came down from 1.4 lakh to 1.2 lakh.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Never said Krishna was always on phone: Qureshi

July 18, 2010 14:38 IST

After making carping comments on his talks with S M Krishna [ Images ], Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has said he never stated that his Indian counterpart was on the phone with New Delhi [ Images ] during their parleys on Thursday.

He, however, claimed that other members of the Indian delegation were receiving instructions on phone from New Delhi throughout the parleys.

"I never said Krishna himself was making calls (to New Delhi)," Qureshi told reporters at the Foreign Office last night after addressing a joint news conference with visiting British Minister Sayeeda Warsi.

The Pakistan foreign minister was responding to a question on the war of words that erupted between him and Krishna in the wake of the talks on July 15 during which sharp differences arose over a roadmap and timeframe for future engagements.

Qureshi contended that whenever he and Krishna agreed on any issue during their talks here on Thursday, a member of the Indian delegation would leave the room to confer with New Delhi and seek instructions.

The Indian delegate, who left the room, would then return and convey a message to Krishna, he said.

The Indian side would then say that the matter that had been raised was outside their "restricted mandate," Qureshi said.

The Pakistan foreign minister said there were about 15 to 20 people in the room where the talks were being held and they could vouch for his comments.

Qureshi further said that he and Krishna had "agreed on many issues" during informal talks over dinner the night before their parleys.

However, things changed during the formal talks on July 15, he said.

He further clarified that he had not said that Krishna had come to Islamabad [ Images ] with no mandate. "What I said is that he had a restricted mandate," Qureshi said.

When Pakistan was prepared to listen to all issues raised by India [ Images ], why was New Delhi not prepared to listen to Islamabad's concerns, Qureshi wondered.

Qureshi also said he did not have "any doubt" about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] and Krishna's positive attitude and desire to improve relations with Pakistan.

The Pakistani foreign minister's comments on Friday that Krishna had repeatedly received instructions from New Delhi during their talks had sparked a heated response from the Indian side.

Krishna had made it clear that he had never spoken on phone during the parleys but said it was the usual practice for Foreign Ministers to be in touch with their governments during diplomatic discussions.

© Copyright 2010 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Never said Krishna was always on phone: Qureshi
Qureshi contended that whenever he and Krishna agreed on any issue during their talks here on Thursday, a member of the Indian delegation would leave the room to confer with New Delhi and seek instructions.


So it was not Krishna but a junior official. Qureshi Face Palm !
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Transit rights for India

Islamabad refuses to give India the Most Favoured Nation status while Delhi has raised both tariff and non-tariff barriers to restrict Pakistan's exports
Islamabad's rejection of Kabul's demand for transit trade rights for India to facilitate the movement of Indian goods to landlocked Afghanistan and beyond was not unexpected.

Nor was the Afghan craving difficult to understand. But the issue of giving transit trade rights to India is more a bilateral matter between Islamabad and New Delhi than a subject to be covered under the Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement being renegotiated under the aegis of the US. The Indians are not allowing transit facilities to Pakistan's exports to Nepal and Bhutan. The reluctance has its roots in the territorial and political disputes between the two countries.

In fact, the two countries' mutual suspicions are inhibiting the expansion of intra-regional trade in South Asia which remains the world's least integrated area. The vast potential for trade within the region is largely untapped, mostly because of India-Pakistan hostilities. Delhi's lingering disputes with other countries in the region, too, is not helping regional economic cooperation. The regional preferential and free trade agreements — Sapta and Safta — signed years ago have failed to take off and total intra-regional trade remains only a fraction of the region's total trade with the rest of the world. Both countries maintain long lists of items that cannot be imported from each other. Islamabad refuses to give India the Most Favoured Nation status while Delhi has raised both tariff and non-tariff barriers to restrict Pakistan's exports. Consequently, the region's poor continue to be denied the enormous benefits that flourishing intra-regional trade in manufactured goods, agriculture, services and energy could bring them.

Given the bilateral tensions and mistrust, few expect the two governments to agree to allow each other land transit rights. It is difficult to imagine authorities in either country taking a positive decision on the issue even if it can reduce mutual mistrust. Perhaps Kabul thinks that US supervision can force Pakistan to give in to its wishes on the matter. But Islamabad has resisted that pressure up until now and may continue to do so unless it is satisfied with what it gets in return.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Can Pakistan and India resolve their disputes? —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi


The top leadership in Pakistan and India either lacks the will to charter a new course for their bilateral relations or are not convinced that the change will serve their personal and regime interests

Pakistan-India relations are extremely complex. They have talked on their contentious issues from time to time. However, there are few instances of the talks succeeding in resolving concrete problems. The focus has been on conflict management rather than conflict resolution.

