India-Pakistan Relations

[EagleOne]

forget about pakistan ..kill all the insurgence and remove article 320 ..
Forget Pakistan, don't waste time: Rahul Gandhi

 

[Yusuf]

Its article 370 mate..just for your knowledge.

 

[ajtr]

Fissures run deep but India, Pak agree to meet again​

Sources said the Indian side insisted on a specific and concrete assurance from Islamabad regarding action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack in light of the latest revelations made by Pakistani-American Lashkar-e-Toiba operative David Coleman Headley.

The Pakistani side, the sources said, didn't go further than the promise to investigate the matter. India, on the other hand, refused to engage on Kashmir, as desired by Pakistan. The deadlock, sources said, was on the framework for a roadmap for future engagements. While India wanted a roadmap for further engagements, the Pakistani side insisted to include what they called substantive issues like the strategic restraint regime and Kashmir.


..
...
On alleged rights violations in Kashmir, Krishna said J&K has an elected government and a legitimate Chief Minister and law and order is a state subject. "If they (state government) feel they are unable to maintain law and order or check human rights violations, they can seek help from the Central government," he said. "There are a number of institutions... we have an institutional network to take care of human rights violations."

To this, Qureshi said three Kashmir-based organizations had written to him on human rights violations — on the issue of curfew, use of Indian armed forces and loss of lives. He, however, said that the elected government of J&K had made a statement, favouring this Indo-Pak engagement. The Pakistani reporters objected to Qureshi's reference to the J&K government as elected and for not using the prefix "occupied".

On the issue of Balochistan, Qureshi said: "We raised the issue of destabilization of Balochistan and his (Indian Home Minister's) response was encouraging. His reaction was that India was not interested." Krishna said India had been waiting for "some evidence" from Pakistan to show Indian involvement. "There is not a shred of evidence," he said.

Krishna raised the issue of the spurt in infiltration across the Line of Control, saying there had been a 40 per cent increase between 2008 and 2009. "These infiltrations are designed to create instability and restlessness in that part of India," he said. Qureshi's immediately responded: "I categorically reiterate the position of Pakistan. Infiltration is not a policy of Pakistan or any intelligence agency of Pakistan. But if there are individuals who have crossed over, deal with them firmly."

This upset the Pakistani journalists and one of them even asked Qureshi why was he being so apologetic on "allegations levelled by India". Qureshi said he was neither apologetic nor was there any reason for Pakistan to be apologetic.

 

[Oracle]

What compels us to even want to talk to Pakistan, a tiny and failed nation. Secure borders, increase military spending, re-organize intelligence agencies, and maintain the economy. Talks should be with nations which are at par with us, not with nations that use terrorism as a state policy and produce Jihadis as graduates.

 

[ajtr]

Army chief meets Gilani​

Pakistan Army [ Images ] chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani [ Images ] on Thursday met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani [ Images ] shortly before the foreign ministers of India [ Images ] and Pakistan called on the premier.Kayani went to the prime minister's secretariat this afternoon for the meeting. An official statement said the army chief and the premier discussed the overall security situation in the country.Kayani also briefed the premier on his recent visit to Australia [ Images ]. External Affairs Minister S M Krishna [ Images ] and his Pakistani counterpart called on Gilani after their first round of talks at the Foreign Office

And this,,,,

Pakistani troops violate ceasefire at six places​

Pakistani troops on Thursday opened heavy fire at five positions along the Line of Control and at another place from across the International Border in Jammu and Kashmir in a violation of ceasefire, minutes after a joint press briefing between External Affairs Minister SM Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi in Islamabad.

At around 10.30 pm Pakistani troops started firing from across the International Border in Ranbirsinghpora sector, 30 km west of Jammu, in a clear violation of the ceasefire.

Within minutes, the army sources said gun fire also came from across the LoC that divides Jammu and Kashmir between India and Pakistan at the Krishna Ghati sector in Mendhar area of Poonch district, 230 km north of Jammu.

The Indian army sources said that the Pakistani army which was not happy over the dialogue between India and Pakistan has sought to escalate tensions on the borders after the day of dialogue was over.

 

[ajtr]

Censor board bans 'Tere bin Laden' in Pakistan

Censor board bans 'Tere bin Laden' in Pakistan

Pakistan has banned an Indian-made comedy film about Osama bin Laden for fear it could spark terrorist attacks, officials said Wednesday[/quote]

 

[SHASH2K2]

Krishna criticised for not defending Pillai

This is the question India is asking a day after Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi slammed India's Home Secretary GK Pillai in the joint press conference held in Islamabad. External Affairs Minister S M Kirshna did not defend him. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi took exception to the fact that the Indian secretary had made the comments at all ahead of the saying it was unhelpful to the peace process.
"We discussed it, and we're both of the opinion it (the home secretary's comments) was uncalled for," Qureshi said.

Krishna, who sat beside him, said nothing.

This drew sharp reaction from Indian people, media and the Opposition. The BJP said the castigation of India's Home Secretary outside the country and in the presence of its own Foreign Minister is unacceptable.

Ahead of the talks, Indian Home Secretary G K Pillai was quoted by an Indian newspaper as saying Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency orchestrated the Mumbai attacks. He said information had emerged from the interrogation of David Coleman Headley, an American who pleaded guilty in the US in March to being in on the planning of the attacks.

