LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,880
- Likes
- 48,578
what exactly will be discussed when India and Pakistan meet? who loves USA more?
terror delinked from talks with pakistan!
- Thread starter nitesh
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
- Messages
- 1,316
- Likes
- 147
I wasn't referring to this particular incident but in general.
Au contraire, including Baluchistan in the public forum was a brilliant move. As long as India doesn't have an active involvement in Baluchistan (and so far that seems to be the case) and Pakistan no credible proof of the contrary, there's nothing to discuss. In fact, every time there's a baseless charge made on a public forum, Pakistan stands a lot more to lose in terms of credibility than India.
The quarters in the Pakistani establishment who needed the Baluchistan conspiracy theory to survive were actually better off when this matter didn't have global prominence. 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. In a weird way, this helps Gilani by far the most. Not only does this "imaginary paranoia" (as Steve Coll calls it) pose a lesser threat to him now but it also makes India look like a highly considerate and diplomatic nation in the eyes of the world.
The downside of this of course is that India has to relinquish its ability to secretly intervene in Baluchistan if that was on the cards. But its ok, I don't think such an intervention would have garnered any net gains.
Really? You could surprise me 'cause no one was willing to buy our Kashmir story right up until the west started getting hit.
There is also a growing clamour from the west from clowns like Christine Fair that are actively being bought into by the establishment in the West. BHO at least seems convinced that India needs to tamp down our role in Afghanistan.
Pakistan will tom-tom this as an acknowledgement of Indian support to terrorism there. Use that as a mechanism to equate terror in India with terror in Pakiland and justify no action on scum like LeT unless India moves on Balochistan.
BS. Every quarter in P-land needs the India theory to survive because otherwise you'd have to believe that Islam is not, as previously believed, a glue to hold various nationalities/ethnicities together and other may then as well go their own ways. So other than the Sindhis who are anyway marginalized, no power center wants any other theory. Read that again. NO power center.
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.
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. Last time we tried the magnanimous brother diplomacy approach we ended up at Kargil. The fool before that dismantled RAW in Pakistan. Maybe we should ban people born in Pakistan from talking to Pakistan.
I have this theory. Perhaps you may think it is far fetched but here it is anyhow: Let's try not to make the same mistake we've been making every 3 years. Radical , isn't it?
You don't? Pakistan keeps blowing Indians up, sponsor terrorism across the globe and look how much support they have. The West is falling over itself to prop up Pakistan and now MMS wants us to bend over as well.
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. The Anglo Saxon West has done more fomenting trouble than any other single almost-homogeneous entity in history. We could do worse than to model ourselves on them. After all they've ruled the world for so long.
Rising disquiet in Congress over PM's Pak line
NEW DELHI: Faced with deep disquiet within Congress and protests from the Opposition over the "concessions" he is widely seen to have made to Pakistan, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh claimed here on Friday that India's stand on terrorism had not been compromised by the controversial joint statement he signed on to on Thursday at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
"It does not mean any dilution of our stand. It only strengthens our stand," Singh said in Rajya Sabha. The assertion, however, failed to satisfy either Congress or the Opposition. "There are clear contradictions between what was released from Sharm el-Sheikh and what we heard in the two Houses," said a senior Congress leader just after the PM made his statement in Parliament.
In the Lok Sabha, BJP rejected Singh's explanation as "unsatisfactory" before staging a walkout.
Singh's defence of the joint statement came against the backdrop of strong murmurs of resentment in Congress. Party circles feel that the Sharm el-Sheikh document leaves room for suspicion that the Indian delegation relaxed its condition not to resume the composite dialogue with Pakistan till the latter met its condition to bring the 26/11 perpetrators to justice and take credible and sustained measures to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan.
Sources in Congress were also upset with the mention of Balochistan in the joint statement, saying this was fraught with the risk of giving Pakistan room to fling the terror charge back at India at a time of its choosing. Significantly, PM skirted what party circles are calling the 'Balochistan bungle'.
His senior colleagues in Congress also feel that the joint statement was out of tune with the reality of Pakistan's recalcitrance over the 26/11 probe and its continuing support to terrorists -- something confirmed by home minister P Chidambaram in an interview to Times Now channel.
Speaking in the Rajya Sabha, Singh countered the argument that the joint statement had uncoupled the issue of revival of composite dialogue with India's insistence that Pakistan deliver on its litany of promises to take action against terrorists using its territory to launch strikes against India. PM argued, "It only strengthens our stand that we would like Pakistan not to wait for resumption of the composite dialogue as and when it takes place. But take action against terrorist elements regardless of these processes that may lead to the resumption of the dialogue."
In his statement in the two Houses as well as replies to queries from Arun Jaitley and Sitaram Yechury in the Rajya Sabha, the PM stressed that in his talks with his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani, he stuck to India's bottomline that "sustained, effective and credible action needs to be taken not only to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice, but also to shut down the operations of terrorist groups so as to prevent any future attacks".
He also denied that India had made any commitment to return to the table for composite dialogue irrespective of what Pakistan does vis-i-vis its concerns about terrorism. "Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments. For the present, we have agreed that the foreign secretaries will meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers who will meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly," he said, suggesting that India reserves the option of not starting the dialogue if Pakistan does not comply with its wishlist.
The anxiety to dispel the perception of concession was clear when the PM made a reference to the commitment made by Pakistan on January 6, 2004 not to let terrorists use its territory as the base for attacks on India. The omission of the 2004 pledge from the joint statement issued on Thursday is one of the reasons why it has drawn flak.
To many, the PM seemed to be making amends when he emphasised, "It has been and remains our consistent position that the starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is a fulfilment of their commitment, in letter and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India."
The contrast between the tough tone Singh used and the text of Sharm el-Sheikh was highlighted by Jaitley, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha. "The explanation which the prime minister has given seems directly in odds to what is in the declaration. The two seems patently inconsistent with each other," Jaitley said. He also argued that it was the joint statement and not statements made in the country which will be taken as reflecting India's stand.
CPM's Sitaram Yechury, who supported the PM's intent to improve ties with Pakistan, supported Jaitley's contention about inconsistency. Comparing prime minister's statement in the House with the joint statement, Yechury said the two appeared to be in conflict.
For once, Congress leaders seemed to share the Opposition's perception. They also feel that the government failed to capitalise on Pakistan's dire need for early resumption of the stalled composite dialogue. "The very debate as to who has gained should not have been there had we played our cards well," said a senior leader who added that the party was wary of how the PM and his team negotiates on the sensitive issues of WTO and climate change.
Rising disquiet in Congress over PM's Pak line - India - NEWS - The Times of India
God someone do something please.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,615
- Likes
- 5,772
They already have plausible deniability of non-state actors being involved in Mumbai massacre. The point being what have they done so-far to bring the perpetrators to justice. They are carrying out a shoddy job of prosecuting Hafeez Saeed (head of JuD) despite overwhelming evidence provided by India and US, and JuD already being banned by UN.
Why should it be carried out in track-2 diplomacy, when all the facts are in public domain. If indeed they want to carry out this case in track-2 diplomacy, then MMS should refrain from making such stupid statements about delinking terrorism and talks in public.
If we don't have options that doesn't mean we have to go and kiss a** pakistan, just cut-off all ties till there are tangible results coming out of Mumbai massacre investigation in Pakistan and punishing of the repsonsible perpetrators.
