terror delinked from talks with pakistan!

[1.44]

Manmohan derided at home, but lauded in Pakistan

Manmohan derided at home, but lauded in Pakistan
​

New Delhi, July 19: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is being pilloried by hardliners at home for attempting to build bridges, but, in Pakistan, there’s support for his bold initiative to engage Islamabad.

“I think he comes across as a level-headed leader, who is cognisant of the risks he’s taking by engaging with Pakistan,” said Imtiaz Gul, chairperson of the Islamabad-based Centre for Regional and Security Studies.

Gul, however, felt that Singh had retained a “pressure tool” by asserting that the dialogue process would resume at a time of India’s choosing when it felt that Pakistan was doing enough to tackle terrorist elements.

“Manmohan Singh is a much more confident leader today. But he has very little choice but to talk to Pakistan. This is an Indian government which is under the influence of the United States,” Ayesha Siddiqa, an independent security analyst, said by telephone from Islamabad.

Siddiqa believed that many elements of Thursday’s joint statement were open to interpretation.

However, Singh had realised that Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani rather than President Asif Ali Zardari had the support of the Pakistani establishment.

“It is the PM who has the right quarters behind him,” she added, referring to the permanent establishment in Pakistan that comprises the intelligences agencies and the military.

S Akbar Zaidi, a Karachi-based analyst, felt that India had to acknowledge that Pakistan, the intelligence establishment and groups like the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba were not going to go away.

Zaidi was clear that Pakistan’s establishment would not pursue the cases against the Laskhar accused responsible for the Mumbai 26/11 attacks.

“There can be another Kargil or Mumbai. This is not India’s tragedy, but Pakistan’s tragedy,” he warned.

According to Zaidi, Pakistan would gain more from having better relations with India. Given the isolation Pakistan currently faced, dialogue with India would help Islamabad gain regional acceptability.

In an editorial published on Saturday, The News argued that India needed to stop supporting insurgencies in Pakistan, such as the one underway in Balochistan, and Pakistan needed to be sincere in its effort to stymie any terror attempt in India that may in any way be linked to Pakistani soil.

“That Balochistan was mentioned in the joint statement is a big step towards admitting mistakes and moving on,” the paper added.

Writing in the Dawn newspaper, Ayseha Siddiqa felt that in the current environment little progress could be made in India-Pakistan relations. “Given the highs and lows of our bilateral engagement, there is little that the two establishments expect from each other.” (Agencies)

 

[Ray]

Total sellout.

 

[vish]

I call this knuckling-under. All to keep the Americans at bay and deny the Pakistanis an excuse to do nothing. Meanwhile, our build-up (if I can call it that) continues. But do I hate it, HELL YEAH.

Just my two-bits.

 

[Flint]

Like kautilya said, it seems that Indian Punjabis born on the Pak side of the border can't seem to let go of their emotions when they're negotiating with Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistanis born on the Indian side have no trouble with such emotions, and are often at the other extreme, hating India with a passion. Musharraf for example. When the Parliament was attacked, the government mobilized the army for 10 months, but when hundreds of people were massacred in cold blood in Mumbai, our government did nothing but suspend the peace process.

I wonder if the government of MMS would take the same stand if such an attack took place in Jalandhar or Ludhiana. (

Known_Unknown, I do not agree with this at all. This has nothing to do with Manmohan Singh's Punjabi ancestry or the location of the attacks.

Please be more careful before judging people (esp. the PM) on the basis of his region.

 

[Energon]

Perhaps you've actually taken the trouble to read Pakistani newspapers or forums? Everything that happens in Pakistan is India's doing. The mainstream believes India is behind the TTP. If they buy that then no amount of sunlight can disinfect that house.

Yes I have; but I'm also well aware that what gets tossed around in the Pakistani media is worthless. I actually spend my time following what happens on the diplomatic front and how executive policy is constructed and the information used when doing so. The latter is far more useful than the crap floating on random Pakistani forums or blogs.