Pakistan-India talks do not produce a breakthrough in their troubled relations because both sides are not oriented towards opting for a major departure from the traditional approaches to their bilateral problems. The civil and military bureaucracy and the intelligence community have developed such a state of mind and worldview that does not leave much scope for an out-of-the-box solution. The political leadership lacks the will to give a lead to the foreign policy and security establishment. Rather, they fall victim to their policy briefs based on conservatism, caution and advice to doubt the intentions of the other side.

This seems ironic because the ordinary citizens of both countries, when not under the spell of the propaganda orchestrated by the civil-military-intelligence establishment, manifest a keen desire to visit each other and maintain peaceful and cordial relations. The two governments do not encourage free movement of people and groups and exchange of literature, art, drama, culture and other creative activities at the societal level because they think this will weaken their capacity to dominate bilateral relations.

Due to strong and negative historical baggage and fixations of the foreign policy and security establishment with a tough disposition, ordinary diplomacy cannot be successful between India and Pakistan. A turnaround in their relations can be possible if policy makers and enforcers shift away from their current mindset, one that has trapped them in the traditional state-oriented, straight-jacketed approach towards each other.

The new relationship should reflect the principles of restraint, flexible diplomacy, wilful compromise and political choice.

There is a need to restrain the cultivated aura of self-righteousness, negative image of the adversary and overestimation of one's capacity to deal with the situation. They need to avoid adopting a dismissive attitude towards the adversary because this makes it difficult to resolve problems through peaceful diplomacy. If the adversary is viewed as weak, evil and nasty, there is hardly any chance of a meaningful dialogue.

These biases make it extremely difficult to engage in problem-solving diplomacy. The talks are held either just for the sake of talking or to demonstrate to the international community that both believe in dialogue and peaceful resolution of disputes.

Flexibility in diplomacy depends on the capacity of the leadership to opt for a wilful compromise and a clear-cut choice for resolving problems and promoting peace. This implies that the topmost leadership's disposition holds the key to problem solving. If they make a conscious and unambiguous choice for peace and demonstrate the capacity to pursue it, the foreign office, bureaucracy and intelligence agencies will change their traditional narratives and strategies accordingly.

The top leadership in Pakistan and India either lacks the will to charter a new course for their bilateral relations or are not convinced that the change will serve their personal and regime interests. They pursue the safe approach of relying on advice from the bureaucratic-intelligence elite because, if the leadership follows such advice, this elite mobilises support for such policy by invoking their linkages with a section of the media and societal groups.

If, on the other hand, the top political leadership decides to opt for a completely new strategy, it has to face opposition or discontentment first from the bureaucratic-intelligence elite and then it has to mobilise domestic public opinion in favour of the new approach, which is not always an easy job at a time when the top political leadership faces numerous internal problems.

India's prime minister is not expected to shift the single issue (terrorism) focus of his government's policy towards Pakistan after having faced strong domestic opposition to the initiative shown by him in the Sharm el-Sheikh talks in July 2009. His political clout is derived completely from the Congress Party's hierarchy, limiting his ability to act autonomously.

India faces another dilemma. Its officials and political elite feel perturbed by India's inability to derive tangible political dividends in the regional context from its size, population, economic and industrial development and military power. India, viewing itself as a player in the bigger political league of the global system, finds itself bogged down with Pakistan, a player of the lesser league.

India's leadership would like to deal with Pakistan the way the US dealt with the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks in the US in September 2001. From time to time, India's security community explores the possibility of using the military option against Pakistan. However, good sense prevails and this option is dropped. After all, India is not the US and Pakistan is not the Taliban's Afghanistan. Global developments also help Pakistan save itself from India's displeasure, if not wrath. The US sympathises with India on the Mumbai tragedy but it will not support India engaging in military adventurism against Pakistan.

Pakistan's top civilian leadership is even more constrained from taking the initiative to break out of the traditional mould of Pakistan-India diplomacy. Its major concern is not Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) but the overall terrorist onslaught by a variety of militant groups that threaten the Pakistani state and society.

A strident Indian statement against Pakistan or a public demand for punitive measures against the LeT may satisfy the imperatives of India's domestic politics but it enables the militant groups in Pakistan to mobilise public opinion in their favour by playing up anti-India sentiments. Further, the government of Pakistan does not want to be seen as taking action against these groups under pressure from India, especially when some of these groups like the LeT have cultivated support at the societal level due to their welfare activities.

Pakistan needs to decide about the role of groups like the LeT in its future security vision. As the militancy card has come to haunt Pakistan, should it not review its security approach altogether? It can put a check on the public statements and activities of the militants' leadership to defuse tension between India and Pakistan.

If Pakistan and India continue to pursue this current diplomacy and appear more interested in satisfying the needs of domestic politics, there is little hope for improved relations in the near future. However, they will continue to talk because they have learnt the art of talking without progress.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top