War with Pak no option, talks only way: Pranab Mukherjee

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by RPK, Jul 30, 2009.

  1. RPK

    RPK Indyakudimahan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,879
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    13° 4'60.00"N 80°16'60.00"E
    War with Pak no option, talks only way: Pranab Mukherjee


    NEW DELHI: Ruling out war as an option, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee on Thursday reinforced Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's position that there
    was no alternative but to keep talking to Pakistan but made it clear that there was no surrender by the government on the issue of combating cross-border terrorism.

    "Neither have we succumbed to terrorism nor will we stop talking," Mukherjee told the Lok Sabha during a debate on issues arising from the Prime Minister's foreign visits, including his trip to Egypt where he met Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. Action on terror was independent of any composite dialogue, he asserted.

    "The NDA did it. The UPA did it. This is the way the world of diplomacy moves," Mukherjee said while reminding Parliament that over the last 10 years, governments across the political spectrum in India kept talking to Pakistan despite brief disruptions after terrorist attacks.

    "We can't erase Pakistan. It's going to exist. War is no solution," Mukherjee said while underlining the importance of keeping talks going with Pakistan.

    Mukherjee, who was foreign minister when the Mumbai attacks took place, clarified that talking did not mean the resumption of a full-fledged dialogue.

    "Keeping channels open does not mean surrendering our position on terrorism," Mukherjee stressed, adding that Pakistan must act credibly and verifiably to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure operating from it's soil.

    During his intervention in the debate on Wednesday, Manmohan Singh asserted that there was no dilution or rupture of national consensus on terrorism emanating from Pakistan but made it clear that the only alternative was to continue the engagement with Islamabad.

    Seeking to allay apprehensions over his controversial move to re-link action on terrorism from the composite dialogue process as contained in the India-Pakistan joint statement issued in Egypt July 16, the Prime Minister stressed that bilateral engagement or dialogue process can't move forward if terrorist attacks continue from across the border.

    He also defended the inclusion of Balochistan in the July 16 India-Pakistan joint statement saying a unilateral reference does not mean giving credibility to Pakistan's allegations of any Indian role in unrest in Pakistan's southwest province.

    "We have no role to play in Balochistan," he said.
     
  2.  
  3. fateh71

    fateh71 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    16
    Yeah, lets do it again, may be this time there won't be a blood bath in india, and if it does happen, then may be this time the LET or JUD or whatever the current name of non state actor - they will be banned, and by banned means this time not allowing the same people to run the same org from the same office and coumpound with a different nameplate.


    I'm all for talks, but unconditional talks is BS.
     
  4. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    760
    You guys are overlooking the most important sentence in this article. "Talks" are not synonymous with taking concrete positions or relinquishing them. "Talks" are just that- talks. It enables two nuclear capable nations (one more troubled than the other) to prevent any crimson tide type scenarios (which sadly are the reality in the Indo/Pak case) by merely keeping the lines of communication open.

    This poignant fact for some reason escapes many officials and people in South Asia. Emotions get ratcheted up in India about "submitting to terrorism" while Pakistanis take this as a "victory" until they screw up again get a cold shoulder at the "talk" only to become indignant about India "falling back upon their promises." How hard is this to understand... there are no promises to be made until they can be leveraged against palpable results.

    This vicious cycle has to stop. Indians need to stop declaring the imminent falling of the sky upon their heads on account of opening talks, and Pakistanis have to stop building castles in said sky by drumming up imaginary promises.

    All they're going to do is talk.
     
  5. IBM

    IBM Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    1
    yes its true war is not option with pak now. Unfortunately India aloowed pak to make its army strong. Anyhow in today's volatile world. There r other types of war which India can wage or waging. The war of making ur enemy weak socially,diplomatically and economically. which India is doing great.
     
  6. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,517
    Location:
    Somewhere
    The explanation of the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, in the Lok Sabha on July 29, 2009, on the statement issued by him jointly with Yousef Raza Gilani, the Pakistani Prime Minister, at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt on July 17, 2009, skilfully sought to control the damage done by the ill-advised and ill-drafted joint statement.

    It was ill-advised because it has enabled Pakistan to claim to the international community that our PM was satisfied with the action taken by it against some Pakistan-based members of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) for their involvement in the Mumbai terrorist attack of November 26-29, 2008, in the hope that this would result in a relaxation of the international pressure to act against the LET.

    The international pressure on Pakistan to act against the LET has been there since the attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001. It was because of this pressure that Pervez Musharraf, the then Pakistani President, banned the LET through a gazette notification on January 15,2002. The ban is still in force, but has not been implemented effectively by either the previous government of Musharraf or by the present government of Asif Ali Zardari.

