An insurgency swells, but Pakistan focuses on India

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"As an Indian, you cannot claim to support peace and acceptance of Pakistan without denouncing IG for those views."

I think Indira Gandhi was overall a good leader for India; though I wouldn't agree with her if she did indeed express these sentiments towards Pakistan.

Isn't that enough?

Yes - condemnation of those sentiments is exactly what I said Indians (and the GoI) need to do.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In the same way the Bhindranwale Tigers turned against GoI precipitating Op Bluestar.

You didn't answer my question - what does RAW conducting covert operations abroad have to do with domestic intelligence, and does't your own example debunk your point then? You are all over the place.

If you have sources, please do post. It would make an interesting read and probably change my mind.

Read through the thread I already posted - your comment indicates that you aren't actually reading the posts.

If a people judge a leader by his/her foreign policy when there exist so many social problems, then God help them. In a similar extrapolation Mr Zardari is an excellent leader because he tries to appease India.
What a bloody nonsensical argument? No Indian is going to denounce IG for her foreign policy, she did far greater good to the country than the harm she caused to Pakistan. (Notice my use of the term harm - so you know where I stand personally). Oh, we do denounce her for the Emergency though.

In the context of Indo-Pak relations and the argument, yes, Indians who speak on the issue or choose to conduct discourse on the issue do need to denounce her policies and views towards Pakistan. I am not talking with you about her socio-economic policies during that timer period, our discussion is in the Indo-Pak context (most discussions between Indians and Pakistanis are in that context) and there her foreign policy, especially her policies and views towards Pakistan, are extremely relevant.

Further more, if Indians don't want to analyze her in the context of her foreign policy, then they should stop repeating the canard of 'peaceful nation' and 'never initiated aggression against Pakistan', since they are shoving a key part of their nations foreign policy under the rug.

Again, Hitler was also praised for his domestic German policies - he did after bring about great development and industrialization and a sense of nationalism in Germany - but one, even Germans, cannot excuse his hate-mongering and warmongering just because of his domestic achievements. IG did not even come close to Hitler in domestic achievements, so there is no excuse for Indians to excuse her hatred and non-acceptance of Pakistan and not condemn it and her for that - not if you claim 'peace with, and acceptance of, Pakistan'.

InExile took that step, and I commend him for that.

Musharraf did it on behalf of Pakistan in Bangladesh, and many Pakistanis express the same sentiment towards Bangladesh in forums, articles, op-eds etc. I would like to see the same on the Indian side.

When an opportunity presents itself, one has to take advantage of the situation. Mush did it in '99 though he grossly miscalculated our response. We did it in '71 and '84 with resounding success. So our planners are not idiots you know. As for the threats, dont pay attention to them.
Its just a logical conclusion that whenever an opportunity arose, we Indians exploited it and will do so in the future. That is how events have turned out and its anybodys guess as to what will happen i the future.

Fine, and one could argue we did it 1947 with great success, after all that is why we hold as much of Kashmir as we do. But Siachen is no success in strategic terms, it gives neither India nor Pakistan any great advantage. 1971 was a success, but again, the conditions that led to 1971 were unique to that time, so extrapolating from 1971 and 1984 to suggest what you did indicates a lack of understanding of the situation, and the threats indeed are inane.

Might be a possibility, though I dont think India will do anything nasty what with all the world focusing on that particular god-forsaken area.
But (assuming you know CS doctrine and its objectives) there are some detractors to the CS doctrine who argue that we have the means to effectively implement Sunderji doctrine once initial advantages are consolidated. What that means is quite clear. Though I dont agree with it, these Zaid Hamid clones are quite passionate about it.

The world was also focused on EP, for different reasons - but as pointed out 'might be a possibility', and Pakistan will continue to cater for that 'possibility', given Indian intransigence in the past, the continued eulogizing of Indira Gandhi,which essentially refutes the premise behind the thread title.

You assume that the Pakistani Military does not already know, or has extrapolated from available information (classified and unclassified) what CS entails, and has not formulated a response or series of responses to it. I assure you that given how professional the Indian Military is, they are not going to be heading into battle with Pakistan assuming the Pak Military has no clue about what is coming. Such hubris would only be welcomed by Pakistan.

