An insurgency swells, but Pakistan focuses on India

[gubbi]

that is the pathetic reality! - who cares about his "version" of the 71 dismemberment and therefore a rant!

You got an alternate version with sources to back it up? I am all eyes and ears.

 

[Reddy]

Indians are the only ones who are living in denial not us. They have yet to accept the partition as a reality. By the way its only India that faces some kind of unknown problem when dealing with Pakistan no other country does. So i am not sure what you mean when you say "every one knows there are many power centers in Pakistan". If i am correct this is the term which is only used by India which imo is a simple divergence technique to somehow avoid negotiations with Pakistan which will of course include Kashmir.

India has accepted the reality and no one even talks about akand bharat apart from pakistanis.
Why do we want more trouble by annexing pakistan, we have more than enough trouble at home.

Chill out dude - pakistan will be a separate country in whatever form (possibly truncated by talibs) but will not be part of india and we are more than happy with our real estate.

 

[asq]

A continuous rant by Indians on this board. if i may say so, it can be ended right here right now.

Let me give you honest answers for peace if you care for one.

If India withdraws its troops from Kashmir and let the real democracy work by letting kashmiris decide once for all about their future after all India talks a storm about it being the biggest Democracy of the world.

So withdraw from Kashmir.
withdraw your troops from border. we shall do the same once convinced.
stop false propaganda about GOP involvement in Bombay. We have imprisoned those who are guilty of the crime.
would you do the same to those who attacked Babri mosque, massacred Muslims in Gujarat and interfered in East Pakistan and attacked Samjhota train.

Let us be honest and try to do the right stuff.

 

[Developereo]

The intervention of India in East Pakistan and Baluchistan is nothing but blatant support for terrorism in a sovereign nation - there is no justification for it, [...] and Pakistan is owed an apology on that count.

I have a Machiavellian view of international politics. India, like all countries, will exploit her enemies' weaknesses and do her dirty tricks, and there is no point in expecting good behavior or apologies. Pakistan should focus on building strong domestic institutions that are resistent to Indian manipulation. This, again, comes down to good governance and forging a strong sense of national unity.

Oh there were massacres of Muslims and Hindus in other parts of India and Pakistan as well. Where were your "helpers" then? Didn't you hear their cries? Ah, but it was Kashmir! Wasn't it?

Kashmir was disputed territory. In any case, just because you can't help everybody doesn't mean you shouldn't help somebody.

Oh as in money, drugs, weapons, religious indoctrination etc? If that's moral support then wonder what your support for an armed rebellion would be?

Pakistan provides support to Kashmiri freedom fighters who ask for our help. This is no different from India helping the Bangladeshi rebels in the leadup to 1971.

No wonder NATO/IASF are facing so much problems in A'stan.

NATO/ISAF are facing problems in Aghanistan because, for eight years, they have been sitting on their *** instead of fighting the Taliban. They will eventually adopt the same strategy for success that worked in Iraq, i.e. paying off their enemies not to fight them any more.

So they are credible only when they tow Pakistani pvo? As happened during SU invasion/occupation of Afghanistan or during the '65 and '71 wars with India? The rest of the world considered that as 'blather' then and today is no different.

Indian blather is never credible.

Yes, only when it was discovered that Pakistani regulars were taking an active part supported by Pakistani establishments. Till then it was "irregulars", I guess an old name for "non-state actors"?

Conventional wars are carried out by regular armies not irregulars.

Because prior to 9/11 weren't US and Pakistan in the same bed? Literally!!

Your point being?

They aren't skeletons, they are out in the open, nobody questions that, no objections from anywhere - just a little feeble shighs of presumed protests! Yes India did it, so what? Getting along....

Glad you acknowledged India's actions. Some of your compatriots are still mired in denial and can't bring themsleves to accept these skeletons' existence.

Hogwash! Sources?

I have to admit I got that one from one of your compatriots bragging in another thread.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...dives-into-its-security-net-4.html#post453950

Lanka is 100% dependent on India in terms of Oil.

EVIDENCE of Indian involvement in terrorist activities. EVIDENCE or it didn't/doesn't happen. Period. Whatever y'all say is hogwash without clear irrefutable evidence! Got any?

Already discussed ad nauseum, including LTTE, "Santi bahini", BLA, etc.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ing-terror-hegemonic-ambition.html#post523733

As stated already, Western media gives India a pass, so the only sources left are the countries themselves.