 

[hit&run]

Just look at the Indian timing, when rest of the world is ready to choke Pakistan for its sins, the traditional enemy India has started its resuscitation by these talks. What else Pakistan would needs to prove its credibility that she believes in diplomacy NOW after butchering defenceless Indians in mumbai and by still engaging our military from kargil to date.

 

[ajtr]

The Hindu quotient​

July 16th, 2010
Swapan Dasgupta

FAn intriguing feature of the chatter that preceded the visit of external affairs minister S.M. Krishna was the apparent bewilderment of Pakistani commentators at India's continuing preoccupation with terrorism. It was suggested by well-meaning Pakistanis with an interest in the process of normalisation that the timing of the Coleman Headley interrogation reports was wilfully mischievous. Why, it was said, would an Indian minister engage with Pakistan if the objective was to delve into a past tragedy?
The belief that Hindus, blessed with a very feeble sense of history, are incapable of sustained interest in something that is already some 20 months old is playing a role in shaping Pakistani perceptions of its large neighbour. There is a definite feeling that the great Hindu quest for lofty magnanimity can be manipulated in a diplomatic game.
This perception has a basis in contemporary history. In his autobiography published in 2000, Indira Gandhi's economic adviser P.N. Dhar argued that India showed exaggerated understanding towards a beleaguered Pakistan during the Shimla negotiations in 1972. P.N. Haksar's plea that it would be unwise to repeat the follies of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) was bought by an otherwise hardnosed Indira Gandhi. Dhar also revealed that it was a touching concern for the political future of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto that deterred India from incorporating the permanence of the Line of Control in Kashmir into the Shimla Agreement.
In hindsight, the spirit of forgive and forget hasn't paid India any meaningful dividends in its relations with Pakistan. Yet, what is truly astonishing is the persistence of appeasement as a diplomatic strategy. In 1997, the shortlived United Front (UF) government did India a colossal disservice by attempting to pursue I.K. Gujral's doctrine of asymmetry in Indo-Pakistan relations. In ordinary language the Gujral doctrine implied that as elder brother of a large subcontinental family, India must always show generosity and indulge the more spirited younger sibling. The UF government didn't survive long enough for this policy to be played out fully. Nevertheless, it was long enough for some overzealous appeasers quietly dismantle India's intelligence and strategic assets within Pakistan as part of a confidence-building measure. Predictably, there was no reciprocal move by Pakistan to dissolve Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) networks within India.
The belief that India can be beguiled by sweet talk, flattery and exemplary hospitality into letting down its guard has become a part of Pakistan's strategic thinking. There is enough evidence to point to laxity along the LoC in the aftermath of Atal Behari Vajpayee's bus trip to Lahore in 1999 which enabled Gen. Pervez Musharraf to plan his audacious military strike in Kargil. A habitually bitten India, it would seem, isn't thrice shy.
A possible reason behind giving Islamabad the benefit of doubt on too many occasions is the rationalisation that Pakistan is schizophrenic and blessed with multiple power centres, each acting autonomously. The "good" Pakistan, comprising civil society, literati, media and the beleaguered small nationalities, is thought to be constantly at loggerheads with the "bad" Pakistan which is made up of the military establishment, the crazy religious fundamentalists and the civilian clientele of the cantonments. The self-perpetuating seminar circuit has forever advised India's policymakers to be supportive of the "good" Pakistan against the "bad" Pakistan. "Don't do anything precipitate to strengthen the hands of the military" is an advice well-meaning Indians have been repeatedly given by well-meaning Pakistan.
Today, this civilian army of the good has been advising Indians that it won't to do to continue harking back to the past, to the horrific events of 26/11. "We are both victims of terrorism" is a common refrain of Pakistanis.
That Pakistan has suffered grievously at the hands of crazy suicide bombers and wild desperados is undeniable. Hardly a week passes without a fresh horrific bombing in a crowded bazaar, a hotel or an Army camp.
Even the ISI hasn't been spared. Compared to Pakistan, India does appear to have got away lightly. Yet, there is a crucial difference in the jihadi terrorism in the two countries, and one that can't be brushed off lightly. Pakistan's domestic terrorism is largely a consequence of the larger turbulence within Islam, the war in Afghanistan and the interplay of both these with the Pakistani security apparatus. In India, however, apart from the Maoist depredations, terrorism has been largely a Pakistani export and a part of the low-intensity war that began with Gen. Zia-ul Haq.
The importance of the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai lay not merely in the sheer scale of the operation. The capture of Ajmal Kasab and the subsequent unmasking of Headley by the US authorities have made it possible for the world to gleam the scale of the ISI's involvement in the attacks. Had Kasab not been captured alive and Headley not been outed, Pakistan would have persisted in its steadfast denial of any involvement. Today, it has become untenable for the Pakistan government to maintain the fiction that India is laying the blame for the alienation of its own minorities at the door of the neighbour.
It's the unviability of Pakistan's protestations of innocence that has prompted the spirited plea to forget the past and start afresh on a clean slate. It's a position that is difficult to sell within India, a reason why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has had to control his instinctive desire for bonhomie at any cost. The Headley revelations have also made it impossible for India to firewall 26/11 as a home ministry issue, delinked from the concerns of civilised diplomacy.
Pakistan still believes that a protracted spell of diplomatic filibustering plus the embarrassment of the upsurge in the Kashmir Valley will wear India down. For the moment, Mr Krishna has indicated that this time India will not be a pushover. The joint declaration (or even its absence) will reveal whether there is any ground to believe that India is finally allowing the lessons from the past to shape its journey into the future.
Swapan Dasgupta is a senior journalist

 

[Oracle]

Can we move on from Pakistan, Mr Prime Minister?