When and where it really matters; people are well aware of India's position.

Who gives a flying f who comes out looking like a bloody diplomatic nation. No one respects diplomacy alone. Not unless you can back it up with power. Not until you're willing to use force to accomplish tasks your words won't convince others too.

It means a whole lot, especially when you do not have the military power, capability or options to directly intervene, and while your future is heavily dependent upon fostering relationships with influential nations around the world and garner foreign investment.

That was a silly comparison but in all seriousness we should be fomenting trouble in Balochistan. Don't give me BS about responsible democratic states not doing such things.

I am not sure this will achieve anything meaningful.

And while the west may have had short term success with this strategy it no longer seems to elicit a positive long term advantage. This topic probably deserves its own thread however.

Edit: Looking closer at some of the responses I see a large presence of hawkish positions that seem low on critical analysis or reasoning and burdened with emotional rhetoric. Disallowing Indians of certain heritage or geographic origins to represent comment is particularly over the top and downright silly. Either way, I am unable to really debate rhetoric and hence willfully choose to extricate myself from it right now.

 

[kautilya]

Yes I have; but I'm also well aware that what gets tossed around in the Pakistani media is worthless. I actually spend my time following what happens on the diplomatic front and how executive policy is constructed and the information used when doing so. The latter is far more useful than the crap floating on random Pakistani forums or blogs.

Let us look back at what part of your original argument my comment was directed at:

"Conspiracies that spread like wild fire under the shroud of obscurity and secrecy invariably sound like machinations of idiots when the whole thing is brought out into the open."

I take it then that these conspiracies and all this "bringing out into the open" was in the highfalutin diplomatic circles that you frequent? So these diplomatic friends of yours have no independent intelligence sources with which to verify Indian involvement then? They work on conspiracy theories too. Fancy that. Consider me educated.

When and where it really matters; people are well aware of India's position.

Are they now? And which places would these be? These places don't think much of joint statements then? How do they justify them then? Do these talks, in the opinion of these places, actually make any sense then? If the statements don't matter, why do these same diplomatic circles push for them then? Why does every western busybody who drops in Delhi give us sage advice on resuming talks?

It means a whole lot, especially when you do not have the military power, capability or options to directly intervene, and while your future is heavily dependent upon fostering relationships with influential nations around the world and garner foreign investment.

Ah by admitting to Indian involvement in Baluchistan and delinking terror from other dialogue we're actually winning some hypothetical high ground that you alone are aware of.

So how exactly is this diplomatic high ground help us? I see that the foreign aid to Pakistan is still not conditional upon cessation of terrorism on India. Nor does there appear to be an ebb in the conventional arms flow to the protectors/trainers of these terrorists, the Pakistan Army.

So what is it that we've gained? Surely there has been a massive change in how executive policy in foreign capitals(of interest to India) are now constructed. No doubt as someone with such interest in critical analysis, you'll present us with evidence of such.

BTW, the foreign investment thing. How does adding Baluchistan in and delinking terror from talks bring in FDI? I can understand the theory that capital doen't flow in under war clouds. Unfortunately for that theory, security too is key to FDI. If you have blasts every other day then no amount of talks are going to convince foreigners to invest in India. (You'll note how the Pakistanis cleverly go for economic targets. )

I am not sure this will achieve anything meaningful.

And while the west may have had short term success with this strategy it no longer seems to elicit a positive long term advantage. This topic probably deserves its own thread however.

Short term? They firmly believe they brought down the FSU that way. Irregulars have been used with differing success throughout history. Only sheer ignorance of history can explain closing any doors at all in the pursuit of national interests.

Edit: Looking closer at some of the responses I see a large presence of hawkish positions that seem low on critical analysis or reasoning and burdened with emotional rhetoric. Disallowing Indians of certain heritage or geographic origins to represent comment is particularly over the top and downright silly. Either way, I am unable to really debate rhetoric and hence willfully choose to extricate myself from it right now.