The insurgents were the reason Maharaja came running to India remember not the other way round

That is the Indian spin, which is disputed by Pakistan.

what is moral in killing civilians.

An apropos question for the 400,000 Indian thugs who have been terrorizing, raping and killing Kashmiri civilains for decades.

LoLz Milletary incursions, when dead bodies of several dead terrorists was ******* in Indian soil after Kargil, no-one had the courage to accept them as their citizens leave alone as soldier. Just by having them on Payroll does not make one a soldier. They were fighting without Uniforms and the govt. abandoned them once dead. Yeah, what analogy was given for American's treatment of Pakistan - A used condom, well this was even worse as not even proper disposal of bodies was conducted.

Now now, no need to get so worked up and use foul language.
We understand you guys want to rewrite Kargil, seeing as Pakistan opened a can of whoop-*** on the not-so-mighty Indian army and you guys had to run along and beg the Israelis to come in and save the day.

I guess the Indian thugs in Kashmir are only good at raping and killing unarmed Kashmiri civilians.

Still to hear of acts of terrorism by India on Pakistan leave alone the timing and its effect.

AM has already covered that in his posts. And there have been a number of threads about this topic. As stated elsewhere, Pakistani proof is being ignored by the West due to their current pro-India agenda.

How come Pakistan govt always seems to know more about LTTE than Sri Lanka??

Where did you get this idea?

Forceful Annexation of Sikkim - Yeah and Alice really went to wonderland

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...cupation-independent-sikkim-has-reversed.html

Better put on that hat of yours and start warming up the scones.

Bullying of Nepal - WTH even foreign relations of a nations are skeletons in closet. Even if true (which its not) does not hold any water.

non sequitur

National integrity in never higher than economic dependence. If they felt India was causing trouble through LTTE they would have certainly pressed the issue. It never happened.

They are pragmatic enough not to piss off a bully. Instead they chose to expand their ties with the bully's rivals.

They can have friendly relations with any nation they choose to, they are out friends not slaves.

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

National Security Advisor M K Narayanan said in 2007: "We [India] are a big power in the region. We don't want the Sri Lankan government to go to Pakistan or China. Whatever may be their requirement, the Sri Lankan government should come to us.''

All hunky dory. Uh huh.

Yeah that's why they preferred parting away from Pakistan with Indian support. a very intelligent argument (*sarcastic)

Whatever Pakistan did or didn't do in East Pakistan/Bangladesh is not a validation for India's subversion and terrorism in the region.

Rediff quoted "The News" as the source. In case you did not realize its a Pakistani Daily

That was a typical hatchet job by Indian media on the original article.
COAS urges Mehsuds to stand up against militants

Answering a question about the Indian hand in South Waziristan, Athar Abbas said that some Indian weapons had also been captured but no truckload of Indian weapons was found which could provide any concrete evidence. However, he said, some hostile agencies were providing financial and material assistance to miscreants in South Waziristan.

keep blowing your own bubbles and bursting them its your personal past-time why would I care.

Bursting bubbles are a hazard only for those who live in a bubble of self-righteousness. My feet are planted firmly on the ground.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The seed of separation was sowed by non other than the Quaid-a-Azam, Mr Jinnah. Blinded by his ‘2 nation’ joke of a theory, he forgot to take stock of Bengalis and their fierce cultural nationalism. Mr Jinnah’s speech at Dhaka University, where he expressed his desire to impose Urdu as the only national language, directly resulted in the Bhasha Andolon (language movement) in 1952. That was the first time, the Bengalis of East Pakistan realized, that Pakistan was all about the western ‘moth-eaten country’ (Mr Jinnah’s words, not mine), and for the first time experienced how brutal the ‘martial race’ could be to suppress a legitimate peaceful civil movement. No, India had no hand in it.

That was 1st strike.