Agreed, but India with such massive population, land mass and coastline to protect, it is difficult to prevent such attacks no matter how many measures you take to improve internal security. you have to take the fight to the enemy i.e. Pakistan.
Its not about settling scores with enemy, it is about ceding breathing space to enemy which will make the enemy much more audacious in future being it diplomacy or terrorist acts. You should always breath down the neck of enemy economically, diplomatically or militarily.
Capturing kasab is only half-battle won. What about the master-minds. As long as these master-minds are alive they will keep creating many kasabs and send onto attack India. If you cut-off tentacles of Hydra, they keep growing new ones. You need to cut-off the head of Hydra to kill it not the tentacles.
Generate hope for whom?. It didn't any for India nor did it for any other third country. It did generate hope for Pakistan to brush-off Indian concerns with disdain as they have done previously many a times and it keeps repeating.
He proved himself as one by conflicting what he said in the 'Joint statement' of Cairo meeting with that of his statement today in Parliament. He tied himself up in the knots. Even his own party is not happy it seems. He can talk all the peace he want to, but not over the dead bodies of mumbai massacre but when he brings the culprits to justice.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,626
- Likes
- 1,670
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.
(
I wonder if the government of MMS would take the same stand if such an attack took place in Jalandhar or Ludhiana.
(
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,001
Clearly, India has succumbed
Raju Santharaam
Does India have a consistent, time-tested foreign policy that is capable of imparting a certain distinctive status to the country?
When it comes to Pakistan, it seems to be all bluff and bluster. How else does one explain India re-entering the dialogue process with Pakistan, a process initiated by the Prime Minister and followed up with talks at the level of foreign secretaries. It was not very long ago ~ actually just a couple of days ago ~ that foreign minister Mr SM Krishna was harping on the now familiar demand that there should be credible evidence of Pakistan's intention to act. His predecessor had been firmer ~ there would be no talks unless terror structures in Pakistan were dismantled.
With the Manmohan Singh-Gilani talks in Egypt, India has moved from its stance of "no action, no talks" to "talks regardless of action on terrorism". Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has in fact claimed a diplomatic victory and said there is no link between composite dialogue and Pakistani efforts to go after the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. It is perhaps the lack of a consistency that has created the perception that India ~ despite its efforts at emerging as a global economic power ~ has only a Pakistan-centric foreign policy. If Pakistan yells Kashmir, India screams terrorism.
It is therefore not surprising, that when it comes to the crunch, India and Pakistan are looked upon as two squabbling foes causing unease in South Asia. No less surprising is the simplistic antidote to the growth of terrorism in South Asia ~ if India and Pakistan mended their fences over Kashmir there would be a considerable scale-down in terrorism. For most part of the Bush administration, Indian officials were happy that pressure was being brought on Pakistan. But the brazen Mumbai attacks changed everything. After 26/11 the stand was that India would not talk to Pakistan till such time that credible steps were taken to dismantle the terror structure. Nothing publicly has been done by Pakistan to even remotely ensure this.
On the contrary, thanks to poor handling of the case by the Pakistani prosecution, Hafez Saeed, the 26/11 conspirator, has been released. What then accounts for the fact that the Prime Minister spent forty minutes with President Zardari in Russia and later had an hour long, one-on-one chat with Mr Gilani in Egypt?
Clearly it is US pressure on India that prompted the meetings. In fact there is already a timeline fixed for the next meeting of the foreign secretaries in July. Would India by then have enough evidence of Pakistan dismantling the terror mechanism? If not, then does India plan to cancel the July talks? Apparently not. Clearly, India has succumbed. On the other hand Pakistan has always been able to shape its policy to achieve its own limited ends. And the USA ~ for its own reasons ~ has thought it fit to waltz with Pakistan. General Musharraf in one of his nationwide
The Statesman
Raju Santharaam
Does India have a consistent, time-tested foreign policy that is capable of imparting a certain distinctive status to the country?
When it comes to Pakistan, it seems to be all bluff and bluster. How else does one explain India re-entering the dialogue process with Pakistan, a process initiated by the Prime Minister and followed up with talks at the level of foreign secretaries. It was not very long ago ~ actually just a couple of days ago ~ that foreign minister Mr SM Krishna was harping on the now familiar demand that there should be credible evidence of Pakistan's intention to act. His predecessor had been firmer ~ there would be no talks unless terror structures in Pakistan were dismantled.
With the Manmohan Singh-Gilani talks in Egypt, India has moved from its stance of "no action, no talks" to "talks regardless of action on terrorism". Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has in fact claimed a diplomatic victory and said there is no link between composite dialogue and Pakistani efforts to go after the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. It is perhaps the lack of a consistency that has created the perception that India ~ despite its efforts at emerging as a global economic power ~ has only a Pakistan-centric foreign policy. If Pakistan yells Kashmir, India screams terrorism.
It is therefore not surprising, that when it comes to the crunch, India and Pakistan are looked upon as two squabbling foes causing unease in South Asia. No less surprising is the simplistic antidote to the growth of terrorism in South Asia ~ if India and Pakistan mended their fences over Kashmir there would be a considerable scale-down in terrorism. For most part of the Bush administration, Indian officials were happy that pressure was being brought on Pakistan. But the brazen Mumbai attacks changed everything. After 26/11 the stand was that India would not talk to Pakistan till such time that credible steps were taken to dismantle the terror structure. Nothing publicly has been done by Pakistan to even remotely ensure this.
On the contrary, thanks to poor handling of the case by the Pakistani prosecution, Hafez Saeed, the 26/11 conspirator, has been released. What then accounts for the fact that the Prime Minister spent forty minutes with President Zardari in Russia and later had an hour long, one-on-one chat with Mr Gilani in Egypt?
Clearly it is US pressure on India that prompted the meetings. In fact there is already a timeline fixed for the next meeting of the foreign secretaries in July. Would India by then have enough evidence of Pakistan dismantling the terror mechanism? If not, then does India plan to cancel the July talks? Apparently not. Clearly, India has succumbed. On the other hand Pakistan has always been able to shape its policy to achieve its own limited ends. And the USA ~ for its own reasons ~ has thought it fit to waltz with Pakistan. General Musharraf in one of his nationwide
The Statesman
Pintu
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 12,082
- Likes
- 348
No dilution in policy, says Manmohan- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times
No dilution in policy, says Manmohan
18 Jul 2009, 0550 hrs IST, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday had difficulties in selling the idea of an engagement with Pakistan where the action on terror was delinked from the composite dialogue process. Even as BJP staged a walkout in the Lok Sabha accusing the government of selling out to Pakistan, Mr Singh, who returned from Egypt early on Friday morning to face the heat in Parliament, attempted to explain away the Indo-Pak joint statement. He claimed that there was no dilution on India’s stand on cross border terrorism and that ‘meaningful dialogue’ with Pakistan would depend on steps taken by Islamabad to end cross border terrorism.
Responding to a clarification from Rajya Sabha Opposition leader Arun Jaitley, the prime minister said, “it (the joint statement) does not mean a dilution. It only strengthens our position. We would not like Pakistan to wait for the resumption of the composite dialogue process but take action against terror and that may lead to the resumption of the dialogue process.”
Mr Jaitley during his clarification had pointed out that India’s consistent position on cross-border terrorism and use of terms like state-sponsored terrorism were at variance with what is stated in the joint statement on delinking terror issues from the composite dialogue process. He further pointed out that India’s national commitment is going to be the joint statement and not other statements.