Critical Analysis? Most of your original post was about Baluchistan. You praised the Baluchistan part for its brilliance. I replied on why it was gross negligence and stupidity(In doing so, I mention recent moves to reduce indian involvement in A'stan, justifiable fear of Pakistani aims to equate India in Baluchistan with terrorism from P-land, Pakistani identity crisis etc.). You ignore it completely and respond with how the circles you move in and study( the all-knowing, all-important ones) see the advantages that the rest of us, the unwashed masses, never could.

I'm curious to know which part of this last post of yours was supposed to enlighten us with the critical analysis that you so value. For that matter, it wasn't overly burdened with much more than a lot of pretentiousness.

 

[Singh]

Like kautilya said, it seems that Indian Punjabis born on the Pak side of the border can't seem to let go of their emotions when they're negotiating with Pakistan.

Most Unfortunate, uncalled for comment. Questioning the credentials of perhaps the most patriotic community, of which I too am a proud member.

A community which being a minority in West Punjab, had majority wealth and yet gave it all up to come to India. Millions of us were massacred, raped, looted while traversing to India. A tiny community which gave India Prime Ministers, Army chiefs, Navy Chiefs Air Force Chiefs, Chief Justices, Billionaires, Nobel winners, Film Stars.

This community which had to endure untold suffering again during 1984 when the mobs started killing the sikh members amongst us. How many of us have you seen fighting against India inspite of that ? I don't know of any family which migrated from Pakistan and didn't boast of serving military professionals and perhaps war heroes.

This community has given more sacrifices than any other all for our motherland, India.

And all for this accusation ? Do you know how foreign policy of a nation is drafted ? Is MMS the sole decider ? Would what you say to his past achievements ? what was your opinion when he said to Zardari my sole mandate is to tell you to not support terrrorism ? Even Leader of Opposition Advani has comes from Pakistan why do you think he would act differently ? is it because he is a hindu ?

I wonder if the government of MMS would take the same stand if such an attack took place in Jalandhar or Ludhiana. (

I wonder if there was a Maharastrian PM how would you have viewed the whole scenario ? or worse a Muslim PM ? or a Dalit PM ?

MMS is as you said from "West Punjab/Pakistan", not from Ludhiana or Jullundhar which are in East Punjab, he has lived most of his life in Delhi. For most of us Ludhiana and Jullundhar are not home but the place where we live is.

 

[Singh]

Experts divided on resuming talks with Pakistan​

NEW DELHI: That India
is inching towards resumption of full-fledged dialogue with Pakistan is now obvious. PM Manmohan Singh's latest statement
that India is "willing to walk more than half the distance" has laid doubts to rest, but in doing so has India given too much to Pakistan for too little is the question being asked now.

Foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon will meet his counterpart Salman Basheer on July 14 and this will be followed by Singh's meeting with Pakistan PM Yusuf Raza Gilani during the NAM summit in Egypt. Singh's statement on Pakistan is being seen as an authentication of foreign ministry officials' admission, at least in private, that India can't be seen as being "unnecessarily querulous" on Pakistan.

The expert opinion is divided though on whether or not there is a shift in India's stand after 26/11. While strategic affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney said it was a clear watering-down of India's stand after the Mumbai attacks, security expert K Subrahmanyam asserted India had to wait and watch the outcome of talks between the two sides along the sidelines of NAM summit.

"The twist in India's stand is that the PM has asked for a mere reaffirmation from Pakistan for bringing the 26/11 guilty to justice and not actual action. Without Pakistan doing anything, the PM has resumed dialogue at the highest level by his statement," said Chellaney, adding that the entire thing was being unfortunately presented as a fait accompli before the nation.

Even security officials believe that this development may appear as a compromise on India's security concerns for the future. A security official said on condition of anonymity that this might lead many to believe that India can't stay the course on such crucial matters as 26/11. "Apart from that, it will also embolden the Pakistan military to continue its aggression against India," added Chellaney.