The movement eventually fizzled out, although the sentiments were very much alive. Then in 1965, a tin pot dictator, Ayub Khan decided that he had balls the size of Jupiter and imposed an unnecessary war on India. The entire Pak juggernaut was concentrated in the West, and East was left, practically, unguarded. Had it not been for India’s concern over a possible Chinese intervention, which forced her to concentrate a large chunk of her troops in the North and North-East, or had she decided to risk the Chinese intervention and attack East Pakistan, IA would have practically walked right into Dhaka. Bengalis of East Pakistan, who had always considered themselves to be no less patriotic than their western counterparts, were finally convinced that Pakistan in reality belonged to the West, and East was just a ‘also-there’, to be milked when needed and thrown away when not. This led to the second wave of Bengali nationalism, which in turn led to the rise of Sk Mujibar Rahaman. And again, India had no hand in it.

That was 2nd strike.

All this culminated into Mujib's electoral win in 1970, by a large majority. But another tin pot dictator, Yahya Khan and his trusted sidekick, apparently in opposition and a clown of a politician, Bhutto, who would rather eat ‘grass’, simply dismissed Mujib’s victory, almost by a wave of hand. That was the 3rd & final strike and once again, India had no hand in it. This dismissal led to massive civil disobedience movement, to which the ‘martial race’ reacted in the only way known to it – brutal suppression, through Operation Searchlight. That and only that, led to massive migration to India.

It didn’t need India to ‘instigate’ or ‘exacerbate’ any situation by supporting the freedom fighters. By repeatedly refusing to recognize the Bengali sentiments and using force, literal and political, as means to address their legitimate concerns, Pakistanis were shooting their feet quite diligently, and successfully driving the freedom fighters to seek for help from India.

Yes, Indian intelligence agencies, may have been active in East Pakistan, much before the ‘refugee’ problems, but the refugee problem was certainly not of India’s making. It was beyond the capacity of a fledgling intelligence agency, RAW, the prime accused, founded only around 1968, to pull something as grandeur and complex as splitting a country into two, within 3 years of its existence – a feat which not many intelligence agencies could achieve, if at all any agency has indeed achieved so.

It would have required RAW, or any intelligence agency, to be able to influence Pakistani state policy, to the extent of convincing the powers that be in Pakistan to carry out nonsensical and stripped off logic, suicidal policies, in order to achieve what RAW and other Indian intelligence agencies are ‘accused’ to have achieved. Even if one assumes that Bengalis in the east were all boneheads, who didn’t know right from wrong and needed Indian intelligence agencies to stoke their cultural nationalism, it still was in Pakistan’s hand to decide on how to diffuse the whole situation. 7th March, 1971 was the date, when Mujibur officially called for independence and on 25th March, a mere 18 days after that declaration, Pakistan launched the most brutal crack down, that is only second to Hitler’s antiques and perhaps pales even Pol Pot’s. ‘Genocide’ was the term used by Mr Archer Blood, the American diplomat in East Pakistan, to describe that military action. That, Pakistani leadership chose the most violent option available, was not something for which Indian intelligence agencies could be held responsible. The refugee problem was the direct result of Pakistani policies. India, or any of her intelligence agency, had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Diluting and then quietly sweeping Pakistan’s own failures and mistakes, under hysterical jingoism, and then setting up the strawman of RAW, and by extension India, can only mean that Pakistan and Pakistanis don’t want to learn from their mistakes. There is plethora of Bangladeshi writers who have written extensively on the liberation war of 1971. That, along with declassified US documents, just fly into the face of the contention that India was somehow responsible for the rise of Bengali nationalism and hence, for the brutal crack down by Pakistanis, the resultant refugee problem and finally, the direct military intervention by India. The sooner Pakistanis realize that it was Pakistan which served Bangladesh to Bangladeshis, on a platter, the sooner s/he will be at peace with him/herself.

Yada, yada yada - at no point did I say Pakistan herself had nothing to do with the alienation of East Pakistan. However, just because Pakistan was having trouble setting its internal affairs in order was no excuse or justification for India to wade into East Pakistan and further stoke the separatism and support terrorism, long before any Pakistan Army crackdown or refugee exodus.

I explained how there were 2 issues in EP in a previous post:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/521900-post29.html

See this thread for reports and discussions on how Indian covert activity in East Pakistan occurred long before 1971.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/5339-raw-news-discussions.html

The claim that India should ‘apologize to Pakistan’ for 1971, is perhaps the joke of the century and doesn’t deserve any further comment.

Why? Are you suggesting that Indian support for terrorism and separatism in another nation's sovereign territory is acceptable?

Does that mean that any nation should be able to support violent insurgents in another nation's sovereign territory - Punjab, Eastern States etc?