I wish somebody would tell the prime minister that peace with Pakistan is a good thought. Indians and Pakistanis can be friends, but India and Pakistan can never be friends in our lifetime,' says Saisuresh Sivaswamy.
Every ruler of men and minds since time immemorial has longed to leave his legacy behind -- some through grandiose physical ones like the Taj Mahal or the pyramids; some leave behind a revolutionary thought, a philosophy, like Krishna, Gautama, Jesus Christ and Mohammed; but most die trying.

The exceptions are rare, almost non-existent. I was reading Michel Danino's riveting book The Lost River, on the Saraswati which was the cradle of the civilisation posterity has exclusively credited to the Sindhu/Indus, and was amazed to find that the remains have no pointer to the ruler/s. No grand places. No temples. No monuments. Nothing. Just urban conglomerations.

In fact, early English excavators with their Egyptian and Roman background even dismissed the archaeological findings as unspectacular. Who ran the vast swathe of settlements on the banks of the Saraswati whose impeccable urban order we are unable to replicate 5,000 years later in our cities? We don't know because the rulers didn't think that was important.

If only our modern rulers thought along those lines, better would be our lot. Instead they choose to run after a legacy, making a grand statement, little realising that legacy is what happens when you do your job well. So we've had prime minister after prime minister tilting at the scales, chasing a dream.

Nehru may have wanted to be known as the champion of global peace and India-China brotherhood but we best remember him as the architect of the modern nation-State; Indira Gandhi may have wanted to better her father, but we remember her for creating Bangladesh, imposing the Emergency and okaying Operation Bluestar; with her son it was a case of what could have been rather than what he did or did not do.

P V Narasimha Rao, for instance, did not set out to leave a legacy when he liberalised the economy, he just didn't have a choice given what profligate governments before him had done. In fact, despite his vast intellectual superiority, I don't think even he could have foreseen how his decision would unleash a dormant nation. Today, his party may demonise him for the Babri Masjid demolition but no one can take away what he did to the Indian spirit in 1991.

Similarly, Atal Bihari Vajpayee did not set out to leave a legacy when he detonated the bomb in 1998. But by staring down the international pressure that followed, he gave his people tremendous self-belief. And when he stepped down in 2004, we knew for the first time that non-Congress governments can run the nation better. That was his legacy.

Neither Rao nor Vajpayee strove to be remembered -- they did what they had to do, and when it is consonance with the national spirit, as it was for them, legacy was created.

Manmohan Singh, Rao's finance minister in 1991, obviously doesn't think the economic liberalisation was his legacy, so when he got the unexpected chance in 2004 to be remembered by posterity he grabbed it with both hands. The Indo-US nuclear deal may have been the culmination of what Vajpayee's government had done in the previous term, but Dr Singh left his mark by staking his government's future for America's embrace.

The War on Terror may have gone wrong and America in general may be reviled in the Arab world and elsewhere but India has been unique in that the superpower enjoys enormous popularity here, especially among the large, clamorous and influential middle class which equates socialism with deprivation and American capitalism with prosperity.

So when Dr Singh docked the Indian ship of state next to Washington DC's berth five years ago this Sunday, he brought foreign policy in line with the people's wishes -- and that will always be his legacy.

In his second term, when he is running after another legacy -- something that's never been done before -- he is being not just greedy but even stands to lose it all. Perhaps he needs to be told that peace with Pakistan has been given a shot by every single prime minister before him -- and I don't think anyone walked extra miles for this than Vajpayee; the attempts failed not because they lacked conviction but because the issue is far too complex.

Plus, if you remove the Wagah border brigade and the peaceniks who come alive every now and then, there is no groundswell within India in favour of peace. Ask anyone and they will tell you yes, peace is desirable with Pakistan but at what cost, do they really want peace?

Dr Singh's own Congress party, with its elephantine memory, knows it and hence its lukewarm response to the prime minister's ambition.

His own ministers know it.

When it comes to peace with Pakistan, it won't be wrong to say that Dr Singh stands completely alone in his government, in his party and in his nation.

I wish somebody would tell the prime minister that peace with Pakistan is a good thought. Indians and Pakistanis can be friends but India and Pakistan can never be friends in our lifetime. Maybe after another 30, 40 years, when a generation that is untouched by the past comes to power in both nations, it could be come a reality -- assuming that the two nations don't bomb each other out in the meantime.

For the present, the people are not enthused by peace with Pakistan because it doesn't matter to them anymore. The common belief is that India has left Pakistan far behind in the global sweepstakes and while yes, if its hidden war on us were to stop we can progress even faster, we have done well without them so why bother?

Peace with the neighbour obviously means greater dividends for Pakistan than it does for India.

Things could be different if those extending the hand of friendship in Pakistan are able to make some minimum guarantees, they will be surprised by what India can and will offer in return, but it is an open secret that the nation that broke away from India over the two-nation theory is itself a living example of two nations in one today.

One is the civilian one we see, where elections are held, the president, prime minister and others are selected and who run the nation for all practical purposes.

The second nation is the real one, it is the one that calls the shots on critical issues -- and India is a hyper-critical issue for them. It is possible that Messrs Zardari, Gilani, Qureshi et al have a burning desire for peace with India matching Dr Singh's -- but unfortunately for them, the decision is not theirs to take.