The Indo-Pak joint statement said that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”’ This is followed by a line that says India is “ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.”
The reference to Baluchistan in the joint statement has also invited criticism as Pakistan for long has accused India of fomenting trouble. There is acknowledgment that New Delhi’s concession to Pakistan will enable it to claim parity with India as a terror victim.
The joint statement, which leaves it open for many interpretations, will make it difficult for the Congress to defend an engagement with Pakistan to the domestic audience. Mr Singh’s Pakistan move comes in the backdrop of US pressure to push India and Pakistan towards a dialogue.
The latest move on Pakistan has invited concern from many quarters. The BJP slammed the government inside Parliament with its leader L K Advani saying that the government had “capitulated” and conceded too much and led a walkout of his party in the Lok Sabha.
Mr Singh in a statement in both houses of Parliament maintained that a “meaningful dialogue” would depend on Islamabad fulfilling its pledge on terrorism “in letter and spirit”. “It has been and remains our consistent position that the starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is a fulfillment of their commitment, in letter and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India,’’ he said.
As the joint statement said the action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and that India would decide when and where to broaden the dialogue which for now is limited to meetings between the foreign secretaries of the two countries, he said.
“As the joint statement says, action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process, and therefore cannot await other developments. It was agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats,’’ he said.
The prime minister further said that India would take the call on broadening the dialogue with Pakistan. “Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments,’’ he said, and added that the foreign secretaries would meet often and report to the foreign ministers who will meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Mr Singh further maintained that he got an assurance from Mr Gilani on bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack to justice and that he had been told that there is growing consensus within Pakistan against the terror infrastructure. “He (Mr Gilani) also told me that there is consensus in Pakistan against the activities of these terrorist groups, that strong action is being taken and that this is in Pakistan’s own interest,’’ he added.
No dilution in policy, says Manmohan
18 Jul 2009, 0550 hrs IST, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday had difficulties in selling the idea of an engagement with Pakistan where the action on terror was delinked from the composite dialogue process. Even as BJP staged a walkout in the Lok Sabha accusing the government of selling out to Pakistan, Mr Singh, who returned from Egypt early on Friday morning to face the heat in Parliament, attempted to explain away the Indo-Pak joint statement. He claimed that there was no dilution on India’s stand on cross border terrorism and that ‘meaningful dialogue’ with Pakistan would depend on steps taken by Islamabad to end cross border terrorism.
Responding to a clarification from Rajya Sabha Opposition leader Arun Jaitley, the prime minister said, “it (the joint statement) does not mean a dilution. It only strengthens our position. We would not like Pakistan to wait for the resumption of the composite dialogue process but take action against terror and that may lead to the resumption of the dialogue process.”
Mr Jaitley during his clarification had pointed out that India’s consistent position on cross-border terrorism and use of terms like state-sponsored terrorism were at variance with what is stated in the joint statement on delinking terror issues from the composite dialogue process. He further pointed out that India’s national commitment is going to be the joint statement and not other statements.
The Indo-Pak joint statement said that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”’ This is followed by a line that says India is “ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.”
The reference to Baluchistan in the joint statement has also invited criticism as Pakistan for long has accused India of fomenting trouble. There is acknowledgment that New Delhi’s concession to Pakistan will enable it to claim parity with India as a terror victim.
The joint statement, which leaves it open for many interpretations, will make it difficult for the Congress to defend an engagement with Pakistan to the domestic audience. Mr Singh’s Pakistan move comes in the backdrop of US pressure to push India and Pakistan towards a dialogue.
The latest move on Pakistan has invited concern from many quarters. The BJP slammed the government inside Parliament with its leader L K Advani saying that the government had “capitulated” and conceded too much and led a walkout of his party in the Lok Sabha.
Mr Singh in a statement in both houses of Parliament maintained that a “meaningful dialogue” would depend on Islamabad fulfilling its pledge on terrorism “in letter and spirit”. “It has been and remains our consistent position that the starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is a fulfillment of their commitment, in letter and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India,’’ he said.
As the joint statement said the action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and that India would decide when and where to broaden the dialogue which for now is limited to meetings between the foreign secretaries of the two countries, he said.
“As the joint statement says, action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process, and therefore cannot await other developments. It was agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats,’’ he said.
The prime minister further said that India would take the call on broadening the dialogue with Pakistan. “Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments,’’ he said, and added that the foreign secretaries would meet often and report to the foreign ministers who will meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Mr Singh further maintained that he got an assurance from Mr Gilani on bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack to justice and that he had been told that there is growing consensus within Pakistan against the terror infrastructure. “He (Mr Gilani) also told me that there is consensus in Pakistan against the activities of these terrorist groups, that strong action is being taken and that this is in Pakistan’s own interest,’’ he added.
Pintu
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 12,082
- Likes
- 348
Pakistan media praise New Delhi & Islamabad- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times
Pakistan media praise New Delhi & Islamabad
18 Jul 2009, 0554 hrs IST, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday faced criticism at home but it was celebration time in Pakistan where the joint statement was taken to mean that India would now discuss the issue of Kashmir and India’s ‘role’ in Balochistan.
The reference to ‘threats’ in Balochistan was hailed in the Pakistani media which highlighted Islamabad’s consistent accusation that India had a role in fermenting unrest in Balochistan. This is the first time an Indo-Pak joint statement has referred to “threats in Balochistan and other areas” and said it would be discussed.
The Pakistan media largely welcomed the developments in Sharm el-Sheikh. As Mr Singh grappled with media criticism of giving too much to Pakistan, editorials and articles in the Pakistani media hailed the Indo-Pak joint statement.
The Nation newspaper in an editorial said that prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s statement that there could be no lasting peace without the resolution of the Kashmir issue should be heeded by the Indian leadership. The Indo-Pak joint statement says that India is ready to discuss all outstanding issue, which clearly includes the Kashmir issue.
The Pakistani media seized on Mr Singh’s agreement to discuss all outstanding issues and saw the delinking of action on terrorism from the composite dialogue process as a climbdown on India’s part. Other reports praised both the Indian and Pakistani side for taking a giant step forward. The Dawn newspaper in an editorial said, “considerable give and take” would be required by both countries in the days to come.
“Credit must go to both sides for seizing the moment and breaking the impasse. Instead of describing the outcome of the meeting as some kind of victory for Pakistan we would do well to hail India’s timely recognition that terrorism and militancy should not be allowed to come in the way,” the paper said.
Mr Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in the joint statement had acknowledged that dialogue was the only way forward and that two countries would continue to hold regular meetings. But the Dawn newspaper also pointed out that Pakistan needs to take steps to crack down on the terror organisations who target Pakistan’s neighbours to the east “India, for its part, must understand Pakistan’s position at a time when Islamabad is fighting militancy on several fronts,” it said.
Yet another editorial in The Daily Times said future talks “must not be a repetition of what has been happening in the past” and “must be based on a new agenda formulated after back-stage diplomacy and a prior mutual accommodation over basic issues”.
Pakistan media praise New Delhi & Islamabad
18 Jul 2009, 0554 hrs IST, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday faced criticism at home but it was celebration time in Pakistan where the joint statement was taken to mean that India would now discuss the issue of Kashmir and India’s ‘role’ in Balochistan.
The reference to ‘threats’ in Balochistan was hailed in the Pakistani media which highlighted Islamabad’s consistent accusation that India had a role in fermenting unrest in Balochistan. This is the first time an Indo-Pak joint statement has referred to “threats in Balochistan and other areas” and said it would be discussed.