If not, then an apology is due from India for supporting violent terrorists and insurgents in East Pakistan.

At the very least, Indians who claim that India is a 'peace loving nation' and deny that Indian has 'not accepted Pakistan' should denounce Indira Gandhi for the hateful comments she made and her role in supporting terrorism in a sovereign nation, instead of eulogizing her.

If you do not want to apologize for India's actions or denounce Indira Gandhi, then admit that all the talk about 'peaceful India' and 'accepting Pakistan' is untrue and nothing but a charade.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AoA

No point blaming India for what happened in East Pakistan.We were squarely responsible for the breakup.

While Pakistan had a lot to blame itself for, none of her actions justified the support from India for terrorists and insurgents.

You (and others) are mixing up two different issues here - one is that a nation should not leave itself open to be exploited by having such fissures in its society, and the other is that of another nation taking advantage of those fissures and exacerbating them.

Introspection, perhaps even self-flagellation, should not come at the expense of ignoring or excusing the Indian role in East Pakistan.

Pakistan's policies towards East Pakistan were wrong, we paid the price for them.

But India's policy of covert support for violent insurgents/terrorists in another nation's sovereign territory was also wrong.

Deal with each issue on its merit - don't mangle them up and shove one wrong under the table.

As far as India interfering in our internal affairs, we were doing the same supporting groups in Indian north east all through the 60's.

I am unfamiliar with that - I though it was the Chinese who were, and by some accounts still are, involved in Eastern India.

 

[praveen]

Yada, yada yada - at no point did I say Pakistan herself had nothing to do with the alienation of East Pakistan. However, just because Pakistan was having trouble setting its internal affairs in order was no excuse or justification for India to wade into East Pakistan and further stoke the separatism and support terrorism, long before any Pakistan Army crackdown or refugee exodus.

I explained how there were 2 issues in EP in a previous post:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/521900-post29.html

Geo strategic intrests AM.1947and1965 gave us an impression that you never bode well for us.Ayub was under the impression that he could have lunch on the ramparts of the red fort in that war(Many of your generals had the same impression even until 1998).
The 1962 chinese war gave us the impression that a three front war
must be reduced to a 2 front war .You gave us the chance served on a platter we grabbed it.Don't blame us for your incompetency

See this thread for reports and discussions on how Indian covert activity in East Pakistan occurred long before 1971.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/5339-raw-news-discussions.html

Why? Are you suggesting that Indian support for terrorism and separatism in another nation's sovereign territory is acceptable?

Does that mean that any nation should be able to support violent insurgents in another nation's sovereign territory - Punjab, Eastern States etc?

If not, then an apology is due from India for supporting violent terrorists and insurgents in East Pakistan.

Apologise to Afghanistan for what you did to them.For what did you do?A stable Afghanistan will always bring the NWFP question which actually belonged to them.

Same rule applies to all AM
If you can do that Indians will think of that apology

At the very least, Indians who claim that India is a 'peace loving nation' and deny that Indian has 'not accepted Pakistan' should denounce Indira Gandhi for the hateful comments she made and her role in supporting terrorism in a sovereign nation, instead of eulogizing her.

If you do not want to apologize for India's actions or denounce Indira Gandhi, then admit that all the talk about 'peaceful India' and 'accepting Pakistan' is untrue and nothing but a charade.

She did what was in the best intrest to her people AM.In love and war everything is fair AM

 

[Skeptic]

That is the Indian spin, which is disputed by Pakistan.

Dispute as you may, We have our history sorted out. I dont think we will be able to resolve this historical dispute. Just one thing that bothers me, Why did Pakistan field what we currently know as "Non State Actors" if Indian army was the invading army??

An apropos question for the 400,000 Indian thugs who have been terrorizing, raping and killing Kashmiri civilains for decades

While you must have received answer to this particular question over a several time, Armed Forces Act was implemented in 1990, after Kashmiri terrorism found a home in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

Now now, no need to get so worked up and use foul language.
We understand you guys want to rewrite Kargil, seeing as Pakistan opened a can of whoop-*** on the not-so-mighty Indian army and you guys had to run along and beg the Israelis to come in and save the day.

I guess the Indian thugs in Kashmir are only good at raping and killing unarmed Kashmiri civilians.