Dr Singh can deal with them till the cows, bulls and every animal on Noah's Ark come home but each time he will realise that it's always back to square one. Hopefully someday soon he will outgrow his magnificent obsession.

There's a nation full of problems waiting for that day.

http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/...wamy-on-dr-singhs-obsession-with-pakistan.htm

 

[ajtr]

X-posting from indo-pak relation thread.

The Hindu quotient​

July 16th, 2010
Swapan Dasgupta

FAn intriguing feature of the chatter that preceded the visit of external affairs minister S.M. Krishna was the apparent bewilderment of Pakistani commentators at India's continuing preoccupation with terrorism. It was suggested by well-meaning Pakistanis with an interest in the process of normalisation that the timing of the Coleman Headley interrogation reports was wilfully mischievous. Why, it was said, would an Indian minister engage with Pakistan if the objective was to delve into a past tragedy?
The belief that Hindus, blessed with a very feeble sense of history, are incapable of sustained interest in something that is already some 20 months old is playing a role in shaping Pakistani perceptions of its large neighbour. There is a definite feeling that the great Hindu quest for lofty magnanimity can be manipulated in a diplomatic game.
This perception has a basis in contemporary history. In his autobiography published in 2000, Indira Gandhi's economic adviser P.N. Dhar argued that India showed exaggerated understanding towards a beleaguered Pakistan during the Shimla negotiations in 1972. P.N. Haksar's plea that it would be unwise to repeat the follies of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) was bought by an otherwise hardnosed Indira Gandhi. Dhar also revealed that it was a touching concern for the political future of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto that deterred India from incorporating the permanence of the Line of Control in Kashmir into the Shimla Agreement.
In hindsight, the spirit of forgive and forget hasn't paid India any meaningful dividends in its relations with Pakistan. Yet, what is truly astonishing is the persistence of appeasement as a diplomatic strategy. In 1997, the shortlived United Front (UF) government did India a colossal disservice by attempting to pursue I.K. Gujral's doctrine of asymmetry in Indo-Pakistan relations. In ordinary language the Gujral doctrine implied that as elder brother of a large subcontinental family, India must always show generosity and indulge the more spirited younger sibling. The UF government didn't survive long enough for this policy to be played out fully. Nevertheless, it was long enough for some overzealous appeasers quietly dismantle India's intelligence and strategic assets within Pakistan as part of a confidence-building measure. Predictably, there was no reciprocal move by Pakistan to dissolve Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) networks within India.
The belief that India can be beguiled by sweet talk, flattery and exemplary hospitality into letting down its guard has become a part of Pakistan's strategic thinking. There is enough evidence to point to laxity along the LoC in the aftermath of Atal Behari Vajpayee's bus trip to Lahore in 1999 which enabled Gen. Pervez Musharraf to plan his audacious military strike in Kargil. A habitually bitten India, it would seem, isn't thrice shy.
A possible reason behind giving Islamabad the benefit of doubt on too many occasions is the rationalisation that Pakistan is schizophrenic and blessed with multiple power centres, each acting autonomously. The "good" Pakistan, comprising civil society, literati, media and the beleaguered small nationalities, is thought to be constantly at loggerheads with the "bad" Pakistan which is made up of the military establishment, the crazy religious fundamentalists and the civilian clientele of the cantonments. The self-perpetuating seminar circuit has forever advised India's policymakers to be supportive of the "good" Pakistan against the "bad" Pakistan. "Don't do anything precipitate to strengthen the hands of the military" is an advice well-meaning Indians have been repeatedly given by well-meaning Pakistan.
Today, this civilian army of the good has been advising Indians that it won't to do to continue harking back to the past, to the horrific events of 26/11. "We are both victims of terrorism" is a common refrain of Pakistanis.
That Pakistan has suffered grievously at the hands of crazy suicide bombers and wild desperados is undeniable. Hardly a week passes without a fresh horrific bombing in a crowded bazaar, a hotel or an Army camp.
Even the ISI hasn't been spared. Compared to Pakistan, India does appear to have got away lightly. Yet, there is a crucial difference in the jihadi terrorism in the two countries, and one that can't be brushed off lightly. Pakistan's domestic terrorism is largely a consequence of the larger turbulence within Islam, the war in Afghanistan and the interplay of both these with the Pakistani security apparatus. In India, however, apart from the Maoist depredations, terrorism has been largely a Pakistani export and a part of the low-intensity war that began with Gen. Zia-ul Haq.
The importance of the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai lay not merely in the sheer scale of the operation. The capture of Ajmal Kasab and the subsequent unmasking of Headley by the US authorities have made it possible for the world to gleam the scale of the ISI's involvement in the attacks. Had Kasab not been captured alive and Headley not been outed, Pakistan would have persisted in its steadfast denial of any involvement. Today, it has become untenable for the Pakistan government to maintain the fiction that India is laying the blame for the alienation of its own minorities at the door of the neighbour.
It's the unviability of Pakistan's protestations of innocence that has prompted the spirited plea to forget the past and start afresh on a clean slate. It's a position that is difficult to sell within India, a reason why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has had to control his instinctive desire for bonhomie at any cost. The Headley revelations have also made it impossible for India to firewall 26/11 as a home ministry issue, delinked from the concerns of civilised diplomacy.
Pakistan still believes that a protracted spell of diplomatic filibustering plus the embarrassment of the upsurge in the Kashmir Valley will wear India down. For the moment, Mr Krishna has indicated that this time India will not be a pushover. The joint declaration (or even its absence) will reveal whether there is any ground to believe that India is finally allowing the lessons from the past to shape its journey into the future.
Swapan Dasgupta is a senior journalist

 

[Neil]

Was Qureshi directed to be hawkish by ISI?