The Pakistan media largely welcomed the developments in Sharm el-Sheikh. As Mr Singh grappled with media criticism of giving too much to Pakistan, editorials and articles in the Pakistani media hailed the Indo-Pak joint statement.
The Nation newspaper in an editorial said that prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s statement that there could be no lasting peace without the resolution of the Kashmir issue should be heeded by the Indian leadership. The Indo-Pak joint statement says that India is ready to discuss all outstanding issue, which clearly includes the Kashmir issue.
The Pakistani media seized on Mr Singh’s agreement to discuss all outstanding issues and saw the delinking of action on terrorism from the composite dialogue process as a climbdown on India’s part. Other reports praised both the Indian and Pakistani side for taking a giant step forward. The Dawn newspaper in an editorial said, “considerable give and take” would be required by both countries in the days to come.
“Credit must go to both sides for seizing the moment and breaking the impasse. Instead of describing the outcome of the meeting as some kind of victory for Pakistan we would do well to hail India’s timely recognition that terrorism and militancy should not be allowed to come in the way,” the paper said.
Mr Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in the joint statement had acknowledged that dialogue was the only way forward and that two countries would continue to hold regular meetings. But the Dawn newspaper also pointed out that Pakistan needs to take steps to crack down on the terror organisations who target Pakistan’s neighbours to the east “India, for its part, must understand Pakistan’s position at a time when Islamabad is fighting militancy on several fronts,” it said.
Yet another editorial in The Daily Times said future talks “must not be a repetition of what has been happening in the past” and “must be based on a new agenda formulated after back-stage diplomacy and a prior mutual accommodation over basic issues”.
There is no use in asking pak to take action against terror. Everyone knows that most of the terrorists Have their Breakfast,lunch & dinner with pak military generals & ISI so now its our turn to eliminate terrorism from pak soil...
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,880
- Likes
- 48,578
from this stupidity Pakistan will protect their interests in Baluchistan and keep their Kashmir insurgency going, what will MMS do there except look like a big idiot, a lose lose situation for India and a total incompetency in handling of 26/11.
Pintu
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 12,082
- Likes
- 348
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Editorial
Pickings may be slender and slow in coming, but India and Pakistan have agreed to begin a search for peace on the sub-continent. Rightly so.
The statements and reports emanating from Sharm El-Sheikh need not be taken as negatively as are being viewed by the usual sceptics, who are generally doubtful that India can ever persuade Pakistan to give up the path of terrorism by talks.
None can dispute that the people on both sides of the divide have been craving peace for years and are fed up with a history of tensions and wars and terrorism — which indeed is a war by other means. But the pursuit of peace certainly, besides keeping the powder dry, requires patient efforts for peace by talks across the table, to be complemented by a sustained and quiet track II diplomacy.
After every round of talks between two countries known for adversarial dispositions and suspicions there are bound to be varied responses and interpretations. The talks at Sharm El-Sheikh were not planned to play some zero-sum game where the gains of one party are bound to be at the cost of another. The idea behind the talks was to move towards a dialogue that had been severely fractured by the grisly events of 26/11 perpetrated by malevolent elements from Pakistan who would not like to see peace between India and Pakistan.
The Sharm El-Sheikh meetings between the two Prime Ministers and their foreign secretaries and other senior officials were meant to create ground for the resumption of the composite dialogue to sort out substantive issues that have over the years embittered relations between the two neighbours.
But some of the initial reactions in India to the outcome of the talks needlessly suggest that India has given more than it has gained by agreeing to resume the composite dialogue without making Pakistan give cast-iron guarantees that another 26/11 will not be allowed to happen again.
Essentially, such doubts arise from the fear that India is a weak party that tries to buy time through talks rather than face Pakistan headlong on the ground or otherwise.
Not talking with an adversary — actual or perceived — is not a practical proposition in the 21st century diplomacy. It could also be counter-productive. A nation like India should have confidence in its ability to deal with Pakistan across the table, ensuring at the same time that Pakistan, in its own interest, takes steps to prevent another 26/11 taking place.
The talks can, in effect, be a means to advance national interests by an intelligent use of diplomacy and skill. These can be regarded as a sign of strength, not weakness.
The US and the Soviet Union went on talking to each other during Cold War years through overt and covert diplomatic contacts. Anatoly Dobrynin remained Moscow’s Ambassador to six US Presidents over 21 years with Washington even giving him a separate entrance to the State Department during the worst times of a crisis-ridden relationship. Both Moscow and Washington found these contacts useful to prevent
flare-ups that could push the two super powers into a global war.
China and the US had nearly 650 rounds of meetings in Warsaw when they were bitter enemies in the 1960s and before Dr Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon flew to China to normalise relations with Beijing. The US was fighting the Vietnam war while representatives of the two countries were quietly meeting at Hotel Majestic in Paris. And recently President Obama chose to offer engagement with Iran to close a chapter of hostile relationship between the two countries without a loss of face. At the end of the day, it is the outcome that is important.
It is true that the joint statement by the two countries at Sharm
El-Sheikh can be interpreted by different people in different ways. But that is often the case after every round of talks between the two countries that have for years lived with mutual suspicion. Of significance is the Prime Minister’s statement to the media making clear how India looks at the outcome of the talks.
Dr Manmohan Singh said, “the dialogue cannot begin unless and until the terrorist acts of Mumbai are fully accounted for and the perpetrators are brought to book”. He added that unless this happened “I cannot agree; and our public opinion will not agree.” He pointed out that no roadmap for the resumption of the dialogue had been drawn up yet, but indicated that India had an obligation to engage Pakistan.
It is possible India is expecting the Pakistan government to take steps against the accused involved in the 26/11 killings in Mumbai during the next few days. Of significance is that no date has been announced about the resumption of the dialogue, nor has its nature or content been thought of. Those are to be sorted out by the two foreign secretaries during the next few weeks. And even the dates of the meetings of the two foreign secretaries have not been announced.
Apparently, India will be watching what action the Pakistan government will be taking against the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage. The quality of action — and certainly not an attempted eyewash — will determine any movement towards a composite dialogue which again will take a long time to deliver peace. It is certainly going to be a long-drawn affair, subject to quirks of Indo-Pakistan relations.
After all, given the shortsightedness of the politicians and generals, wars are easy to start and always are avoidable. Peace-making is difficult and requires patience, wisdom and statesmanship of a high order. Towards that end, even a small step like the one taken at Sharm El-Sheikh should be welcomed rather than criticised.
Why be afraid of talks with Pakistan?
By H.K. Dua
Pickings may be slender and slow in coming, but India and Pakistan have agreed to begin a search for peace on the sub-continent. Rightly so.
The statements and reports emanating from Sharm El-Sheikh need not be taken as negatively as are being viewed by the usual sceptics, who are generally doubtful that India can ever persuade Pakistan to give up the path of terrorism by talks.
None can dispute that the people on both sides of the divide have been craving peace for years and are fed up with a history of tensions and wars and terrorism — which indeed is a war by other means. But the pursuit of peace certainly, besides keeping the powder dry, requires patient efforts for peace by talks across the table, to be complemented by a sustained and quiet track II diplomacy.