No foul language used. The word ro-tt-en was stricken out for some reason.
Still no answer. Why were the bodies not claimed if this was a "Milletary incursion"

AM has already covered that in his posts. And there have been a number of threads about this topic. As stated elsewhere, Pakistani proof is being ignored by the West due to their current pro-India agenda.

Pakistani proof is hidden somewhere in Rehman Mailk's personal treasure chest and is reserved for private viewing in his bedroom. No evidence produced till date at any international platform. Earlier Mushhie also enjoyed playing these videos in private. Some fetish these guys have...

Where did you get this idea?

From your claims of being inormed of the "real Force" behind LTTE and Sri Lankan govt not..

India’s illegal occupation of independent Sikkim has to be reversed
Better put on that hat of yours and start warming up the scones

Yup Mr. Moin is THE person I'd love to get a history lesson from.

They are pragmatic enough not to piss off a bully. Instead they chose to expand their ties with the bully's rivals.

What holding them back now with all the support from two new brothers.

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

National Security Advisor M K Narayanan said in 2007: "We [India] are a big power in the region. We don't want the Sri Lankan government to go to Pakistan or China. Whatever may be their requirement, the Sri Lankan government should come to us.''

All hunky dory. Uh huh.

So anything wrong with wanting to stay the most preferred nation??

And they were scared of confronting India in its role with LTTE while they were bold enough to have relations with two nations Hostile to India. Makes a hellova sense to me.

Whatever Pakistan did or didn't do in East Pakistan/Bangladesh is not a validation for India's subversion and terrorism in the region.

Failed to address my question.
anyways to quote you from the same post:

I have a Machiavellian view of international politics. India, like all countries, will exploit her enemies' weaknesses and do her dirty tricks, and there is no point in expecting good behavior or apologies. Pakistan should focus on building strong domestic institutions that are resistent to Indian manipulation. This, again, comes down to good governance and forging a strong sense of national unity.

You did not and paid the price. Tada.

That was a typical hatchet job by Indian media on the original article.
COAS urges Mehsuds to stand up against militants

Answering a question about the Indian hand in South Waziristan, Athar Abbas said that some Indian weapons had also been captured but no truckload of Indian weapons was found which could provide any concrete evidence. However, he said, some hostile agencies were providing financial and material assistance to miscreants in South Waziristan.

Till you find those concrete evidence, shut the trap. And tell the same to Mr. Malik as well.

Bursting bubbles are a hazard only for those who live in a bubble of self-righteousness. My feet are planted firmly on the ground.

while the thoughts are getting disillusioned.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Geo strategic intrests AM.1947and1965 gave us an impression that you never bode well for us.Ayub was under the impression that he could have lunch on the ramparts of the red fort in that war(Many of your generals had the same impression even until 1998).

I am unfamiliar with the sources that allow you to claim that PA generals were dreaming about 'Lunch at the red fort' as late as 1998. And as for Ayub's alleged comments, how is that different than the Indian Generals calling for 'Breakfast in Lahore'?

The 1962 chinese war gave us the impression that a three front war
must be reduced to a 2 front war .You gave us the chance served on a platter we grabbed it.Don't blame us for your incompetency

That comment ignores the issue I raised - Pakistan's domestic policies are her business - poor domestic policies do not justify external intervention by another nation. They are two different issues.

Apologise to Afghanistan for what you did to them.For what did you do?A stable Afghanistan will always bring the NWFP question which actually belonged to them.

I think Afghanistan owes Pakistan an apology first for refusing to accept Pakistan in 1947 and supporting the Baluch insurgency and trying to foster a Pashtun insurgency (there are declassified memos and telegrams from the US embassy in Pakistan talking about the latter attempts posted in the forum). Once they do that, we can talk about what Pakistan has to do, or perhaps both nations can issue a 'joint apology'.

Secondly, the Durand Line agreement was a valid international agreement between two states, and under precedent in international law, agreements between two states get passed down to successor states - in this case the agreement transfers down to Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no clause in the Durand Agreement for 'expiration in 100 years' or 'ratification by the Afghan parliament' as some people like to lie about. So there is not question about NWFP belonging to Afghanistan.

Same rule applies to all AM
If you can do that Indians will think of that apology

The thread is related to India-Pakistan, and I have already debunked your attempt to derail it by bringing up the flawed Afghanistan comparison. So now its India's turn.