Islamabad/New Delhi: A day after the talks between India and Pakistan, a hawkish Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi threw diplomacy to winds and accused India of not being serious in taking forward the peace talks. This formally indicated that the peace talks had indeed collapsed.
What surprised diplomatic circles in Delhi was that Qureshi threw the rule books of diplomacy to the bin when he openly accused Krishna of taking directions from New Delhi when he (Qureshi) had gone out to attend to a call.Former foreign minister of India Yashwant Singh called this the highest breach of diplomacy. Others said the Qureshi had hit Krishna below the belt by making personal accusations.
Sources in Delhi said that Qureshi was probably forced to remove his diplomatic gloves and take a hawkish position by the ISI and the Army as he had conceded crucial grounds to Krishna over Kashmir and Baluchistan in Thursday night's press conference.
Qureshi took a more hard stand on Kashmir too stating that Pakistan had a right to show interest in the affairs of J&K.He said Jammu and Kashmir was core to Pakistan and the recent developments there could not be neglected.

Addressing a press conference in Islamabad on Friday, Qureshi accused India of being selective about the issues on the table. Pakistan was flexible, ready for all discussions and wanted a composite dialogue, he said and added: "There can be no conditions when two countries engage in a dialogue."India had some core issues to discuss, but so did Pakistan and India had to understand that. "India cannot say we can discuss Sir Creek, but not Siachen", he said.

Meanwhile in New Delhi, the official machinery finally kicked into action on Friday over the controversial remark of Qureshi when he equated rabble-rouser and mastermind of 26/11 Mumbai attack Hafiz Saeed to India's Home Secretary G K Pillai.

On the issue of "hate speeches" by Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, Qureshi said both sides needed to refrain from negative speeches. But in the same breath, he said "on the eve of this dialogue, tell me to what extent" did the Indian Home Secretary's remarks help -- a reference to G K Pillai's remarks at the Idea Exchange programme of The Indian Express this week, in which he blamed the ISI for "controlling and coordinating" the 26/11 terror attacks "from the beginning till the end".

In a way, he equated Saeed's recent anti-India speech in Lahore wherein he called for waging a war against India to the remarks of Pillai.And then he said his Indian counterpart S M Krishna agreed on this.Qureshi and Krishna were addressing a news conference in Islamabad on Thursday night after talks between the two nations.
Surprisingly, Krishna did not rebut Qureshi's remarks on Pillai.

The BJP on Friday fumed at Krishna's silence and regretted that the Home Secretary was not "defended" when he was "openly castigated" by Qureshi.

The Congress on its part described as ridiculous any attempt by Pakistan to equate Pillai's remarks with Jamaat-ud-Dawah(JuD) chief Hafiz Saeed's anti-India hate speeches.

"The Foreign Minister of Pakistan chose to attack India's Home Secretary. I regret he was not defended there by India's Foreign Minister," BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad said, a day after Qureshi's unexpected attack on Pillai at a joint news conference with Krishna after their talks in Islamabad.

Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi said, "The Home Secretary was simply making a statement of fact about what India's stand has been, It is only India's stand. I don't think there is any basis for comparison of statements by Hafiz Saeed or Salahuddin with the Home Secretary. That would be ridiculous."

Singhvi also noted that Krishna has not confirmed Qureshi's remarks that both the ministers were of the opinion that Pillai's comments on ISI's role in 26/11 were "uncalled" for.

Prasad while offering his preliminary comments on the outcome of the Indo-Pak talks said Qureshi was making an issue out of Pillai's statement which was nothing but a statement of LeT operative and Pakistani-American David Headley about the role of ISI in Mumbai attack. Headley has confessed to his involvement in 26/11 and is currently in FBI custody in Chicago in the US.

"They have no reply or content but they are comparing it (Pillai's remarks) with Hafiz Saeed without taking any action," Prasad said.

Qureshi's criticism was noteworthy as it was in response to a question on the anti-Indian rhetoric of Saeed and he cited Pillai's comments as a counter. Krishna's silence when Pillai was attacked by the Pakistani minister has raised eyebrows.

Pillai had early this week blamed Pakistan's powerful Inter Services Intelligence(ISI) agency for "controlling and coordinating" the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 "from the beginning to the end".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4159467&page=3

 

[thakur_ritesh]

i quite like it when people start talking the truth and not pretend and that is precisely what i liked about yesterday's press conference, there was less of an act going on and more of things as they stand behind the public glare being spelled out. next time they need to make sure some tomatoes, some eggs and chappals are also be handed out, would be more fun. i am loving it!

 

[Singh]

 

[Neil]

A diplomatic disaster, but talks to go on

Fissures run deep between India and Pakistan, but the two nations agree to meet again

Islamabad: After seven hours of extended talks in Islamabad today, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi emerged to spell out the outcome of the dialogue, but the initial warmth and commitment to restore confidence soon evaporated. It was replaced by tit-for-tat responses on a range of issues -- laying bare the fissures over Kashmir, infiltration across the Line of Control, alleged rights violations in the Valley, contradictory views on action against perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks and disagreement over Balochistan.

Yet the two countries agreed to continue their dialogue -- it was announced that the two ministers would meet next in India in the near future.