After every round of talks between two countries known for adversarial dispositions and suspicions there are bound to be varied responses and interpretations. The talks at Sharm El-Sheikh were not planned to play some zero-sum game where the gains of one party are bound to be at the cost of another. The idea behind the talks was to move towards a dialogue that had been severely fractured by the grisly events of 26/11 perpetrated by malevolent elements from Pakistan who would not like to see peace between India and Pakistan.
The Sharm El-Sheikh meetings between the two Prime Ministers and their foreign secretaries and other senior officials were meant to create ground for the resumption of the composite dialogue to sort out substantive issues that have over the years embittered relations between the two neighbours.
But some of the initial reactions in India to the outcome of the talks needlessly suggest that India has given more than it has gained by agreeing to resume the composite dialogue without making Pakistan give cast-iron guarantees that another 26/11 will not be allowed to happen again.
Essentially, such doubts arise from the fear that India is a weak party that tries to buy time through talks rather than face Pakistan headlong on the ground or otherwise.
Not talking with an adversary — actual or perceived — is not a practical proposition in the 21st century diplomacy. It could also be counter-productive. A nation like India should have confidence in its ability to deal with Pakistan across the table, ensuring at the same time that Pakistan, in its own interest, takes steps to prevent another 26/11 taking place.
The talks can, in effect, be a means to advance national interests by an intelligent use of diplomacy and skill. These can be regarded as a sign of strength, not weakness.
The US and the Soviet Union went on talking to each other during Cold War years through overt and covert diplomatic contacts. Anatoly Dobrynin remained Moscow’s Ambassador to six US Presidents over 21 years with Washington even giving him a separate entrance to the State Department during the worst times of a crisis-ridden relationship. Both Moscow and Washington found these contacts useful to prevent
flare-ups that could push the two super powers into a global war.
China and the US had nearly 650 rounds of meetings in Warsaw when they were bitter enemies in the 1960s and before Dr Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon flew to China to normalise relations with Beijing. The US was fighting the Vietnam war while representatives of the two countries were quietly meeting at Hotel Majestic in Paris. And recently President Obama chose to offer engagement with Iran to close a chapter of hostile relationship between the two countries without a loss of face. At the end of the day, it is the outcome that is important.
It is true that the joint statement by the two countries at Sharm
El-Sheikh can be interpreted by different people in different ways. But that is often the case after every round of talks between the two countries that have for years lived with mutual suspicion. Of significance is the Prime Minister’s statement to the media making clear how India looks at the outcome of the talks.
Dr Manmohan Singh said, “the dialogue cannot begin unless and until the terrorist acts of Mumbai are fully accounted for and the perpetrators are brought to book”. He added that unless this happened “I cannot agree; and our public opinion will not agree.” He pointed out that no roadmap for the resumption of the dialogue had been drawn up yet, but indicated that India had an obligation to engage Pakistan.
It is possible India is expecting the Pakistan government to take steps against the accused involved in the 26/11 killings in Mumbai during the next few days. Of significance is that no date has been announced about the resumption of the dialogue, nor has its nature or content been thought of. Those are to be sorted out by the two foreign secretaries during the next few weeks. And even the dates of the meetings of the two foreign secretaries have not been announced.
Apparently, India will be watching what action the Pakistan government will be taking against the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage. The quality of action — and certainly not an attempted eyewash — will determine any movement towards a composite dialogue which again will take a long time to deliver peace. It is certainly going to be a long-drawn affair, subject to quirks of Indo-Pakistan relations.
After all, given the shortsightedness of the politicians and generals, wars are easy to start and always are avoidable. Peace-making is difficult and requires patience, wisdom and statesmanship of a high order. Towards that end, even a small step like the one taken at Sharm El-Sheikh should be welcomed rather than criticised.
thakur_ritesh
Ambassador
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,435
- Likes
- 1,733
timing of incidents that happen are of utter importance here. one has to look how the hafees saeed episode was planned out and executed by the pakistanis. just one day prior to the meet between the two PMs, the pak punjabi government decided not to file a case against him, just to show india who are the masters of the game and no way will they come under any pressure from india on the issue, an agenda that got rolled out by rehman malik where he had accused india for not providing with enough evidence against the perpetrators of 26/11, so it will be difficult to take the case forward.
mms was so shaken from all that he had heard from rehman malik that he had started addressing all the concerns of pakistan even before he had landed at cairo and went on to regret his behavior where he had snubbed zardari in all public glare.
as i can see all this was all a well thought out plan by the indian diplomats where initially they portrayed a resilient and a combatant PM at moscow to address the anger in india on the 26/11 terror attacks. then with some strong reactions from pakistan he mellowed down to show this behavior as a response where our PM forgot about the presence of media when he uttered those uncomfortably words to zardari, which saw some very strong reactions in pakistan. with this mellow down the ground was well prepared for the composite dialog to take place in the future by de-linking terror and for the joint statement that we heard to our disgust. one can also see some very fine imprints of the us all over this episode, and we talk about an independent foreign policy.
then this statement talks about a real time intelligence sharing between the two countries, man have we not been talking about the same since 2006 or around that time, and what did india get in return, daily terror related killings in kashmir, blasts all over the country and a ghastly act of terror in the form of 26/11. such a shame!
and in all this nuisance the mention of baluchistan, so next time there is some act of terror in that place, pakistanis will very conveniently say the matter will be taken up with india. in the next few days india and baluchistan will get more and more synonymous and pakistani establishment will leave no stone unturned in doing that and india will not just be shown as the villain to the domestic audience but to the world at large and these are all the pressure groups that help mold the agenda of discussions and i fear the day when pakistan would say, india needs to lay its hands off baluchistan and india be shown as a terror funding country. i'm not sure people here really realise what a potential volcano the baluchistan issue can become for india. i would have been fine with most part of the joint statement but for baluchistan.
oh were these people sleeping when that draft was being prepared, such a shabby show!
mms was so shaken from all that he had heard from rehman malik that he had started addressing all the concerns of pakistan even before he had landed at cairo and went on to regret his behavior where he had snubbed zardari in all public glare.
as i can see all this was all a well thought out plan by the indian diplomats where initially they portrayed a resilient and a combatant PM at moscow to address the anger in india on the 26/11 terror attacks. then with some strong reactions from pakistan he mellowed down to show this behavior as a response where our PM forgot about the presence of media when he uttered those uncomfortably words to zardari, which saw some very strong reactions in pakistan. with this mellow down the ground was well prepared for the composite dialog to take place in the future by de-linking terror and for the joint statement that we heard to our disgust. one can also see some very fine imprints of the us all over this episode, and we talk about an independent foreign policy.
then this statement talks about a real time intelligence sharing between the two countries, man have we not been talking about the same since 2006 or around that time, and what did india get in return, daily terror related killings in kashmir, blasts all over the country and a ghastly act of terror in the form of 26/11. such a shame!
and in all this nuisance the mention of baluchistan, so next time there is some act of terror in that place, pakistanis will very conveniently say the matter will be taken up with india. in the next few days india and baluchistan will get more and more synonymous and pakistani establishment will leave no stone unturned in doing that and india will not just be shown as the villain to the domestic audience but to the world at large and these are all the pressure groups that help mold the agenda of discussions and i fear the day when pakistan would say, india needs to lay its hands off baluchistan and india be shown as a terror funding country. i'm not sure people here really realise what a potential volcano the baluchistan issue can become for india. i would have been fine with most part of the joint statement but for baluchistan.
oh were these people sleeping when that draft was being prepared, such a shabby show!
youngindian
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,365
- Likes
- 77
Shame at sharm-el-sheikh
Fri, 2009-07-17 16:56.