Subrahmanyam, however, denied that there has been any shift in India's stand. "We have to keep in mind Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari's admission about Pakistan having nurtured terrorists and also their statement that they are about to begin the trial of five 26/11 accused. They have also come up with another dossier on the investigations," said Subrahmanyam.

He did not see anything wrong with India moving towards dialogue with Pakistan. "The dialogue could well be about terrorism. The US secretary of state is about to visit India and we can use Zardari's statement to make our point that the forces we are fighting are allies of Al Qaida," said Subrahmanyam, adding that India can't say that it will talk only after everything is solved.

Experts divided on resuming talks with Pakistan - India - NEWS - The Times of India

 

[thakur_ritesh]

guys,

it is really sad to read some of the comments on a certain community and then same be targeted to the PM. we as indians are proud of our punjabi brothers the laurals of whom have been very well shared by paaji (singh).

we all are capable of much better and least we trivialize the whole discussion like this, it is requested and would be much appreciated that no more of such comments are made.

thanks.

 

[Yusuf]

Where do people get such ideas from? Most unfortunate.

The PM is not a fool. We have seen his resolve on various issues.
Pakistan has not been let off the hook. They have been lulled into false sense of victory.

 

[kautilya]

The PM is not a fool. We have seen his resolve on various issues.

Pakistan has not been let off the hook. They have been lulled into false sense of victory.

Even if it flies in the face of all evidence? When there is disquiet within his own party? When ex-diplomats and analysts speak out vociferously against the same?

Where do you get your certitude from?

 

[Energon]

They have been lulled into false sense of victory.

It isn't as much as a victory as it is the breathing room to actually get things moving. Gillani is well aware what he has to do, but can't, because of internal pressure and preexisting baggage. Even if a lot of these concerns are imaginary and not endorsed by the civilian leaders in charge (Zardari has made references to such on more than one occasion), they do nonetheless freeze any actual action against terrorism. Here are the two main paralyzing issues:

1. India will attack if we reassign our troops to fight militancy and the "proof" is based on the fact that we no longer have a diplomatic relationship after the Mumbai attacks. Also, as long as India is ready to attack we need to hold on to groups like LeT who will be essentially the first line of defense.

2. India is fomenting an insurrection in Baluchistan and also using it as a base to deploy proxies like the Pakistani Taliban.

MMS has essentially negated both of these "concerns." Now that India has extended an olive branch by making this "huge concession", Pakistan can no longer play the "aggression" card (which was ridiculous to begin with). If they still refuse to re deploy their forces to fight internal militancy its because they never intended to do so in the first place.

Also Gillani has to now show his cards on Baluchistan. So far the most damning "evidence" has been the uncovering of uncircumcised penises (no pun intended). Bringing this on to a diplomatic open forum would get him laughed out of the room, and I doubt if he'd take that risk. Also all the governors, "analysts" and military talking heads who keep chanting the Baluchistan cospiracy have to come up with evidence good enough to be presented on an international forum or STFU.

The leap of faith being taken here is that Pakistan, if given the opportunity will finally take the chance and fight radicalism within its borders. History of course does not enable much confidence on this front, but their recent charge upon the Taliban is certainly a break from the past. Its very possible that they intend to selectively eliminate groups that only present a threat to them while perpetuating with India specific groups (not that this is realistically possible), but all jingoism aside, India isn't in a position to do anything about this at the moment.

What India can do is enable Pakistan to act in the greater interest for itself and India (whether they will do it or not is up to them), shore up defenses, keep increasing the lead on conventional military, and most of all, advance on the economic front. In order to attain these larger goals India has to gain diplomatic leverage with the West who in turn wants to see diplomatic dialogue (even if in name) with Pakistan. MMS is merely trying to achieve as many of these objectives as possible using all the cards he has to play.

 

[Daredevil]

Instead of going ga ga over unaccomplished or rather imaginary accomplishments of our PM at Sharm-al-sheikh meeting, lets take a stock of situation in the form of losses or gains accrued by the joint statement.