California? Nah theres still time for that. Wait till desi population exceeds that of the locals and then we will decide. LOL. Seriously what a sad argument!
As for your Kashmir disputed territory, we dont consider it as disputed, UN resolutions or not. 'Jiski lathi uski bheins'

It does not matter what you think - the fact remains that internationally Kashmir is disputed and not a part of India. You may not like the truth but that it what it is.

Seriously mate, in day to day affairs, for a layman - the majority of the Indian population - Pakistan does not matter unless there is a terrorist attack on Indian soil. We support our leaders for what good they do to us and not for what their policies do to Pakistan.

Indira Gandhi's expressed views (translated into her policies) go beyond those of most Indian leaders. I am not saying all Indians march into the streets at midnight an in unison scream 'we condemn Indira Gandhi for her hatred and non-acceptance of Pakistan', I am saying that when the issue does arise, when she is dicussed, that aspect of her views should be condemned, not eulogized and praised as 'she had balls'. Hitler had 'balls' too (real ones for that matter).

There's a fine line between sanity and insanity, and now with that comment of yours I surely don't know which side of the fence you are leaning.

Nothing about fine lines here - even removing the holocaust from the equation, Hitler was a warmonger and espoused hatred, and would be condemned for that. Unless you agree with the sentiment expressed by IG in the quotes I posted earlier and in the starting article, there should be no issue with condemning her.

OK, agreed about negative feelings towards Pakistan - in certain situations. (Don't point out contradiction with my above statement - totally unrelated contexts) But why? Indians are not fools to be carried away by jingoism. The last general elections gives a clear picture of what Indians want. You should be able to read the masses my friend.

I agree - the last elections did indicate that Indians did not want to go the direction of the BJP, but the elections are not based on 'Foreign Policy' as you pointed out earlier - it plays a part, for some voters a big part, but for many others it is a variety of issues, and the win of Congress does not automatically indicate that negative sentiment towards Pakistan has subsided, though if data supporting a moderation of sentiment comes out, no doubt both Indians and Pakistanis would find it a cause for celebration.

Yes you are right. No taliban threat in Pakistan = no taliban threat in India, subsequently no religious fundamentalist threat in India = no militancy in India. Basically like Sl against LTTE, you are working for us indirectly. A big thank you for that.
Self serving - of course. Indians are interested in prosperity and are out to get it. What about Pakistanis? Want Kashmir or Prosperity? Unfortunately you can pick only one!

Again, what I am pointing out is that fighting the Taliban insurgency does not mean we become blind to India's intentions or possible intentions. India used a speculative excuse in 1971, it might use another this time around, or it might not - Pakistan cannot take that chance and has to focus on both threats.

I fail to see why you find the above position disagreeable?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The thread that you had referenced has nothing other than the usual speculation, rumor, hearsay and some wishful thinking. Much the same as Pakistan’s current favorite national pastime – accuse India for Baluchistan.

Not quite - it references Indian sources and Indian authors - after all we have never really seen a Kashmiri freedom fighter training camp have we, or seen infiltrators actually sneaking across the LoC? All we see are dead bodies and claims by people in articles or in statements.

By doubting Ambassador of India’s comments you, in effect, doubt the wisdom of Dr Henry Kissinger, the advisor to President Nixon, and Richard Nixon, the President of USA. Both of them believed the Ambassador of India, because their own independent assessment coincided with that of India’s position. Unless, of course they were suckers.

I am placing the reality of the Prime Minister of India's own words above that of an Ambassador's - please see the quotes I posted earlier. The statements of the leader of a nation trump those of an ambassador any day.

Anyway, the assessment of the possible outcome of independent Bangladesh, then, in 1971, was very different than it actually turned out to be. India did want a weak Pakistan. But never, until well into few weeks of Pakistani crackdown of Bangladeshis, wanted a split Pakistan.

Again belied by Indira Gandhi's own comments and views as leader of India, and the pre-1971 support for separatists in EP.

India is the one country that would suffer from the establishment of an independent East Pakistan.- Dr. Henry Kissinger at Senior Review Group Committee Meeting, 31st March 1971.(pg-41)

Well he certainly changed his mind based on what he told Bhutto about IG's intentions in that declassified meeting I posted.

India’s concern of China’s influence on a fledgling state in India’s immediate vicinity, was valid.