By Brigadier (Retd) Chitranjan Sawant,VSM
The Indian team of negotiators, under no less a person than Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh, has offered on a silver platter to Pakistan what she wanted. Some commentators and columnists feel that the Indians have been tricked into giving away something now so that they get back in greater measure what they desire in future. A wishful thinking indeed. It has not happened in the past, is not happening in the present and shall not happen in future. Indians have lost heavily at the negotiating table. One wonders if the prime Minister is prepared to take the blame. Time alone will tell.
HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF
Way back in the 12th century Prithvi Raj Chauhan, King of Hindustan had defeated in battle Muhammad of Ghor more than once. However, the victor did not incapacitate the vanquished to pre-empt a similar misadventure in future. It was a fatal mistake for both the king and the country. The history of India abounds with similar situations where brilliant generals made stupid mistakes in the hope of achieving permanent peace to avoid bloodshed in war. Peace was elusive but ignominy was at hand. Let us skip a few centuries and come to the post-independence India.
Jammu & Kashmir has been the bone of contention between India and Pakistan since 1947. His Highness Maharaja Sir Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu& Kashmir wished to be an independent sovereign monarch of his big State. Jinnah of Pakistan , however, had a different design of power play. Notwithstanding a Stand-Still Agreement between the Maharaja and Pakistan, the latter encouraged armed tribals, under Pakistan Army officers to invade the Maharaja’s territory. He, willy-nilly acceded to India. The Indian Army was flown to Srinagar and they succeeded in driving the invaders back to the border region. As the Indian Army was poised for the final push to reclaim the rest of the State, Jawaharlal Nehru, under pressure of UNO where India was a complainant against Pakistan aggression, and the advice of Lord Mountbatten, then Governor General under the dispensation of Nehru, accepted cease fire. The people of India were astonished and our Army felt cheated as it was near a total victory. What the Indian Army had won on the battle field through “sweat, blood and tears “was lost at the negotiating table by the inept political masters.
We come to the India-Pakistan War of 1965. General Ayub Khan, President of Pakistan had a misconception that India , under the Prime Ministership of Shri Lal Bahadur shastri, was a weak country and will never develop the will power to counter-attack Pakistan. As a matter of fact most of the autocratic rulers of Pakistan thought that the Indian soldier was a poor fighter and under heat of fire power turned tail. On the contrary it was the Pakistan Army’s soldiers who jumped out of their tanks set on fire by Indian missiles and turned tail. A Muslim does not want to be burned for religious reasons. It cost them heavily in tank battles like the one in Khem karan and Asal Uttar in Punjab.
Right from April 1965 through September 1965 skirmishes between the two countries went on as a ding-dong battle. It came as an unpleasant surprise to Pakistan when Prime Minister Shastri ordered the Indian Army to cross the international border in the Punjab and attack Pakistan. The tables were turned. The Pakistan Army advancing in Jammu and Kashmir had to grind to a halt. Shastri achieved what Nehru would not have even attempted. We won the difficult pass, Haji Pir. When the cease fire came into effect, the Indian Army was victorious. The Soviet Union organised a peace conference at Tashkent and impressed on the warring countries to return to status quo ante. With the result, India had to withdraw from the difficult areas that she had captured. Shastri Ji could not stand this pressure and breathed his last at Tashkent. India lost at the negotiating table what she had won on the battle field.
A Himalayan blunder at Simla. The Babus, that is the bureaucrats of the Ministry of External Affairs tendered a piece of wrong advice to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that India should give some concession to defeated Pakistan so that Z.A.Bhutto, civilian President of Pakistan shows to his people what he has gained from a victorious India. Our bureaucrats said that it would be better for India to deal with a civilian head of Pakistan than with Army generals. The babus’ tendered a piece of wrong advice forgetting that it was Bhutto who had declared many times that he would fight a thousand year war against Indian dogs. The Mandarins of the South Block forgot the age-old adage – Serpents are just serpents, whether Nagnath or Sanpnath. Both bite and the bitten man survives NOT. Bhutto persuaded the Indian leadership to have faith in him, trust him and he would deliver the goods. India granted him all the concessions. India returned 93,000 prisoners of war and the entire conquered territory to Pakistan without taking any written commitment on the Kashmir issue from Pakistan. It was a grave mistake on the part of Indian negotiators. Bhutto was once again as belligerent as before on return to Pakistan. I have great admiration for Indira Gandhi as she dismembered Pakistan. I feel sorry for her and for India that what our brave soldiers won on the battlefield, our political leaders and shifty bureaucrats lost to the enemy at the negotiating table. How Sad?
It may be mentioned in the passing that Pakistan had attacked India four times since independence. Pakistan lost all four wars. The Generals of Pakistan Army have been building their war scenario on the presumption that when Pakistan attacks, the Kashmiri Muslims would rise in revolt and fight shoulder to shoulder with their co-religionists against infidel India and the war would be over before you can say Jack Robinson. Nothing of that sort ever happened and their edifice fell like a house of cards.
SHARM-el-SHEIKH WAS NO EXCEPTION
The government of Egypt , being an active member of NAM since Nasser days, decided to host the current Summit in its country at Sharm-el-Sheikh which is a tourist resort and was under the occupation of the Israelis after the 1967 war. When the Egyptians brokered peace and accepted Israel as a superior power in the region, Israel returned Sharm-el-Sheikh to its original owner, Egypt. The summit of the Non-Aligned Meet was appropriately held there. On the sidelines of the NAM, met India and Pakistan. It was a fine climate, lovely environment and everything was custom made for settling a long standing dispute. Who knew that the joint declaration at the end will spell a disaster.
The Indian delegation should not have allowed a delinking of Terror from talks. Terror and how it was being exported from the soil of Pakistan to India had all along been the main plank of government and people of India. How could the common man in India forget the killing and maiming of his kith and kin – the loved ones – by the Islamic terrorists who came to Mumbai from Pakistan and are citizens of Pakistan. The bomb blasts in trains, the killings in the mine fields at various places and what have you had the hand of Pakistan nationals and planning by personnel trained by government agencies in Pakistan. Now , suddenly, the joint statement made by Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan and prime Minister Man Mohan Singh of India says that Talks and Terror are delinked. If terror is delinked, what are the two governments going to talk about? Just the weather? Please do not waste time and tax payers money on a talk about weather. Excuse yourselves on grounds of health and save both time and money.
Balochistan has been a thorn in the flesh of Pakistan for a long time. Remember General Tikka Khan, the butcher of Bangladesh? Well, he had also earned the dubious title of Butcher of Balochistan. The Baloch are an independent minded people and do not like to be driven around by the Punjabis of Pakistan. They have, therefore, been fighting for independence for quite some time. Pakistan suspects that India has been aiding and abetting the Baloch uprising from time to time. It may not be true. However, the point in question is that Balochistan has been mentioned for the first time in a joint declaration of India and Pakistan. This means that India tacitly accepts her presence at the trouble spot. This gives a leverage to Pakistan to point out India’s involvement in fomenting trouble in a province of Pakistan and thus establish her reciprocal’and legitimate presence in Kashmir. Our Netas and Babus should not have allowed the mention of Balochistan being made. One wonders if they signed the joint declaration under a drunken stupor! Even God does not help those who do not help themselves.
All said and done, an independent columnist-cum-critic will have no hesitation in saying that Sharm-el-Sheikh has brought shame to the Government and people of India.