She did what was in the best intrest to her people AM.In love and war everything is fair AM

Then you admit that India is a warmongering state and has always been so, and all the talk about 'peaceful state' is just baloney, and that in reality India and Indians such as yourself agree with Indira Gandhi's policy of breaking apart Pakistan and not accepting her existence as an independent nation.

As I said, you have the choice to not apologize or denounce IG, but then you also have to accept the reality of what that choice means in terms of your attitudes towards Pakistan.

You cannot have it both ways - eulogize hatred, a break up of Pakistan, non-acceptance of Pakistan, and also claim to be peace loving and accepting of Pakistan.

 

[toxic_pus]

Yada, yada yada - at no point did I say Pakistan herself had nothing to do with the alienation of East Pakistan. However, just because Pakistan was having trouble setting its internal affairs in order was no excuse or justification for India to wade into East Pakistan and further stoke the separatism and support terrorism, long before any Pakistan Army crackdown or refugee exodus.

Indian intelligence was indeed active in East Pakistan, as was Pakistani intelligence in India. But India was not stoking ‘separatism’ or supporting ‘terrorism’ in any significant manner, prior to March 25th, 1971. Operation Searchlight, the ‘Pakistan Army crackdown’, commenced the day after, resulting in ‘refugee exodus’. It was only after the ‘Pakistan Army crackdown’, that Indian intelligence became more active, or if you so please, ‘stoking separatism and support terrorism.’

I talked to the Indian Ambassador the other day. He said that the Indians preferred Pakistan to remain united because of the pressure an independent Bengal would create.- Dr Kissinger to Special Actions Group on 26th March, 1971

- Foreign Relations of United States, Vol XI, South Asia 1969-1976; pg 28

There has been a shift in the Indian position as a result of the crisis. They had preferred a unified Pakistan. After March 25, and the intervention of the military in East Pakistan, India became concerned primarily with the effect of long-term Pakistani military control, which they saw as leading to radicalization in West Pakistan, with an impact on West Bengal and therefore on India.- Mr Van Hollen at Senior Group Meeting on 9th April, 1971

- Foreign Relations of United States, Vol XI, South Asia 1969-1976; pg 58

Even then India was not entirely committed.

…the Bengalis are poorly armed and trained.- Gen. Cushman at Senior Group Meeting on 9th April, 1971

-Foreign Relations of United States, Vol XI, South Asia 1969-1976; pg 57

The underline part should answer the '2 issues in EP' in your post#29. India had legitimate reasons to be concerned.

Why? Are you suggesting that Indian support for terrorism and separatism in another nation's sovereign territory is acceptable?

Does that mean that any nation should be able to support violent insurgents in another nation's sovereign territory - Punjab, Eastern States etc?

If not, then an apology is due from India for supporting violent terrorists and insurgents in East Pakistan.

‘Support for terrorism and separatism’ by any country, in any other country, is never acceptable. India is not an exception. Neither is Pakistan. But if we start rolling the ball backwards, it will stop only at Pakistan’s door, when, a sovereign kingdom called Kashmir was made the playground for ‘support for terrorism and separatism’ by Pakistan, way before any UN resolution made it a ‘disputed territory’. Even the ‘disputed territory’ tag doesn’t give any right to any of the parties to the dispute to ‘support violent insurgents’ within that territory.

At the very least, Indians who claim that India is a 'peace loving nation' and deny that Indian has 'not accepted Pakistan' should denounce Indira Gandhi for the hateful comments she made and her role in supporting terrorism in a sovereign nation, instead of eulogizing her.

If you do not want to apologize for India's actions or denounce Indira Gandhi, then admit that all the talk about 'peaceful India' and 'accepting Pakistan' is untrue and nothing but a charade.

First of all, there was nothing ‘hateful’ in what Ms Gandhi had said to Dr Kissinger. For you, it is just a case of truth hitting where it hurts the most. The assessment she made in the 70s is ringing so true in 2009 – FATA and Baluchistan are indeed turning out to be too much of a ‘congenital defect of Pakistan’, that is keeping PA busy. Second of all, the question of denouncing Ms Gandhi is out of question. No amount of ‘eulogizing her’ is enough to stress on the fact that, we wish our current leaders had the ‘balls’ she had in calling spade a spade. Personally, though, I am not a big fan of her as far as her domestic policies went. Thirdly, Pakistan is a reality and no one holds any illusion about that.