    There was intensified international pressure on Pakistan after Mumbai 26/11 because among those killed were 25 foreign civilians. It was this pressure and not the bilateral diplomacy of the government of India, which made Pakistan register an offence against five members of the LET and investigate their involvement and place Prof Hafeez Mohammad Sayeed, the Amir of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the political wing of the LET, under house arrest.

    As a result of the ill-warranted certificate of good neighbourly co-operation given by Dr Manmohan Singh to Pakistan, there are already signs of this pressure being relaxed. This would be evident from the absence of forceful international reaction to the farce of the legal proceedings against Sayeed, which has resulted in his being released from house arrest.

    The joint statement was also ill-advised because it has unwittingly conveyed an impression to Pakistan’s political leadership and military-intelligence establishment that a terrorism fatigue has set in among our political leadership and that continued use of terrorism by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) against Indian civilians and economic infrastructure could ultimately make India amenable to a change of the status quo in Jammu & Kashmir.

    The Prime Minister is right in wanting peace and good-neighbourly relations with Pakistan, but unwise in giving an impression to Pakistani leaders that he is over-keen for peace with Pakistan and that he does not have the stomach for a prolonged confrontation with Pakistan on the terrorism issue--whether the confrontation is political, economic, military or covert. That was the impression which Gilani and his advisers would have got at Sharm-el-Sheikh and the Prime Minister’s well-drafted statement in the Lok Sabha has not been able to dissipate that impression.

    The Prime Minister made use of the dossier given by Pakistan before Sharm-el-Sheikh on the investigation made by it so far against the LET in two ways. He tried to project this dossier as justifying the action taken by him at Sharm-el-Sheikh. He also tried to score a debating point against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led opposition coalition by claiming that his government through pressure had been able to make Pakistan concede the LET involvement whereas the BJP-led government was not able to do this.

    If the BJP members had carefully studied and mastered facts and figures, they could have effectively countered the PM’s claim of credit by pointing out the following:

    * There have been four acts of mass casualty terrorism since 1981. All the four were carried out when the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi.
    * There have been three instances of targeted attacks on foreigners since 1991--two in J&K and one in Mumbai. All the three were carried out when the Congress (I) was in power.
    * There have been seven acts of ISI-sponsored aircraft hijackings since 1971. Six of them were carried out when the Congress (I) and one when the BJP was in power.
    * There has been one instance of an Air India plane being blown up in mid-air killing over 250 persons. This took place when the Congress (I) was in power.
    * The LET was banned by the Musharraf government as a terrorist organization through a gazette notification on January 15,2002. The Manmohan Singh government has not been able to get the JUD banned by the Zardari government even eight months after the Mumbai attack.
    * Indira Gandhi was assassinated when the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated when an ally of the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi and another ally in Chennai.
    * The Indian Mujahideen came into existence when the Congress (I) was in power.
    * The first commando-style complex terrorist attack in Indian territory by a group of terrorists, all hailing from Pakistan, has taken place when the Congress (I) is in power.

    Despite the Congress (I)’s better counter-terrorism expertise and experience, it has not been able to deal effectively with jihadi terrorism.The BJP leaders were not able to bring this out.

    The PM used the dossier against the LET received from Pakistan in justification of his action at Sharm-el-Sheikh. A close examination of the dossier as published in the media and a study of the various statements made since February, 2009, by Rehman Mallik, the Pakistani Interior Minister, would bring out the following:

    * The Pakistani authorities continue to make a distinction between the LET and the JUD, projecting the LET as a defunct organization in view of the January 15, 2002, ban still in force and the JUD as a legitimate organization despite the declaration of the anti-terrorism committee of the UN Security Council calling it as a terrorist organization. Their action has been confined to those who hold position in the LET and not to those who hold position in the JUD.
    * Till now, their action has been focused on the logistics cell of the LET in Karachi and not against the planning and training cell of the LET based in Muridke in Punjab and in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir.
    * They continue to project the Mumbai attack as the outcome of a multi-national conspiracy involving elements in Pakistan, India, Europe, the US and Russia.
    * They have been trying to claim that the role of the Indian elements has not been fully investigated by the Mumbai Police.

    There are certain other disturbing indicators. Firstly, while releasing Sayeed from house arrest, the three-member bench of the Lahore High Court observed on June 6, 2009, that there is no evidence to show that the JUD is a terrorist organization and that Sayeed had any role in the Mumbai conspiracy. Similar observations were made by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury and two other judges of the Supreme Court when the government’s farcical appeal against his release came up before the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court judges even said that Indian evidence is not reliable. With such pronouncements already made by judges of superior courts, will the Anti-Terrorism court, which is subordinate to them, be able to give a different ruling holding the five LET members prosecuted as guilty?