Let's start with gains

Gains:

1) By including Balochistan in the Joint Statement (will be referred to as JS henceforth), we might bring the plight and human right violations of the Balochs' who are being hunted down in their own land and are not given their due share of wealth generated from Balochistan.

2) By delinking progress on Mumbai attacks investigation with Composite dialog, as Energon hypothesized, Pakistan is being denied a chance of accusing India of aggressiveness diplomatically/militarily and forcing them to relocate PA troops from Eastern border to the Taliban main lands, which in effect allows PA to fight taliban and finish it. The most probable gains that accrue out of that situation is US and Pakistan as Taliban are no threat so far to India.

3) By letting Pakistan accuse India of fomenting trouble in Balochistan, India is forcing Pakistan to show proofs of Indian involvement (a la Indian govt. showed proofs of Pakistan's involvement in Mumbai attacks). In the event of Pakistan unable to show any proofs, the accusation of Pakistan on India will be called bluff and that will be considered as a diplomatic victory of India.

Losses:

1) By including Balochistan in JS, India essentially gave Pakistan a let up in accusing her of fomenting terrorism in Balochistan. In this way, Pakistan will try to equate it as - since India is sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan, there is nothing wrong with Pakistan sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir/India. In effect, this will take sting out of any further accusations of Indian against Pakistan sponsored terrorism. This JS will be used to browbeat India in the International media with out any facts to back-up at the ground level, it will be pure Psyops.

2) By delinking mumbai attack investigation progress with composite talks, India is projecting herself as a soft target, which can be attacked at will and it can do nothing to prevent it or punish the perpetrators and that it will be more than willing to talk to the same perpetrators without giving any cognizance to suffering of its populace at the hands of terrorists. It shows India as a coward which cannot project strength despite having it and will be taken easily not just by pakistan but other countries as well.

By losing the aggressive stance that we had, we are letting Pakistan know that all is cool and in the hopes that that their PA troops will go and fight Taliban and other terrorist organizations like LeT, which attack India. The PA will fight Taliban but the ones which are causing trouble in Pakistan (TTP) but not the ones which they have created and maintained, namely Afghan Taliban. They will never ever will attack LeT a predominantly Punjabi organization. To quote an ex-diplomat (High commissioner in Pakistan) of India G. Parthasarthy, one son of Pakistani punjabi joins Pakistani Army and the other son joins LeT, which tells about how closely these organization are intertwined with one another and there is no chance in heaven that PA will act against LeT. Period.

As one can see, including Balochistan and delinking terrorism with composite talks in JS is a twin-edged sword which can go either way and cut the throat of India or Pakistan. Only time will tell.

 

[Daredevil]

Mention of Balochistan in joint-statement a big mistake'

Criticising the Indo-Pak joint statement, former national security advisor Brajesh Mishra has said India has made "a very big mistake" by allowing Balochistan to figure in it.

"India could have thwarted Pakistan's attempt by playing the Kabul card. If Pak was very insistent about talking on

Balochistan, there was a way to handle it and that was to talk about Kabul. Perhaps, we were so keen to have the joint statement that we did not bother about the damaging aspects," he lamented.

Mishra, in an interview to Karan Thapar for CNBC's 'India Tonight' programme, said it was a "very big mistake" by permitting the mention of Balochistan in the statement.

Observing that the joint "statement is in complete reversal from India's earlier position", Mishra said, "I do not disagree with the vision of the Prime Minister that good, friendly, cooperative relationship between India and Pakistan is important. But you cannot have success in this by being a supplicant. You have to be strong. People should know that you are not talking out of weakness. Today the impression is given that we are weak.....And, therefore, we are giving all these away," he said.

The Indo-Pak joint statement was issued last week in Sharm-el Sheikh, Egypt [ Images ], after a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani [ Images ] on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit. Besides delinking the terrorism from the composite dialogue, the statement also mentioned terrorism in Balochistan.