Yes, India is very much a peace loving country. We don’t impose war on anybody, a la ‘65 & ‘99. But just because we love peace, it doesn’t however, mean that India would compromise on her security and won’t do anything that is necessary for her own safeguard, particularly against an unstable and unpredictable neighbor, which, for the most part of her existence so far, is run by trigger happy, generals, with ego the size of a mountain.

Peace is not something which falls from sky. Peace is an end to the means.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Indian intelligence was indeed active in East Pakistan, as was Pakistani intelligence in India. But India was not stoking ‘separatism’ or supporting ‘terrorism’ in any significant manner, prior to March 25th, 1971. Operation Searchlight, the ‘Pakistan Army crackdown’, commenced the day after, resulting in ‘refugee exodus’. It was only after the ‘Pakistan Army crackdown’, that Indian intelligence became more active, or if you so please, ‘stoking separatism and support terrorism.’

That is not true - the thread I referenced clearly indicates that India was involved prior to 1971 in supporting separatist sentiment. This wasn't just a case of 'intelligence being active in the other nation'.

The support for terrorists and separatists kicked into high gear after the events in 1971.

I talked to the Indian Ambassador the other day. He said that the Indians preferred Pakistan to remain united because of the pressure an independent Bengal would create.- Dr Kissinger to Special Actions Group on 26th March, 1971

- Foreign Relations of United States, Vol XI, South Asia 1969-1976; pg 28

There has been a shift in the Indian position as a result of the crisis. They had preferred a unified Pakistan. After March 25, and the intervention of the military in East Pakistan, India became concerned primarily with the effect of long-term Pakistani military control, which they saw as leading to radicalization in West Pakistan, with an impact on West Bengal and therefore on India.- Mr Van Hollen at Senior Group Meeting on 9th April, 1971

- Foreign Relations of United States, Vol XI, South Asia 1969-1976; pg 58

Even then India was not entirely committed.


The underline part should answer the '2 issues in EP' in your post#29. India had legitimate reasons to be concerned.

The underlined part does not answer the questions raised since the Ambassador of India (first quote) can hardly be expected to accept that his nation is looking to break apart another nation and support terrorists in it.

In the second quote, the alleged future impact upon India from long term military control was nothing but speculation on the part of the Indian government. Did they approach Pakistan to resolve these concerns? Did they decide to scale back their cover support for separatists and terrorists in EP? No.

Instead they chose to exacerbate the situation by increasing support for terrorists and separatists. If India was really concerned about the impact from the vents in EP, it should not have interfered in the first place. I would therefore point out that these quotes are nothing but obfuscation of the Indian intent to break apart Pakistan.

‘Support for terrorism and separatism’ by any country, in any other country, is never acceptable. India is not an exception. Neither is Pakistan. But if we start rolling the ball backwards, it will stop only at Pakistan’s door, when, a sovereign kingdom called Kashmir was made the playground for ‘support for terrorism and separatism’ by Pakistan, way before any UN resolution made it a ‘disputed territory’. Even the ‘disputed territory’ tag doesn’t give any right to any of the parties to the dispute to ‘support violent insurgents’ within that territory.

Kashmir was not a 'Sovereign Kingdom'- I do not believe it had the option to become independent, it had to accede to either India or Pakistan. And how was Pakistani support for the Kashmir rebellion against the Maharajah different from the Indian military aggression and occupation of the princely states of Junagadh and Hyderabad?

First of all, there was nothing ‘hateful’ in what Ms Gandhi had said to Dr Kissinger. For you, it is just a case of truth hitting where it hurts the most. The assessment she made in the 70s is ringing so true in 2009 – FATA and Baluchistan are indeed turning out to be too much of a ‘congenital defect of Pakistan’, that is keeping PA busy.

The truth is not 'hurting' me, it is eluding you, in that even now, with so much written about the events in FATA and the underlying dynamics, you still have no understanding about them. There is no separatist insurgency in FATA, it is a religious movement out to control all of Pakistan and Afghanistan (and likely unite them if it succeeds).