    As a result of the pressure from the governments of countries whose nationals were killed in Mumbai, Pakistan has embarked on an elaborate exercise of seeming co-operation with India in the investigation. Such instances of even seeming co-operation were not there in the past. But the sincerity of this co-operation is yet to be established.

    We should have waited till this sincerity was established. What was the need for the indecent hurry shown by Dr Manmohan Singh at Sharm-el-Sheikh for fresh talks with Pakistan?

    If we had waited for a few months more till a clearer picture emerged from the proceedings of the Anti-Terrorism Court, will the heavens have fallen on our heads? A convincing answer to this has not been forthcoming from the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister used former President Ronald Reagan of the US as a prop by quoting his remark: “Trust, but verify”. Yes, he had said it. In 1986 some US soldiers were killed by an explosion in a West Berlin discotheque. The US investigators established that the terrorists had come from Libya. After verification, he ordered the US Air Force to bomb the training centre in Libya.

    Indian investigators have clearly verified and established that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were trained in the POK.

    Will the Prime Minister emulate Reagan?

    Good Luck

    And Balochistan?

    Are we meddling there?

    The Joint Statement states we are doing so; of course indirectly!

    What are the 'other areas' the Jt Statement implies.

    Man, we are quite a nosy Parker!

    Are we stupid or are we cleverer by half?
     
  7. rahul

    rahul New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    was it not possible that we continued talks after 26/11, as that would have yielded better results...
    every other day I check news I find ISI doing mis-adventure; latest trend seems to be fake currency... not to mention number of our BSF guys that get killed in stopping those insurgents... list is ever growing.. and we have ample evidence, the world knows it, you know it, even then you guys support talks? how many innocent civilians and our brave soldiers should die so that you guys wake up?
     
  8. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    466
    Even if war is not an option, you dont declare it so openly. Then there is a clever explanation that though we talk, it is only a timepass exercise. I dont think any sane person expects India would be successful in persuading Pakistan to cooperate with India in eradicating terrorism through talks(since, Pakistan is using terrorism as a lever to control India).

    So, when India says that war is not an option and we know talks wont yield results. Then, I think we have a serious problem. Manmohan Singh Govt is a diplomatic disaster(it was more pronounced after 26/11).
     
  9. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,517
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Going to war is an expensive option.

    With lesser costs, a country can ruin its adversary, by assisting subnationalism.

    In Pakistan, Punjab has always got preferential treatment over the other nationalities that make up Pakistan. The manner in which the Sindhis and Balochis prevented the construction of the Kalabagh Dam, which would have benefitted Punjab (and helped better agricultural output for Pakistan) but denied Sindh and part of Balochistan from water, is a case in point that shows Pakistan's preferential treatment of Punjab and the deep hatred the others have for the Punjabis.

    It is an interesting commentary that while most (except Balochis, who thought they were deprived of their independence since they had separate ancient treaties with the British and were granted independence on 11 Aug 1947) were happy that there was a Moslem homeland, because of the Punjabi dominance, the dream faded away from all other nationalities that made up Pakistan.

    Bengalis quit the country and made one for themselves of their own, and there spawned many subnationalist movements, like Jiyo Sindh, Balochistan Liberation Front, Balwaristan (the Shias of Northen Area) and so on.

    Therefore, if such secessionist movements are encouraged, then Pakistan will have to resort to force and that will alienated the people and in addition, to appease them, Pakistan would have to funnel in funds to keep them under check with ‘progress’! Notwithstanding, the problem will fester like a wound and a blister. And, unlike India, where India is not staying afloat on foreign funds, Pakistan’s economy is totally IMF and WB funded. Therefore, with unrest in Pakistan in so many areas, its military will be all over the place and Pakistan will have to placate everywhere, except Punjab. This will be serious drain on her economy and whatever progress Pakistan is making will come to a standstill and her economy becoming totally in a bondage to the US since they are the ones who control WB and IMF.

    Pakistan will come under the total control of the US and will thus be a reduced threat to India since India has ‘strategic relationship’ with the US and the US does not want nuclear armed nations to go to war!!
     
  10. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    466
    Ray sir,
    thats my pet theme. But I have been wondering whether assisting sub-nationalism in another country is moral(dharm). Because look at Pakistan it has assisted sub-nationalism in India but as a consequence suffered(look at their country's situation), India did support LTTE initially, and we lost a leader(Rajiv). So, my question, is it within moral confines to support sub-nationalism in another nation?
     