.
SHAME AT SHARM-EL-SHEIKH | Aryasamaj
Fri, 2009-07-17 16:56.
By Brigadier (Retd) Chitranjan Sawant,VSM
The Indian team of negotiators, under no less a person than Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh, has offered on a silver platter to Pakistan what she wanted. Some commentators and columnists feel that the Indians have been tricked into giving away something now so that they get back in greater measure what they desire in future. A wishful thinking indeed. It has not happened in the past, is not happening in the present and shall not happen in future. Indians have lost heavily at the negotiating table. One wonders if the prime Minister is prepared to take the blame. Time alone will tell.
HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF
Way back in the 12th century Prithvi Raj Chauhan, King of Hindustan had defeated in battle Muhammad of Ghor more than once. However, the victor did not incapacitate the vanquished to pre-empt a similar misadventure in future. It was a fatal mistake for both the king and the country. The history of India abounds with similar situations where brilliant generals made stupid mistakes in the hope of achieving permanent peace to avoid bloodshed in war. Peace was elusive but ignominy was at hand. Let us skip a few centuries and come to the post-independence India.
Jammu & Kashmir has been the bone of contention between India and Pakistan since 1947. His Highness Maharaja Sir Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu& Kashmir wished to be an independent sovereign monarch of his big State. Jinnah of Pakistan , however, had a different design of power play. Notwithstanding a Stand-Still Agreement between the Maharaja and Pakistan, the latter encouraged armed tribals, under Pakistan Army officers to invade the Maharaja’s territory. He, willy-nilly acceded to India. The Indian Army was flown to Srinagar and they succeeded in driving the invaders back to the border region. As the Indian Army was poised for the final push to reclaim the rest of the State, Jawaharlal Nehru, under pressure of UNO where India was a complainant against Pakistan aggression, and the advice of Lord Mountbatten, then Governor General under the dispensation of Nehru, accepted cease fire. The people of India were astonished and our Army felt cheated as it was near a total victory. What the Indian Army had won on the battle field through “sweat, blood and tears “was lost at the negotiating table by the inept political masters.
We come to the India-Pakistan War of 1965. General Ayub Khan, President of Pakistan had a misconception that India , under the Prime Ministership of Shri Lal Bahadur shastri, was a weak country and will never develop the will power to counter-attack Pakistan. As a matter of fact most of the autocratic rulers of Pakistan thought that the Indian soldier was a poor fighter and under heat of fire power turned tail. On the contrary it was the Pakistan Army’s soldiers who jumped out of their tanks set on fire by Indian missiles and turned tail. A Muslim does not want to be burned for religious reasons. It cost them heavily in tank battles like the one in Khem karan and Asal Uttar in Punjab.
Right from April 1965 through September 1965 skirmishes between the two countries went on as a ding-dong battle. It came as an unpleasant surprise to Pakistan when Prime Minister Shastri ordered the Indian Army to cross the international border in the Punjab and attack Pakistan. The tables were turned. The Pakistan Army advancing in Jammu and Kashmir had to grind to a halt. Shastri achieved what Nehru would not have even attempted. We won the difficult pass, Haji Pir. When the cease fire came into effect, the Indian Army was victorious. The Soviet Union organised a peace conference at Tashkent and impressed on the warring countries to return to status quo ante. With the result, India had to withdraw from the difficult areas that she had captured. Shastri Ji could not stand this pressure and breathed his last at Tashkent. India lost at the negotiating table what she had won on the battle field.
A Himalayan blunder at Simla. The Babus, that is the bureaucrats of the Ministry of External Affairs tendered a piece of wrong advice to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that India should give some concession to defeated Pakistan so that Z.A.Bhutto, civilian President of Pakistan shows to his people what he has gained from a victorious India. Our bureaucrats said that it would be better for India to deal with a civilian head of Pakistan than with Army generals. The babus’ tendered a piece of wrong advice forgetting that it was Bhutto who had declared many times that he would fight a thousand year war against Indian dogs. The Mandarins of the South Block forgot the age-old adage – Serpents are just serpents, whether Nagnath or Sanpnath. Both bite and the bitten man survives NOT. Bhutto persuaded the Indian leadership to have faith in him, trust him and he would deliver the goods. India granted him all the concessions. India returned 93,000 prisoners of war and the entire conquered territory to Pakistan without taking any written commitment on the Kashmir issue from Pakistan. It was a grave mistake on the part of Indian negotiators. Bhutto was once again as belligerent as before on return to Pakistan. I have great admiration for Indira Gandhi as she dismembered Pakistan. I feel sorry for her and for India that what our brave soldiers won on the battlefield, our political leaders and shifty bureaucrats lost to the enemy at the negotiating table. How Sad?
It may be mentioned in the passing that Pakistan had attacked India four times since independence. Pakistan lost all four wars. The Generals of Pakistan Army have been building their war scenario on the presumption that when Pakistan attacks, the Kashmiri Muslims would rise in revolt and fight shoulder to shoulder with their co-religionists against infidel India and the war would be over before you can say Jack Robinson. Nothing of that sort ever happened and their edifice fell like a house of cards.
SHARM-el-SHEIKH WAS NO EXCEPTION
The government of Egypt , being an active member of NAM since Nasser days, decided to host the current Summit in its country at Sharm-el-Sheikh which is a tourist resort and was under the occupation of the Israelis after the 1967 war. When the Egyptians brokered peace and accepted Israel as a superior power in the region, Israel returned Sharm-el-Sheikh to its original owner, Egypt. The summit of the Non-Aligned Meet was appropriately held there. On the sidelines of the NAM, met India and Pakistan. It was a fine climate, lovely environment and everything was custom made for settling a long standing dispute. Who knew that the joint declaration at the end will spell a disaster.
The Indian delegation should not have allowed a delinking of Terror from talks. Terror and how it was being exported from the soil of Pakistan to India had all along been the main plank of government and people of India. How could the common man in India forget the killing and maiming of his kith and kin – the loved ones – by the Islamic terrorists who came to Mumbai from Pakistan and are citizens of Pakistan. The bomb blasts in trains, the killings in the mine fields at various places and what have you had the hand of Pakistan nationals and planning by personnel trained by government agencies in Pakistan. Now , suddenly, the joint statement made by Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan and prime Minister Man Mohan Singh of India says that Talks and Terror are delinked. If terror is delinked, what are the two governments going to talk about? Just the weather? Please do not waste time and tax payers money on a talk about weather. Excuse yourselves on grounds of health and save both time and money.
Balochistan has been a thorn in the flesh of Pakistan for a long time. Remember General Tikka Khan, the butcher of Bangladesh? Well, he had also earned the dubious title of Butcher of Balochistan. The Baloch are an independent minded people and do not like to be driven around by the Punjabis of Pakistan. They have, therefore, been fighting for independence for quite some time. Pakistan suspects that India has been aiding and abetting the Baloch uprising from time to time. It may not be true. However, the point in question is that Balochistan has been mentioned for the first time in a joint declaration of India and Pakistan. This means that India tacitly accepts her presence at the trouble spot. This gives a leverage to Pakistan to point out India’s involvement in fomenting trouble in a province of Pakistan and thus establish her reciprocal’and legitimate presence in Kashmir. Our Netas and Babus should not have allowed the mention of Balochistan being made. One wonders if they signed the joint declaration under a drunken stupor! Even God does not help those who do not help themselves.