On the issue of "hate speeches" by Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, Qureshi said both sides needed to refrain from negative speeches. But in the same breath, he said "on the eve of this dialogue, tell me to what extent" did the Indian Home Secretary's remarks help -- a reference to G K Pillai's remarks at the Idea Exchange programme of The Indian Express this week, in which he blamed the ISI for "controlling and coordinating" the 26/11 terror attacks "from the beginning till the end".
Qureshi said "we both agreed that it (Pillai's remarks) was uncalled for".

Until afternoon, both sides indicated that the talks, extended twice, were extremely positive. Officials were constantly talking of "good news" on the way. The joint statement was initially slotted for 2 pm but was delayed until 6 pm. But once the two leaders didn't emerge, there was speculation of a deadlock.

Sources said the Indian side insisted on a specific and concrete assurance from Islamabad regarding action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack in light of the latest revelations made by Pakistani-American Lashkar-e-Toiba operative David Coleman Headley.

The Pakistani side, the sources said, didn't go further than the promise to investigate the matter. India, on the other hand, refused to engage on Kashmir, as desired by Pakistan. The deadlock, sources said, was on the framework for a roadmap for future engagements. While India wanted a roadmap for further engagements, the Pakistani side insisted to include what they called substantive issues like the strategic restraint regime and Kashmir.

The opening remarks of both Krishna and Qureshi were optimistic, maintaining the atmospherics but lacking in content and making ambiguous references to restoration of confidence and bridging the trust deficit. Qureshi said "we looked at various options, various steps that would build and restore confidence and bridge the trust deficit".

Krishna said India was committed to being a sincere partner to develop peaceful and cooperative relations with Pakistan. "An effective action (by Pakistan) against terrorism directed against India will go a long way in building trust and confidence," Krishna said, quoting Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani's promise to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that Pakistan would not allow its territory to be used for terror against India. "The Foreign minister of Pakistan assured me that Pakistan will do everything to fulfill this promise," he said.

There were early hints that Pakistan, on India's insistence, had agreed to move forward on the Mumbai terror attacks. "Pakistan will take the leads presented by Home Minister (P Chidambaram) very seriously because we want to move forward," Qureshi said

Krishna said he was going back to New Delhi with an assurance from the highest leadership that whatever the Home Minister had conveyed and whatever leads had been obtained through the interrogation of Headley would be investigated further.

The bonhomie, however, evaporated as soon as the question-answer session began. Krishna said he hoped that the investigation "would be pursued vigorously to unravel the conspiracy and bring all the perpetrators of this horrendous crime to justice -- perhaps that could be the biggest confidence building measure for us".

Qureshi replied that the judicial processes can't be dated. "They (the courts) have their own procedures to follow. We have asked for what kind of help we need to take the process forward," he said. "Ajmal Kasab was declared a proclaimed offender in Pakistan. To move on, we need the magistrate who recorded his statement to appear before the court." He said the judiciary in Pakistan, like in India, was independent. It was India and not Pakistan which didn't want a timeframe, he said.

Krishna said he was going back to New Delhi with an assurance from the highest leadership that whatever the Home Minister had conveyed and whatever leads had been obtained through the interrogation of Headley would be investigated further.

The bonhomie, however, evaporated as soon as the question-answer session began. Krishna said he hoped that the investigation "would be pursued vigorously to unravel the conspiracy and bring all the perpetrators of this horrendous crime to justice -- perhaps that could be the biggest confidence building measure for us".

Qureshi replied that the judicial processes can't be dated. "They (the courts) have their own procedures to follow. We have asked for what kind of help we need to take the process forward," he said. "Ajmal Kasab was declared a proclaimed offender in Pakistan. To move on, we need the magistrate who recorded his statement to appear before the court." He said the judiciary in Pakistan, like in India, was independent. It was India and not Pakistan which didn't want a timeframe, he said.

On alleged rights violations in Kashmir, Krishna said J&K has an elected government and a legitimate Chief Minister and law and order is a state subject. "If they (state government) feel they are unable to maintain law and order or check human rights violations, they can seek help from the Central government," he said. "There are a number of institutions... we have an institutional network to take care of human rights violations."

To this, Qureshi said three Kashmir-based organisations had written to him on human rights violations -- on the issue of curfew, use of Indian armed forces and loss of lives. He, however, said that the elected government of J&K had made a statement, favouring this Indo-Pak engagement. The Pakistani reporters objected to Qureshi's reference to the J&K government as elected and for not using the prefix "occupied".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4163669&page=4

 

[Neil]

Pakistan blames India for lack of progress in talks

Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said on Friday that India's "selective" approach to issues has led to what analysts say is a stalemate in talks aimed to build trust shattered by the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Qureshi and his Indian counterpart S.M. Krishna met in Islamabad on Thursday and agreed on more talks but failed to announce any concrete measures that might soothe tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

"I could see from yesterday's talks that they want to be selective. When they say all issues are on the table then they cannot, they should not, be selective," Qureshi told reporters after attending a ceremony for new diplomats in Islamabad.

"Progress in talks can only be possible if we move forward on all issues in tandem."

He said that there had been no resistance from the Pakistani side in the talks.

Security remains India's top concern after the attack on Mumbai by Pakistani militants, which killed 166 people. After Thursday's talks, Krishna repeated New Delhi's call for Islamabad to speed up efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice.

India blames Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militants for the attacks, and in remarks published in an Indian newspaper on Wednesday, Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai accused Pakistan's main spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), of orchestrating the assault.