And the Baluchistan insurgency has never gone beyond stuttering or gained mass appeal in Baluchistan. Were it any greater then Baluchistan would look like FATA or EP in 1971. So no, IG's comments do not ring true except for Indians with blinders on, and yes, they are indicative of a hateful mindset bent upon destroying Pakistan and not-accepting it.

There is another quote of IG's (ill see if I can dig it up) where she says something along the lines of, 'the Indian leadership will never accept the existence of Pakistan'.

Second of all, the question of denouncing Ms Gandhi is out of question. No amount of ‘eulogizing her’ is enough to stress on the fact that, we wish our current leaders had the ‘balls’ she had in calling spade a spade. Personally, though, I am not a big fan of her as far as her domestic policies went. Thirdly, Pakistan is a reality and no one holds any illusion about that.

I don't care what you think of her domestic politics, but the fact is that as part of her foreign policy she supported terrorists and insurgents in another nation's sovereign territory, and she spouted hate towards another nation.

Expressing hate and being a warmonger should not be a reason for respect, otherwise we all should respect Hitler!

Yes, India is very much a peace loving country. We don’t impose war on anybody, a la ‘65 & ‘99.

No, only in 1971 and 1984.

But just because we love peace, it doesn’t however, mean that India would compromise on her security and won’t do anything that is necessary for her own safeguard, particularly against an unstable and unpredictable neighbor, which, for the most part of her existence so far, is run by trigger happy, generals, with ego the size of a mountain.

That is an Indian viewpoint and subjective, not objective or a fact. And essentailly what that means is you support any state doing whatever is necessary to protect its own national interests, no matter how. If you find it acceptable that IG supported terrorism in EP, why complain when you have terrorist attacks in Mumbai or elsewhere? The Naga's for example? Is everything 'par for the course' then?

Peace is not something which falls from sky. Peace is an end to the means.

Again - you have the choice to reject IG's warmongering and support for terrorism, but then Indians need to drop the canard about being 'peace loving' or accepting of Pakistan's existence.

What you have essentially said is that India is within her rights to support terrorism in Pakistan today (which most Pakistanis suspect and our IM confirmed) and to break it apart and therefore is not reconciled to Pakistan's existence - all in the pursuit of her interests.

 

[EagleEyes]

I understand... but the main point remains that instead of going against the militants, Pakistani military continues to focus on military posturing against India. Pakistan needs to set its priorities straight before it is too late.

And I'm saying this for the welfare of entire South Asia and not just Pakistan. Obviously India wants to deal with a democratic, liberal and progressive Pakistan rather than one run by Taliban militants.

Who says that India is the focus more than the militancy? Right now militancy is the high priority and no one can tell us what to do. India will be looked at with the same eyes as the terrorist Taliban as long as India continues to funds them.

 

[gubbi]

Who says that India is the focus more than the militancy? Right now militancy is the high priority and no one can tell us what to do. India will be looked at with the same eyes as the terrorist Taliban as long as India continues to funds them.

Do you have evidence of that? Has it been shown to the media? TO the US govt, European govts, or to Indian Govt? Show us!
Or are those just plain lies hoping against hope that someone might believe you?
Why dont your authorities parade Indian made arms/evidence like Indian forces parade dead militants and their Pakistani OF and Chinese made weapons?
Is it because you dont have any? Is it all hogwash?

 

[rajeev]

Who says that India is the focus more than the militancy? Right now militancy is the high priority and no one can tell us what to do. India will be looked at with the same eyes as the terrorist Taliban as long as India continues to funds them.

Other than you claiming India is funding a radical Islamist Taliban (that want to kill all Kafirs and have war with India after Pakistan falls), you still present no reasonable attributable proof on the matter.

A bit of introspection about the failure of past ISI-generals in understanding the long term consequences of mentoring Islamiphobic outgrowths to determinent of its prime enemy, India, clouded their judgement and hence today's Pakistan exist as a state where each and everyone of its neighbours blame it for the terrorization not just its own country but to its immediate neighborhood.

“All blame is a waste of time. No matter how much fault you find with another, and regardless of how much you blame him, it will not change you. The only thing blame does is to keep the focus off you when you are looking for external reasons to explain your unhappiness or frustration. You may succeed in making another feel guilty about something by blaming him, but you won't succeed in changing whatever it is about you that is making you unhappy.”
-Wayne Dyer

 

[manojb]

That is called A state of denial or The great denial whichever you choose !!