Asked if it was the mistake on the part of officials during the drafting of the statement, Mishra said, "I know the foreign office very well. I know our intelligence agencies here fairly well. I don't think its the fault of the officials."

He nodded replying in affirmative when asked if the political leadership was to be blamed for this.

Mishra said, "The joint statement is an indication that India is behaving like a supplicant since 26/11, doing nothing on its own, relying on the US and Europe and others to do it for them."

 

[Ray]

Balochistan getting mentioned and being accepted by the Indian side in the Joint Statement is a huge faux pas.

That means India is behind the Balochistan rebellion.

Terrorism delinked is another odd move.

MMS's statement in the Parliament took the cake. He waffled, rambled in a total confused state of mind!

Mishra is right that we are doing things at the bidding of the US. The End User Verification is another indicator that we are buckling under US dictates!

 

[Known_Unknown]

Where do people get such ideas from? Most unfortunate.

The PM is not a fool. We have seen his resolve on various issues.
Pakistan has not been let off the hook. They have been lulled into false sense of victory.

What false sense of victory? Conceding Balochistan in the joint statement was the mother of all mistakes, a monumental foreign policy blunder. Why do these septuagenarian politicians think that they can achieve peace with Pakistan by making more and more concessions against the national interest? The problem with governments in India is that that they only ever become assertive and proactive in the military and foreign policy when they're under the leadership of someone from the Gandhi family.

Indira Gandhi's robust foreign policy is quite well known, and during Rajiv Gandhi's time, too, India was regarded as a "mini-superpower" by TIME magazine.

We were all hoping that after the BJP came to power, there would finally be some muscle in our foreign policy, but except for the nuke tests, our dealings with Pakistan were more timid, shortsighted and concessional than any other previous government. AB Vajpayee tried multiple times to grovel at their feet for peace, and finally gave up when it didn't happen. He also grovelled at China's feet and recognised Tibet as part of China, something we had avoided doing for the past 50 years. And just when you thought that things couldn't get any worse, along comes MMS with his "Pak is a victim of terror too", and "India and Pak must jointly fight terror", and now, "curbing terror in Balochistan" BS.

It seems like each government tries to beat the previous government's horrible records in making concessions to our enemies. At this rate, in the next decade, another MMS type government may even give Kashmir away to Pak to achieve that elusive "peace". Or as Musharraf says, "peace with honour and dignity".

Sadly, India's honour and dignity will be no more when that happens.

 

[Known_Unknown]

And all for this accusation ? Do you know how foreign policy of a nation is drafted ? Is MMS the sole decider ? Would what you say to his past achievements ? what was your opinion when he said to Zardari my sole mandate is to tell you to not support terrrorism ? Even Leader of Opposition Advani has comes from Pakistan why do you think he would act differently ? is it because he is a hindu ?

You're right. Maybe I should've said, "Any Indians born on the other side of the border", especially old hacks who are more concerned about leaving their legacy than about the country's national interest. You have three examples already. Gujral, MMS and Advani.

I wonder if there was a Maharastrian PM how would you have viewed the whole scenario ? or worse a Muslim PM ? or a Dalit PM ?

Hasn't happened yet and not likely to happen in the future. Maharashtrians have no love lost for Pakistanis, and neither do people of most other states in India, since they don't share a common ethnic and linguistic bond. A Muslim PM is unlikely in the future, since it may be percieved that his religious background will constrain him in his dealings with Pakistan. And the Opposition, especially if it is the BJP won't hesitate to make political capital out of it. And a Dalit PM? What could a Dalit PM be possibly restrained by?

It's not too revolutionary a suggestion that some people born on the other side may feel very strongly that peace is of utmost importance especially after enduring all the horrors of partition. That they might feel it so strongly that they are willing to make one concession after another to make "peace" with an enemy that clearly does not care for it, and that actively trains and arms terrorists that massacre Indian civilians.