  11. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,517
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Home
    The question of Pakistan's survival

    by Pukhtoon Khan

    The basic questions which are posing a threat to the survival of the current Pakistan are two: 1) Lack of democracy as the basis of statecraft 2) Reluctance to grant provincial autonomy to the federating units. Let us analyse the consequences of these threats. The foreign powers especially US are the major hurdles on the road to establish democracy in Pakistan due to its political vested interests. Dictatorial and autocratic rulers of Pakistan suit the designs of US to keep Pakistan as their colony with the help of military establishment which has been serving as its loyal servant since long. The military establishment has in turn been using coercive force and religious theocracy to tighten its grip on the non-submissive and freedom loving nationalities in Pakistan like Afghans (Pashtuns) , Sindhis and Balochis while it has been buying the loyalties of the other nationalities by bribing them with material benefits. It is due to this reason that the forces of Pakistan has least representation from Pashtuns,Balochis and Sindhis and hence it does not represent bonds of national harmony among the nationalities of Pakistan. It also implies why Pakistan army uses brutal force against its so called fellow country men and muslim brothers in Pashtun land as well as in Balochistan. The second factor is the use of religious demagogues to disintegrate the national unity of the oppressed nationalities and confuse them about their national goals. The vote bank of the politico-religious parties in Pashtun belt and their role in supporting the Punjab dominated exploitative colonial legacy system prevalent in Pakistan is the proof of this strategy. It is a well established fact now that the religious extremists who have been working for the interests of Pakistan army since Afghan war have been facilitated,trained and even created by the agencies of Pakistan in order to serve their US masters. Even currently the so called religious clerics or groups like Mulla Sufi Mohamad,Mulla Fazlullah,Mangal Bagh (an ex-bus driver but currently the defacto king in some parts of Pashtun Tribal areas (FATA) who is allowed to hold and show any type of arms and weapons across Pakistan) and the so called Jamiat Ulema Islam, Jamiat Ulema Pakistan and Jumaat-e-Islami etc are all either the products or the facilitators of Intelligence agencies of Pakistan. The major nationalities of Pakistan aka Pashtuns,Sindhis, Baloch, Seriakis and Mahajirs are least interested in the so called National interest of Pakistan as it practically means the national interests of the Punjab. The state controlled media has been propagating the synonymy of Punjabi national interest with Pakistan's national interest to the poor and oppressed masses of Pakistan and specially those of Pakhtunkhwa,Balochistan,Sindh and South Punjab so that any voice against the injustices of Punjab should be cut in the bud by labeling it against the "national interest of Pakistan". The very structure of the Punjab province is questionable as it should at least be divided into three provinces to give proper representation to the Seriakis and Potoharis too who constitute two major nationalities of Pakistan having separate cultural and political identity. The Punjabi dominated civil and military establishment has been avoiding the question of provincial autonomy and all those steps which may bring progress and prosperity to more than 60 percent down trodden and poor masses of Pakistan in general and of Non-Punjabis in particular. It is prime time for the oppressed nationalities of Pakistan to raise up and demand their rights from the so called federation of Pakistan and put an end to all political and institutional dramas being run by Punjab dominated institutions for the last 60 years. The civil and military establishment has no more chances. If they continue their policy of racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing and socio-politico-economic exploitation of the oppressed nationalities of Pakistan then they will soon be ruling a Pakistan made up only of Punjab minus Seriaki belt and Potohar region.

    The question of Pakistan's survival
     
  12. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,517
    Location:
    Somewhere
    If by subnationalism you mean Kashmir, there is a subtle difference.

    The Kashmiris by nature are not aggressive and instead are actually quite easy going people. They are Sufis. They are more into art and culture!

    The Balwaristanis, Balochis, Pathans are not into art and culture. They have lived by the sword and died by the soowrd!

    In strategy, there is nothing called morality.

    Pakistan's pitiable condition is not because of promoting subnationalism in India. They used religion and religion is a heady elixir. Having realised their worth, these religious extremists within Pakistan, realised their power and thought why not take over the reins themselves and so they cloaked themselves with religion (the same religion that is prevelant in Pakistan) and thus they became immune to public resentment.

    In India, religion is a mixed bag. Hence, the use of religion does not work on the entire population as it does in Pakistan.

    As far as LTTE is concerned, there was no national strategy. The Indian forces were sent as if they were there on a quasi UN type of activity.

    If India does encourage subnationalism, it will not be with Indians. Did Chinese come to the NE and help the insurgents? No. That is how it should be done - 'moral support', but covert!
     

Share This Page