All said and done, an independent columnist-cum-critic will have no hesitation in saying that Sharm-el-Sheikh has brought shame to the Government and people of India.
.
SHAME AT SHARM-EL-SHEIKH | Aryasamaj
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,615
- Likes
- 5,772
We will not accept delinking: BJP
Neena Vyas
NEW DELHI: The “delinking” of action on terror from the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan is unacceptable to the Bharatiya Janata Party, which will continue to oppose it in and outside Parliament.
Saying this, BJP deputy leader in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj described the joint statement by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in Sharm-el-Sheikh as “surrender” by India. While she did not say India was under pressure, she added “surrender was never voluntary” but took place “when under pressure.”
She said the dialogue was described as a “composite dialogue” for the very reason that besides the issues of trade, commerce and culture, concerns related to terrorism were part of it. “Once terrorism-related issues are delinked, there will be nothing composite about the dialogue.”
While the BJP will agree to a structured debate on the subject, it wants to club this with other issues arising from the Prime Minister’s recent visits abroad. It will also continue to oppose the resumption of dialogue on forums other than Parliament.
“Disappointed”
Ms. Swaraj said the party had been hoping that the Prime Minister would tell the country that what was reported about the declaration was wrong. Instead he admitted to the “delinking” of terrorism-related issues from other subjects. “We were disappointed.”
Asked whether the BJP thought that the Prime Minister was “weak” and therefore he “surrendered,” she did not agree and refused to comment, a reminder that the BJP had suddenly become shy of describing Dr. Singh as “weak,” an epithet it used repeatedly in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections.
She said the government had ruled out talks unless and until some “credible action” was taken by Pakistan against the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks. Now it seemed it turned that stand on its head, she remarked.
Neena Vyas
NEW DELHI: The “delinking” of action on terror from the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan is unacceptable to the Bharatiya Janata Party, which will continue to oppose it in and outside Parliament.
Saying this, BJP deputy leader in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj described the joint statement by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in Sharm-el-Sheikh as “surrender” by India. While she did not say India was under pressure, she added “surrender was never voluntary” but took place “when under pressure.”
She said the dialogue was described as a “composite dialogue” for the very reason that besides the issues of trade, commerce and culture, concerns related to terrorism were part of it. “Once terrorism-related issues are delinked, there will be nothing composite about the dialogue.”
While the BJP will agree to a structured debate on the subject, it wants to club this with other issues arising from the Prime Minister’s recent visits abroad. It will also continue to oppose the resumption of dialogue on forums other than Parliament.
“Disappointed”
Ms. Swaraj said the party had been hoping that the Prime Minister would tell the country that what was reported about the declaration was wrong. Instead he admitted to the “delinking” of terrorism-related issues from other subjects. “We were disappointed.”
Asked whether the BJP thought that the Prime Minister was “weak” and therefore he “surrendered,” she did not agree and refused to comment, a reminder that the BJP had suddenly become shy of describing Dr. Singh as “weak,” an epithet it used repeatedly in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections.
She said the government had ruled out talks unless and until some “credible action” was taken by Pakistan against the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks. Now it seemed it turned that stand on its head, she remarked.
Pakistan faces dilemma over nemesis India
Pakistan has undergone a dramatic policy shift to recognise Taliban rebels as a major threat, but is more ambivalent on liquidating Islamists trained to fight the ultimate nemesis: India.
Almost from inception, Pakistani spies and soldiers have actively armed, sponsored, encouraged or turned a blind eye as Islamist-inspired militant outfits turned their guns on India to the east and Afghanistan to the west.
But the civilian government this summer ordered the military to crush Taliban militants in the northwest after the rebels made further territorial gains in April, accusing them of holding the entire country hostage.
“It is absolute reality that the terrorists of today were the friends of yesterday. The immediate threat is the insurgents challenging the writ of the state,” said retired army general Talat Masood.
The Taliban may be the largest Islamist group in Pakistan, but the ability and willingness of the civilian, military and intelligence authorities to crack down on other groups, particularly those targeting India, is unclear.
“They want these militant organisations to remain under their control but many have become somewhat autonomous. They are in dilemma how to control them. I am not sure they are willing to eliminate them,” said Masood.
“India asks that these groups be dismantled. While the government would like that to happen, they don’t have the ability or resolve to liquidate them. The military does not want to take them on when engaged on the western front.”
The most prominent example is Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which India and the United States accused of killing 166 people in Mumbai last November.
Pakistan went further than ever before to arrest LeT members, close the charity considered its front and arrest suspects, but it has yet to put them on trial and the charity has reportedly resurfaced under a new guise.
As far as India is concerned, Pakistan has not gone far enough, but many in Pakistan want India to ease nerves over its superior size, wealth and military might so Islamabad can focus on the militant threat in the west.
“Indian army troops are camped on the Pakistan border. The defence increase in this year’s budget was more than Pakistan’s total budget,” Pakistani security analyst Ikram Saigol told AFP.
“If India was not such a threat to Pakistan, why should it keep troops along the Pakistan border in such big number? It is a four-to-one ratio,” he said.
India and Pakistan have gone to war three times since 1948 -- twice over the disputed territory Kashmir. Pakistan lost each time, culminating with the loss of a sixth of its land as East Pakistan became Bangladesh.
In 2002, India and Pakistan went to the brink of nuclear war as hundreds of thousands of soldiers were mobilised. It took direct intervention of then-US secretary of state Colin Powell to avert conflict.
Critics of the Pakistani military say their refusal to divert the bulk of the 700,000-strong army from east to northwest is proof that commanders are not fully committed to crushing the Taliban, and are merely window-dressing.
But Pakistani analysts say India could do more to appease Pakistani fears, thereby allowing a military -- trained since inception to consider India the primary threat -- to redeploy more of its forces against the Taliban threat.
In the last two years, around 2,000 people have died in bomb and suicide attacks across an increasingly isolated Pakistan.
“As long as India does not return its forces to normal peace-time locations (in Kashmir and Siachen), Pakistan will not be in a position to withdraw its troops from eastern borders,” said analyst Hasan Askari.
Gilani says India is interfering in Balochistan
Gilani’s remark comes two days after the controversial Indo-Pak joint statement made in Egypt. Gilani said the document reflected Pakistan’s concerns over this.
The joint statement signed by him and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh “underlines our concerns over India’s interference in Balochistan and other areas of Pakistan,” Gilani told a press conference.
He praised Manmohan Singh for agreeing to restart dialogue, saying the Indian leader had shown “political sagacity” and “statesmanship” in realising that talks were the only way forward.
The statement, which has been attacked by opposition parties and commentators in India, in a brief reference to Balochistan said Gilani had “mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.”
Referring to the document, Gilani said it “provides for discussion” on all outstanding issues with India.
Proof factor
Asked when Pakistan would give proof to India about its “interference” in Balochistan, he said “as and when talks take place, it will be handed over. Right now we are talking about talks.”
Asked about the Indian prime minister’s response when he raised the issue of Balochistan, Gilani said both India and Pakistan are “victims of terrorism” and “joint effort” is required to fight it.
Gilani said Manmohan Singh was “very clear” that he was ready to discuss all issues.
“Just put the cards on the table, I am not scared,” he quoted Singh as saying during their three-hour-long discussions.
He said there was “trust deficit” in relations between India and Pakistan and “with more interactions, that will be taken care of.”
Go to Top
Gilani says India is interfering in Balochistan