India has linked the relaunching of peace talks between the two South Asian rivals with Pakistan's action against the perpetrators of the attack.

But Qureshi warned against India's attitude.

"If we give heed to those issues which they consider important and those issues in which Pakistan is interested are neglected then things cannot move forward," he said.

"They have to sit with an open mind and we have to move forward with an open heart."

Pakistan wants discussions on other issues, including its core dispute with India over the Himalayan region of Kashmir, the cause of two of the three wars between the two countries since independence from Britain in 1947.

He said Pakistan is still ready for talks with India but will wait for a sign from India.

"We're ready to engage. We're ready for negotiations anytime, anywhere but we're not in hurry," Qureshi said.

Analysts say India wants to use the issue of terrorism as a way to keep international pressure on Pakistan.

"They have come to a conclusion that everything is being done against them by the ISI and that policy is not going to change unless there's total pressure," political and security analyst Hassan Askari Rizvi said.

But he feared that this policy would favor the cause of al Qaeda-linked militants who want instability in the region.

"That's what militants want: That India and Pakistan should not be on good terms and if they're on good terms there will be pressure on militants," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...reuters/worldNews+(News+/+US+/+International)

 

[Soham]

There are fails, and there are epic fails. These talks fell under the second.
I was quite disgusted by Quereshi's personal attacks. One wouldn't expect such comments from officials.

 

[ajtr]

Restructuring the Dialogue Process with Pakistan​

Sushant Sareen

July 15, 2010
Notwithstanding India's expressed desire for a "serious, comprehensive and sustained dialogue" with Pakistan, there is deep scepticism over External Affairs minister S.M. Krishna's visit to Islamabad to try and address the new 'core issue' – the yawning 'trust deficit' – bedevilling relations between India and Pakistan. Other than the visit restarting the process of a political engagement between the two countries, very little is being expected out of Mr. Krishna's visit. In the India-Pakistan context, low expectations are not necessarily a bad thing, because not only does it avoid the almost destructive hype that inevitably surrounds any bilateral interaction, it allows both sides to claim success even without having achieved anything substantial.

There are two big problems that the resumed engagement with Pakistan will have to contend with. The first is the political, security and diplomatic environment in which these talks are being held. The second is the apparent disconnect between trying to bridge the trust deficit and the way this objective is sought to be achieved.

Politically, in India there isn't too much public support for re-engagement with Pakistan. While the main opposition party, BJP, is not going on the warpath to oppose the dialogue with Pakistan, it is also not supporting it. Even within the ruling Congress party, support for the dialogue is very iffy. The mandate given to Mr. Krishna by the Union cabinet is very limited.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, the political realities in that country raise serious questions over the credibility of the civilian government as an effective interlocutor. It is by now an open secret that the civilian government's ambit is limited to handling what are best described as municipal functions. Anything remotely related to national security is now almost entirely being handled by the Pakistan Army. And yet, in spite of the fact that the Pakistan Army runs Pakistan's India policy, the Indian leadership is extremely reluctant to open a channel of communication, must less engage, with the Pakistan Army.

Although Indian officials who visited Pakistan with the Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and later Home Minister P. Chidambaram were pleasantly surprised by the reasonableness of the Pakistani officials – no recriminations, no remonstrations, no recidivism and most of all, no revanchism (over Kashmir) – they are neither convinced of Pakistan intentions nor are they willing to accept on face value Pakistani expressions of goodwill and sincerity. For good reasons, India sees this as part of a good-cop-bad-cop routine being played by the Pakistanis – civilian interlocutors playing nice guys and military interlopers playing the bad guys – and not as a sign that good sense has finally dawned on the Pakistanis that they need to normalise relations with India in their own interest.

After all, there is as yet neither anything on the ground to suggest that Pakistan is ready to address India's core concerns on terrorism, nor any indication of any positive change in Pakistan's attitude or thinking towards India. Quite to the contrary, not only are reports pouring in that Pakistan has restarted the jihad factory directed against India, the Pakistan Army chief is on record that India, and not the barbaric Taliban, is the enemy that poses an existential threat to Pakistan.

Diplomatically, Pakistan's cockiness knows no bounds, infused as it is with the misplaced triumphalism over the pivotal role it believes it is on the verge of acquiring in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis are convinced that with Western nations looking to them to provide a safe and honourable exit from Afghanistan, Pakistan is ideally placed to press home its demands on India with the influential members of the international community, especially the US. Indeed, the Pakistanis cannot stop crowing that India has restarted the dialogue under US pressure, which they think will extend to extracting concessions from India on issues like Jammu and Kashmir.

Perhaps, this is one reason why the Pakistanis have repudiated the 'progress' made on Kashmir in the back-channel during the Musharraf era. After all, why go in for a compromise when you stand the chance of gaining something without giving up anything? It is of course quite another matter that the Pakistanis have inadvertently done India a favour by junking the back-channel deal on Kashmir. Without Pakistan renouncing its irredentist claims on Jammu and Kashmir, a deal of the sort worked out on the back-channel would have allowed Pakistan to follow a salami-slicing approach on an integral part of India.

It of course goes without saying that the Pakistanis might be grossly over-estimating not only their diplomatic clout but also India's susceptibility to US pressure. There are very clear limits, not to mention red lines, on how much pressure the US can put on India. While the US factor could have been one of the reasons why India decided to once again try to engage Pakistan, it was not so much pressure as it was a gesture from India to the US which is clutching at straws to find some balance in Afghanistan. In other words, by accepting the US suggestion to reopen a dialogue with Pakistan, India has effectively called Pakistan's bluff that its strained relations with India are preventing it from focussing its attention on the troubled Pashtun tribal belt straddling Afghanistan.