Of course, they're not the only ones to blame. India has always had a pacifist outlook and hence a defensive one since independence. The terrorists kept coming and killing us in droves and all we did was stand and watch our citizens getting murdered by the hundreds. If this was Israel, they would have killed 100 terrorists for every Israeli they killed. And all our government does is issue "strongly worded" statements every time a bomb blast or Akshardham or Mumbai happens.

I'm frankly sick of these people who draft foreign policy, and sick of those who want peace. Peace through strength they say. Not through selling out to terrorist nations.

 

[S.A.T.A]

One must also understand the govt side of the argument.While resuming the composite dialogue before the culmination of the 26/11 accused standing trial in Pakistan,is clearly a u turn from its past stand,terrorism itself still forms one of the main constituents the Indo-Pak composite dialogue process.That remains unchanged

Dr Singh and his team was in bit of a quandary over the dialogue issue.Given the fact that Pakistan was actively pursuing the case against all the principal accused in the 26/11,Pak govt also has accepted the evidence provided against the key accused(Lakhvi & co).Given this state of affair the govt would have found the time conducive to make small climbdown from its earlier rigid stance.

Like energon has so succinctly put it,phraseology in diplomatic exchanges has never had much substance in the Indo-Pak relations.Govt has however qualified its climbdown by stating that India retains the decision as when the full and formal dialogue shall be restored.

However strong exception must be taken to the vague reference to Baluchistan.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Dr Singh and his team was in bit of a quandary over the dialogue issue.Given the fact that Pakistan was actively pursuing the case against all the principal accused in the 26/11,Pak govt also has accepted the evidence provided against the key accused(Lakhvi & co).Given this state of affair the govt would have found the time conducive to make small climbdown from its earlier rigid stance.

I think it's only a show for the world to see. As it is, their foreign minister still says that "Action will be taken against LeT only if proof is found". Even if there is enough proof, they will deliberately prosecute the case shoddily so that all the accused are released by the courts. Just like Hafiz Saeed. They will deliberately try to prolong the trial and after 3 or 4 years when it (hopefully) concludes, the political temperature will not be as high anymore, and they will figure that India won't be able to do much anyway, so they will release everyone for "lack of evidence". Mark my words. Anyone who thinks that Pakistan has turned a leaf and will now stop sponsoring terror is indulging in wishful thinking.

In the terror groups, they have found a golden goose with which to achieve multiple objectives at the same time. Attack India's economic growth, internationalise Kashmir, and now, portray the attackers as being discontented Indian Muslims, thus leading to internal communal disturbances in India. This, combined with the Pak-China enterprise of joint manufacture of arms and exports to other South Asian countries is an attempt to literally surround and break up India through the inside and the outside.

In the face of such massive dangers, we should be building up our own arms industry with whatever foreign collaboration we can get and indulge in a nuclear arms race that will bankrupt Pakistan while simultaneously starting a massive covert arms assistance program to the secular elements among the Baloch, Pashtuns, and Sindhis.

The only assurance of India's long term prosperity can be a break up and denuclearization of Pakistan. Pursuing any other approach, IMO, is highly naive and foolish.

 

[S.A.T.A]

neither India nor any country can actively dedicate time and resources for the disintegration of any other country,there is no reason to believe that despite such efforts there will be any tangible results.If that were true Pakistan would have long succeeded.

India will exploit any opportunity, of this nature, that may present itself.But that will not be part of any active foreign policy pursuit.

Whether the trial and prosecution are mere eye wash,only time will tell.We have to remember that Indian assurances too are a mere eye wash.

India cannot make Pakistan stop pursuing the jehadi strategy in Kashmir or elsewhere in the future by not engaging it,that will depend on the effectiveness of our security measures.However what we see in the Indian strategy is to give Zardari some space for political maneuvering,esp now that he is under pressure from both the factions within his party and the opposition PML(Nawaz) which is supported by the military establishment.