The you should have never assisted the destabilization of EP prior to 1971, or invaded it, and should have engaged with Pakistan, the UN and the EP's in defusing the situation - instead you did everything you could to exacerbate it - so I do not but that line, the facts belie it.

Of course it was speculation. Isn’t it how policies, particularly Foreign ones, are formulated – on the basis of anticipation, based on current available facts.

My point is that it was self-serving speculation to support an pre-conceived policy of weakening/breaking Pakistan, given that India had played a role in destabilizing Pakistan prior to 1971. If India was so concerned about the regional impact of instability in EP, it should not have supported separatists in EP prior to 1971, it should not have ramped up support in the early months of 1971, and it should not have considered military action in the early months of 1971.

Your question. Your answer. But wrong answer. India had, more than once, approached Pakistan, via US, to compromise with Sk Mujib and diffuse the situation. India couldn't have approached Pakistan directly, because then it would have been interpreted as 'intervention' in Pakistan's internal affairs. Irony is that you are now accusing India of not doing exactly that.

Head I win, tails you loose.

Indira Gandhi wanted to go to war as early as March 1971 - that does not indicate a desire to engage with Pakistan, either indirectly or directly, or allow time for that engagement to work. In addition, its is disingenuous to suggest that India was interested in defusing the situation by 'engaging with Pakistan' when India was also covertly supporting destabilizing influences in East Pakistan prior to 1971.

First, India’s interference was extremely limited even after 25th March.

India was considering going to war then, and it was Manekshaw (or Jacob, depending on who you believe) that stopped the invasion from occurring then - so the assertion that India was exercising 'restraint' has no validity.

You are of course free to assume that the quotes are India’s attempt at obfuscation.

Yes - as I have pointed out repeatedly, India's plans for war were being looked at almost immediately after the PA crackdown, that does not indicate restraint nor enough time for analyzing the impact of a refugee crises. Furthermore, what if Pakistan had held out longer? Even Manekshaw was not sure that he could actually make the PA surrender or capitulate before a ceasefire was put in place. So explain to me how going to full fledged war, supporting and training heavily armed rebels to go on killing sprees, helps in any way the stability of the region? How does full fledged war stop refugges? Does it not increase refugees? How does war not increase the financial burden on a nation? The fact is that all of India's excuses for going to war are debunked when you analyze the decision without the hindsight of the eventual result.

Whatever option Kashmir had, it was and continued to be an independent sovereign kingdom till it exercised its option. Sovereignty was not to be relinquished by accepting to choose, but by making the actual choice. Regarding Junagadh and Hyderabad, it was different from Kashmir, because of the principle of congruity. It was decided that princely states that were congruous to BOTH the countries would get to choose. Junagadh and Hyderabad were not congruous to Pakistan by any stretch of imagination and hence they didn’t get to choose.

Actually there was an argument of contiguity with Hyderabad through the sea just as East Pakistan. But the argument of contiguity or not, India did occupy the three states militarily instead of giving the rulers the chance to accede - violating their 'sovereignty' so to speak. So don't cast stones at Pakistan over 'Sovereign Kashmir' when India did the exact same in three other 'Sovereign' Princely States.

Perhaps you are right about the nature of conflict in FATA and Baluchistan. Religious movement in FATA, which aspires to control whole Pakistan, or separatism in Baluchistan, just because it didn't spread to the other ethnicity in that region, still don’t disprove that those regions are ‘congenital defects’ of Pakistan.

They don't prove the argument of 'congenital defects' - both are the results of global and domestic policies. One could only argue 'congenital defects' if the situation we have now occurred in the absence of those policies, but the situation in FATA at least (not NWFP, which is what IG claimed) is in some ways the direct result of the cold war, while Baluchistan could be argued to be the result of poor domestic policies as well *** foreign intervention.

It is hypocritical of a Pakistani to accuse anybody, let alone Ms Gandh, to be a ‘hatemonger’ or ‘warmonger’. She paid Pakistan back in the same coin, that Pakistan used in ‘65. Only Ms Gandhi was successful.

Ayub Khan did not express the views that Indira Gandhi has, as have been posted on this thread. There is a marked difference between Ayub pursing a military option to resolve a disputed territory, vs IG talking about not accepting Pakistan and breaking it apart.

Both were of Pakistan’s own making.