The sooner the US disabuses itself of the notion that improved atmospherics between India and Pakistan will lead to Pakistan shifting its focus from the eastern to the western border, the better. After all, if this didn't happen during the 2004-2008 period when relations between India and Pakistan were the most relaxed in decades, it is unlikely to happen now when the two sides have barely started trying to put together another peace process. On the flip side, the impression that US pressure has been at play in nudging India to the dialogue table with Pakistan has emboldened Pakistan to a dangerous point where it thinks it can once again use with impunity its jihadi proxies against India in Afghanistan as well as Kashmir.

While the political, security and diplomatic obstacles in the path of the latest India-Pakistan dialogue are obvious enough, there is another factor that will come in the way of any forward movement – the mismatch between the stated objective of the dialogue – bridging the trust deficit – and the manner in which this objective is sought to be reached. In other words, what is that big idea that is going to be on the talks table that could lead to the two countries moving towards building trust and confidence between them. As things stand, the two delegations will probably end up discussing the same old issues, taking the same old positions, and walking away after agreeing on a few minor things – exchange of prisoners, release of fishermen, etc.

Clearly, neither side seems to have worked out how to bridge the trust gap without treading the beaten path. Nor for that matter have the two sides figured out what they think they must do or can do to gain the trust of the other side. An agreement on another set of Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) is a good thing. But frankly speaking, CBMs haven't really helped in building any confidence at least not in the strategic sense of the term. The trouble is that given the complete absence of trust between them, it is futile to expect either India or Pakistan to undertake any sort of bold initiative that ushers in a paradigm change in their bilateral relationship. In other words, we are condemned to going around in circles.

One possible way out is to restructure the dialogue in a way that the two countries engage each other in a formal but unstructured strategic political dialogue which focuses beyond immediate disputes and problems. This means that while the two foreign offices continue to handle the existing issues and problems, and the security agencies can keep doing what they must do to counter the hostile action from Pakistan, a parallel but official and yet informal and unstructured dialogue focusing on strategic issues be started at the political level, as also between the military and intelligence agencies. These parallel dialogue tracks can be used to explore any possible convergence of strategic interests by developing a better appreciation of each other's concerns and compulsions and try and see if anything can be done to address them.

To be useful and effective, this 'strategic dialogue' can and must be an officially sponsored and empowered 'Track 1.5' (perhaps under the Ministry of External Affairs) with a wide representation from the strategic community, military and intelligence officials, academics, politicians, even media personnel. This group will engage with their counterparts in Pakistan on larger strategic issues which are not limited to only the narrow India-Pakistan context. In other words, their discussions will focus on how either side views global and regional developments like Pakistan-China relations, India-US relations, piracy in the Arabian Sea, unrest in the Middle East, climate change, the list is endless. The discussions will be unstructured in the sense that the agenda for the talks will be very general, and the setting informal. The mandate of the group will not be reaching an agreement on any issue. Instead, the group's job will be to get a better understanding of how the other side views issues of common concern and to then see if there are any points of possible convergence of interests as also allay certain misconceptions in the other side of strategic objectives of the other side.

Will such an alternative dialogue process work? Probably not, but then if the idea is to bridge the yawning and ever growing trust deficit, doesn't it make more sense to try a new and different tack, rather than keep treading the beaten path.

 

[anoop_mig25]

X-posting from indo-pak relation thread.

The Hindu quotient​

July 16th, 2010
Swapan Dasgupta


A possible reason behind giving Islamabad the benefit of doubt on too many occasions is the rationalisation that Pakistan is schizophrenic and blessed with multiple power centres, each acting autonomously. The "good" Pakistan, comprising civil society, literati, media and the beleaguered small nationalities, is thought to be constantly at loggerheads with the "bad" Pakistan which is made up of the military establishment, the crazy religious fundamentalists and the civilian clientele of the cantonments. The self-perpetuating seminar circuit has forever advised India's policymakers to be supportive of the "good" Pakistan against the "bad" Pakistan. "Don't do anything precipitate to strengthen the hands of the military" is an advice well-meaning Indians have been repeatedly given by well-meaning Pakistan.

Swapan Dasgupta is a senior journalist[/B]

i do n`t agree with authors view that pakistan has multiple centers. it has only one centers that is its army. army does n`t allows anybody to move away from any line as dictated by them. every other centers revolve around army(as in our solar system).

mr mushraff was prime eg of it when we moved towards reconciliation to wards India and some give and take settlement whole centers took same line. and now everybody can see whats happening

Pakistan army runs foreign relations viz usa/india/china and rest is left for the civilian government and bureaucrat

 

[hit&run]

Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said on Friday that India's "selective" approach to issues has led to what analysts say is a stalemate in talks aimed to build trust shattered by the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

This is typical Pakistani backstabbing. They will go to press after every Indo-Pak talks to claim, its India who is not sincere.

I would like to say about SM Krishna's no comment to defend HS that, may be being a boss their he might have felt the tempo of whole talks as useless and unproductive. So he might have considered not to engage with Pakistanis on this issue for sake of getting the hell out of their and let the Pakistanis do what ever they want do at this stage (Just my thought). I don't think making this a big issue at home will help since the whole talk was................ what we call it FAIL.