On the contrary in both India intervened and committed aggression against Pakistan when she did not have to, and in the latter blatantly violated the Simla Agreement.

Any means, to defend oneself against another who has vowed to bleed one by thousand cuts, is in my understanding, acceptable. However, killing of innocent unarmed tourists or civilians, in a hotel or elsewhere, just for the heck of it, is not. It is another thing that Bangladesh's liberation movement is nowhere close to be same as the 'terrorist attacks in Mumbai or elsewhere'.

Btw, if Mumbai carnage is tantamount to a state's right to defend itself by any means, does that mean, that Pakistan state was tacitly involved in the whole affair.

The 'thousand cuts' was post 1971 - nice try dissembling and pulling and facts out of order.

And you are forgetting the murders and mayhem committed by the East Pakistani rebels on Biharis, West Pakistanis, their families etc. Far more innocents were deliberately killed by rebels supported and trained by India than in all the attacks by some Kashmiri groups.

Proxy wars never stay clean. And so I take then that you suggest that Indians should stop whining about people being killed in terrorist attacks - they are just part of the 'game to protect national interests' ?

And no, the state was not involved. I am merely testing your argument that 'anything goes' for the sake of national interest. East Pakistan saw a lot of innocents die at the hands of Indian supported and trained rebels, but you seem to have answered that question later:

Q:What you have essentially said is that India is within her rights to support terrorism in Pakistan today and to break it apart and therefore is not reconciled to Pakistan's existence - all in the pursuit of her interests.

Your Ans:Yes, the right is there. The need is not.


Which also refutes the premise of the threat title.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Again, slightly tweaked - you have the choice to reject IG's hatred towards, and non-acceptance of, Pakistan, or Indians need to drop the canard about being 'peace loving' or accepting of Pakistan's existence.

Its a simple enough choice.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How else do you think a historian would write history after 30 years of occurrence of an event? How does one unearth the 'fact'?

He suggested that the views he articulated were shared by PA generals till 1999, and to back that up he said some military official told him that.

I fail to see how that in any way passes as a credible statement - don't get carried away with jingoism so far as to support nonsensical claims.

I can go on, if you so desire. In any case, there was no need for India to rush to UNSC when US was itself actively involved, through donation, supply of food and even evacuation. And all of these were happening through UNHCR.

You can go on, but none of that changes the fact that India had been supporting separatists prior to 1971, nor that India was considering going to war in March itself, when the crackdown first began, or that in the absence of any guarantee of quick victory or victory at all, a war and greater support for East Pakistani rebels would only exacerbate the refugee crises as well as sap Indian resources.

Nor does it change the reality of IG's views as expressed in the quotes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AoA
AM
Unfortunately I don't have the book with me here in US but the book is with my parents in Pakistan.I read the book prob 10 years back. Couple of my father's colleague's in the army actually confirmed the story of freedom fighters being trained in East Pakistan in the 60's.

Irfan,

The HR report is posted on line, when you get the time try and peruse it and PM me with the relevant sections if you find them.

 

[KSRaj]

I just showed you how India, with her support for terrorism in East Pakistan, was the aggressor in that conflict - the same in Siachen, and that 1947 was in fact not against India, but the Maharajah and his atrocities against Kashmiris who rose in rebellion against a dictator.

AM,
Are you trying to claim here that Pakistan did not send raiders to Kashmir but it was just a "revolt" by Kashmiris?
I dont think so thats what had happened, do you?

On one hand I guess you are saying it was fine for Pakistan to have attacked Kashmir in 1947, but it was wrong for India to have done the same in Siachen (a part of Kashmir) later!!?
As you would have said..... Ludicrous!

You were successful in EP because of a variety of factors - huge Bengali nationalist population, geographical separation from WP etc. - that just cannot be replicated in the Pakistan of today.

You missed out a couple of other (more important) factors here:
1. Pakistan military did some not-so-nice things to the population of Bangladesh which some may term it as "genocide".
2. The leadership of Pakistan during those days did not have their ears on the ground. While there was an ineffective media that did not give the actual picture of what was happening in one part of the country to the public.

Arent some of these factors playing out in some parts of Pakistan today, the emphasis being on the 2nd factor?
There is a devil calling itself as Taliban within your country, which many in your media try to convince public that it is supported by the Indians!

I understand that bringing in the "India" factor is important to unite most Pakistanis behind any cause. Here the cause is "Taliban".
And I must say, as an Indian, if it helps gullible Pakistanis in uniting against Taliban and then destroying them... then go ahead and blame us without giving any hint of proof whatsoever... as it helps both of us.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Okay -these responses are getting really long winded and circling the same issues.

Let me post the most offensive material, that I think Indians need to denounce, if they truly believe in peace with Pakistan and accepting it:

’’ Neither Baluchistan nor the Northwest Frontier properly belonged to Pakistan, she told Kissinger and President Nixon. They too wanted and deserved greater autonomy; they should never have been part of the original (partition) settlement and were among the “ congenital defects ’’of Pakistan


Kissinger:"I myself heard her say that the NWFP really belongs to India, and there is no way to get to them except through the Punjab."


"Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, “India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist”.

Beyond that I am done with this thread, since I have explained my position well enough.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM,
Are you trying to claim here that Pakistan did not send raiders to Kashmir but it was just a "revolt" by Kashmiris?
I dont think so thats what had happened, do you?

The tribesmen organized to assist the kashmiris who did rise in revolt against the Mahrajah. The Maharajah engaged in a brutal crackdown that caused thousands of Kashmiri refugees to enter Pakistan, which along with the refugees and tales of massacres of Muslims in India, caused the Tribal invasion. Pakistan had a very low key effort supporting that Tribal invasion once it was certain it was going ahead.

In any case, even looking at the tibal invasion as an extension of the PA, nothing different than India invading and occupying Junagadh and Hyderabad.

On one hand I guess you are saying it was fine for Pakistan to have attacked Kashmir in 1947, but it was wrong for India to have done the same in Siachen (a part of Kashmir) later!!?
As you would have said..... Ludicrous!

Simla agreement and ceasefire.

You missed out a couple of other (more important) factors here:
1. Pakistan military did some not-so-nice things to the population of Bangladesh which some may term it as "genocide".

No evidence of genocide. Please also read the atrocities by the Awami League rebels that preceded the Army crackdown.

Beyond that you are going over issues that I have already responded to.

 

[toxic_pus]

AM

You have only repeated everything that has already been counter argued. Seems like we are back to square one. I can see that you have already convinced yourself that India was ‘destabilizing’ Pakistan much before 1971 crisis and was exacerbating the situation almost immediately after 25th March, 1971, which led to the split of Pakistan. Knowing, that no amount of evidence will be able to dislodge you from your position – not that it is an absolute necessity for us Indians to get by – let me end this debate by making the following two quotes from The White House Years by Dr Kissinger.

By the end of April we learned that India was about to infiltrate the first 2,000 of these guerrillas into East Pakistan.

Both Nixon and I had recognized for months that its independence was inevitable; war was not necessary to accomplish it.

The creation of Bangladesh was inevitable. The war only sped up the process.

Re: Junagadh and Hyderabad’s contiguity with Pakistan and India’s accession of the states.

Considering that during 1947, in absence of any specific sea law to determine the extent to which territorial claim of a country would stretch into the sea, the majority of nations were using 12 nautical miles, as the territorial limit into the sea, while only a handful of countries (only 8, as far as I know) were using 200 nautical miles, by no stretch of imagination does, Hyderabad and/or Junagadh become congruous to Pakistan. If those do, then all regions on the banks of Arabian Sea do too. Whats next? Hydrabad and Junagadh were congruous to Pakistan because they shared the same sky?

The question of military action remained tied to the principle of congruity. The question here is, if India’s military action against Hyderabad and Junagadh was valid or not. Going by the agreement, that was reached between India and Pakistan, at the time of partition, it was. Non-congruous kingdoms were not to be given any choice, i.e. their ‘sovereignty’ would be violated, so to speak. Accordingly they were not given any choice (although there was a plebiscite in Junagadh with overwhelming majority favoring India). Kashmir, being congruous to both the countries had the choice.

Re: Siachen being breach of Shimla Agreement

Arguments can equally be made that there was no violation of Shimla Agreement, since it was a mere troop movement well within LoC - an unoccupied peak came to be occupied by the owners.

Two clarifications:

The 'thousand cuts' was post 1971 - nice try dissembling and pulling and facts out of order.

I am aware, when the vow of ‘thousand cuts’ was made. My reply was to the general question if India had the right to defend itself, in any manner she chooses, given the neighborhood. It was not specific to Ms Gandhi issue. The era that Ms Gandhi belonged to, had their own reasons to be wary of Pakistan’s shenanigans. ’65 was by no means a war that was necessitated for self-defense. It was a naked proof of Pakistan’s irredentism.

Proxy wars never stay clean. And so I take then that you suggest that Indians should stop whining about people being killed in terrorist attacks - they are just part of the 'game to protect national interests' ?

And no, the state was not involved. I am merely testing your argument that 'anything goes' for the sake of national interest. East Pakistan saw a lot of innocents die at the hands of Indian supported and trained rebels, but you seem to have answered that question later:

Q:What you have essentially said is that India is within her rights to support terrorism in Pakistan today and to break it apart and therefore is not reconciled to Pakistan's existence - all in the pursuit of her interests.

Your Ans:Yes, the right is there. The need is not.

Regardless of your attempt to put Mukti-bahini and LeT in the same bracket, I stand by what I had said earlier.

…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.

Yes every country has the right to self-defense, although you don’t want to make the distinction between ‘self defense’ and ‘protection of national interest’ – former being a response, while the later, can be pre-emptive. The question nevertheless, is not of right, but of a threshold of acceptable risk to self, the breaching of which is perceived by a nation to necessitate a course of ‘proxy wars’. (Some believe that India has crossed that threshold several years back.) A more mature nation always looks for diplomatic, non-violent means. That’s what I meant when I said that the right in indulging in ‘proxy war’, just like Pakistan, is there for India. But India has much more to loose than gain, and hence there is no need for her to be like Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM

You have only repeated everything that has already been counter argued. Seems like we are back to square one. I can see that you have already convinced yourself that India was ‘destabilizing’ Pakistan much before 1971 crisis and was exacerbating the situation almost immediately after 25th March, 1971, which led to the split of Pakistan. Knowing, that no amount of evidence will be able to dislodge you from your position – not that it is an absolute necessity for us Indians to get by – let me end this debate by making the following two quotes from The White House Years by Dr Kissinger.

The creation of Bangladesh was inevitable. The war only sped up the process.

I believe India was supporting separatists prior to the Military Crackdown because the evidence to support that assertion has been provided. Evidence refuting that assertion has not, only evidence supporting the escalation of support post the Pakistani Military crackdown has been provided.

What occurred after the Pakistani operation was an escalation of that support. And my point was that IG was considering military intervention in March, not that the implementation of that intervention started immediately. Policy making comes before actual implementation of policy, and the fact is that IG's decision to intervene in EP came about too early to use the argument that it was done 'after engagement with Pakistan' or after giving time for the Pakistani Military to quell the revolt and bring about stability.

In fact, as I pointed out already, the decision to go to war that early flies in the face of the conventional excuses bandied about by Indians that it was done to address the refugee crises and India's resource constraints, since in the absence of guaranteed victory, war and the escalation of support for terrorists and rebels in EP would have, and did, exacerbate the refugee crises as well as the drain on Indian resources. And Kissinger's comments notwithstanding, it is arguable whether Bangladeshi independence was assured, since the PA was proceeding quite well quelling the rebels and revolts (even if some atrocities were committed), until the Indian escalation.

Re: Junagadh and Hyderabad’s contiguity with Pakistan and India’s accession of the states.

Considering that during 1947, in absence of any specific sea law to determine the extent to which territorial claim of a country would stretch into the sea, the majority of nations were using 12 nautical miles, as the territorial limit into the sea, while only a handful of countries (only 8, as far as I know) were using 200 nautical miles, by no stretch of imagination does, Hyderabad and/or Junagadh become congruous to Pakistan. If those do, then all regions on the banks of Arabian Sea do too. Whats next? Hydrabad and Junagadh were congruous to Pakistan because they shared the same sky?

The question of military action remained tied to the principle of congruity. The question here is, if India’s military action against Hyderabad and Junagadh was valid or not. Going by the agreement, that was reached between India and Pakistan, at the time of partition, it was. Non-congruous kingdoms were not to be given any choice, i.e. their ‘sovereignty’ would be violated, so to speak. Accordingly they were not given any choice (although there was a plebiscite in Junagadh with overwhelming majority favoring India). Kashmir, being congruous to both the countries had the choice.

There was no 'principle of contiguity' with the Princely States - they were free to choose either Pakistan or India. You are confusing the principle of contiguity applied to the partition of provinces, districts etc. with the accession of Princely States where no such principle existed, though it was assumed that states contiguous with only one nation would choose that nation due to difficulties in governance otherwise.

But regardless of the difficulties in governance, there was no 'official' requirement of contiguity in case of the Princely States. In addition, your snide comment about the 'sky' being contiguous has no relevance, since the argument of contiguity through the ocean was already established with the existence of East Pakistan.

Re: Siachen being breach of Shimla Agreement

Arguments can equally be made that there was no violation of Shimla Agreement, since it was a mere troop movement well within LoC - an unoccupied peak came to be occupied by the owners.

SUch arguments could be made, but they would be entirely wrong since they fly in the face of clause II of the Simla Agreement:

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.
Unoccupied territory or not, the Indian occupation of Siachen was a clear violation of the underlined portion.

Two clarifications:

I am aware, when the vow of ‘thousand cuts’ was made. My reply was to the general question if India had the right to defend itself, in any manner she chooses, given the neighborhood. It was not specific to Ms Gandhi issue. The era that Ms Gandhi belonged to, had their own reasons to be wary of Pakistan’s shenanigans. ’65 was by no means a war that was necessitated for self-defense. It was a naked proof of Pakistan’s irredentism.

As I pointed out 'Any manner she chooses' implies terrorism and the destabilization of other nations even when there is no threat, but paranoid policy makers, hatemongers and expansionist ideologues in power determine there is, as was the case in East Pakistan, and as was the case with Hitler. It could be argued that Hitler followed your philosophy of 'pursuing national interests in any way he chose'.

Regardless of your attempt to put Mukti-bahini and LeT in the same bracket, I stand by what I had said earlier.

I see no reason why the murder of innocent men, women and children, the rape of girls and women, solely because they were not of Bengali descent, before any Military Crackdown, by rebels and terrorists supported and trained by India should not be looked at in a worse light than the LeT.

Yes every country has the right to self-defense, although you don’t want to make the distinction between ‘self defense’ and ‘protection of national interest’ – former being a response, while the later, can be pre-emptive. The question nevertheless, is not of right, but of a threshold of acceptable risk to self, the breaching of which is perceived by a nation to necessitate a course of ‘proxy wars’. (Some believe that India has crossed that threshold several years back.) A more mature nation always looks for diplomatic, non-violent means. That’s what I meant when I said that the right in indulging in ‘proxy war’, just like Pakistan, is there for India. But India has much more to loose than gain, and hence there is no need for her to be like Pakistan.

I have no question about the 'right to self defense', one could argue that was the case in 1965. But the Indian intervention in East Pakistan was a blatant case of unprovoked aggression against Pakistan, and given the hatred and non-acceptance espoused by IG (as seen in her quote posted here) against Pakistan, it is logical to argue that Indian policy in East Pakistan was an extension of that ideology of hatred for, and non-acceptance of, Pakistan, and not any 'self-defense' or even any rational 'nation interest' argument.

And back to the threat title, so long as India and Indians refuse to disavow the ideological hatred of Pakistan expressed by Indira Gandhi, and instead eulogize it, India has to continue to be viewed as a potential threat.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So far only one Indian, InExile, has denounced the hatred of Indira Gandhi for Pakistan.

Surely the rest of you Indians that come running to protest that Pakistanis are paranoid for thinking India has not accepted Pakistan can see the need to denounce these statements and her ideology towards Pakistan.

Show us through actions, not merely words, that what you say is more than a canard and deceit.

Let me post the most offensive material, that I think Indians need to denounce, if they truly believe in peace with Pakistan and accepting it:

’’ Neither Baluchistan nor the Northwest Frontier properly belonged to Pakistan, she told Kissinger and President Nixon. They too wanted and deserved greater autonomy; they should never have been part of the original (partition) settlement and were among the “ congenital defects ’’of Pakistan


Kissinger:"I myself heard her say that the NWFP really belongs to India, and there is no way to get to them except through the Punjab."


"Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, “India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist”.