Can anyone tell me why India and Pakistan don’t get along?

[INDIC]

You are wrong Sir, Hafiz Saeed was tried in Pakistani courts with the evidence given by Indian authorities and local investigators. The charge was not proven and he was found not guilty by a court of law.

We are well acquainted with Pakistani laws, the judge who sentenced Mumtaz Qadri left the country. Terrorists in Pakistan are never sentenced because the judges are bullied. So, true in case of Hafiz Saeed also who has support from the establishment. Government security is always there to protect him.

 

[Ticker]

Sadly, the Pakistani establishment made no effort to round out the evidence provided by the Indian side, no effort to gather information freely available within Pakistan, and allowed the case to go to trial based on the partial information available to Indian investigators.

It was a disgraceful cover-up.

Actually some of the perceptions in India are incorrectly formed and I can understand the reasons. I know for a fact that there were people who actually wanted Hafiz Saeed behind bars. And to say that India presented incontrovertible evidence is also incorrect as this was not the case. I know efforts were made, but then these things are never easy to prove in a court unless you have a slam dunk. And courts in Pakistan are in an activist form these days, and have released some others due to lack of evidence as well. At the same time, many have been prosecuted and punished. Pakistan's criminal justice system needs reforms and there are efforts going on towards such improvement. Till then there may be slippages.

Though for Indians, it may seem a coverup, the fact remains that Hafiz Saeed was not found guilty by a court of law. And I respect the court's decision. For me as a Pakistani, I have to learn to respect this, even if I disagree with many of court's decisions.

 

[Ticker]

We are well acquainted with Pakistani laws, the judge who sentenced Mumtaz Qadri left the country. Terrorists in Pakistan are never sentenced because the judges are bullied. So, true in case of Hafiz Saeed also who has support from the establishment. Government security is always there to protect him.

I know these are a bit difficult times in Pakistan. But the fact that the judge, judged Mr. Qadari's case and gave him death sentence for the crime that he committed, says it all - the will to fight back. Though he may have had to leave the country, yet he pronounced the judgment and his call was - death sentence.

Hafiz Saeed's case was no different. He was tried in the court of law and pronounced innocent due to lack of evidence against him. Presumptuous statements that the government security is there to protect him is your presumption - and you are free to presume such things.

Agar tumhe pata nahi hai tho tum brahmin nahi ho.

I am what I say I am .... you can go and lump it.

Pakistani courts are already infamous for letting terrorists go by citing lack of their names even on the original fir's!
Now anyone who knows the policing system knows that original fir's dont contain every culprits name. Its only after the investigation that all the names crop up.

There is something severely wrong with the Judges of Pakistan.

Yeah .... they are giving independent decision based on law.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Actually some of the perceptions in India are incorrectly formed and I can understand the reasons. I know for a fact that there were people who actually wanted Hafiz Saeed behind bars. And to say that India presented incontrovertible evidence is also incorrect as this was not the case. I know efforts were made, but then these things are never easy to prove in a court unless you have a slam dunk. And courts in Pakistan are in an activist form these days, and have released some others due to lack of evidence as well. At the same time, many have been prosecuted and punished. Pakistan's criminal justice system needs reforms and there are efforts going on towards such improvement. Till then there may be slippages.

Though for Indians, it may seem a coverup, the fact remains that Hafiz Saeed was not found guilty by a court of law. And I respect the court's decision. For me as a Pakistani, I have to learn to respect this, even if I disagree with many of court's decisions.

In self-defence, I must point two things:

First, I NEVER questioned the integrity of Pakistani courts. Please look through my comment once again. What they are doing on the constitutional plane is something I regret along with my liberal Pakistani friends, as an affected party, not as an outsider, but there was nowhere anything that could lead to the conclusion that it was the courts that gave the game away.

On the contrary, it was with the quality of evidence submitted to the courts that I took exception. No Indian court would have failed to throw out such tenuous evidence. I am not surprised, I daresay no thoughtful Indian is surprised that this happened. Which brings up the second point.

I never stated that the proof submitted was incontrovertible. This was evidence from the scene of the crime, this was evidence from a material witness' testimony, but NOT sworn testimony; it was testimony delivered under conditions of duress which a court will automatically discard. What looked so contrived was the lack of effort, it seemed, as an outsider this time, not as an insider, considering that the Pakistani or the Indian liberal is not privy to the efforts of the deep state, that there was an actual reluctance to discover anything useful for the case.

Once, however, you make the categorical statement that it was within your knowledge that there were people who wanted Hafiz Sayeed behind bars, the matter takes on a different complexion. Presumably these were responsible people you were referring to. Under those circumstances, it must be a case of trust, but verify. Since we cannot possibly verify as we should like to, we have no reasonable option but to respect the word of someone whose integrity is apparent.

Under these very specific circumstances, I retract my charge of it being a disgraceful cover-up.

 

[Ticker]

They did not demand equal rights! They demanded rights far greater than being equal! They demanded representation in Parliament FAR greater than their percentage presence in the subcontinent. This loss of unchallenged power of yesteryears was what made them try for a separate nation.

Here are the Muslim percentages in Lok Sabha from 1952 - 2004 for your information. The Muslims concerns in 1940s hold good even today.

 

[Bang Galore]

Here are the Muslim percentages in Lok Sabha from 1952 - 2004 for your information. The Muslims concerns in 1940s hold good even today.

That's silly, we don't have religion based representation. An MP is expected to represent everyone including those who voted against him. Having MP's on religious basis would mean the disenfranchisement of those members of his/her constituency who don't subscribe to the same religion as the MP. There is no way India would have has a Sikh PM on that pathetic basis.

 

[ajtr]

There are many so-called Maulanas on death row also - waiting to be hanged after due process of law.

That doesn't absolve courts.Ever case wit in itself an independent case.

Its the process of re-converted those whose ancestors were coverted from Hinduism They cannot get out of this emotional trauma

Then that is not re-conversion/conversion...whatever you call it...conversion is not eastern philosophy anyway.

@Joe Sir,Pride

Thanks for clarification.I was not sure about anything of that .only came to observe it when my i used to go to temple with my parents pujari used to ask for "gotra "as you said before.never had any idea about kanya kubj brahmin etc.

Agar tumhe pata nahi hai tho tum brahmin nahi ho.

Leave it thats nothing to do with your brahmin types.it between him and me.

Yeah .... they are giving independent decision based on law.

LHC is more Jehadi then the jehadis themselves...

 

[Ticker]

In self-defence, I must point two things:

First, I NEVER questioned the integrity of Pakistani courts. Please look through my comment once again. What they are doing on the constitutional plane is something I regret along with my liberal Pakistani friends, as an affected party, not as an outsider, but there was nowhere anything that could lead to the conclusion that it was the courts that gave the game away.

On the contrary, it was with the quality of evidence submitted to the courts that I took exception. No Indian court would have failed to throw out such tenuous evidence. I am not surprised, I daresay no thoughtful Indian is surprised that this happened. Which brings up the second point.

I never stated that the proof submitted was incontrovertible. This was evidence from the scene of the crime, this was evidence from a material witness' testimony, but NOT sworn testimony; it was testimony delivered under conditions of duress which a court will automatically discard. What looked so contrived was the lack of effort, it seemed, as an outsider this time, not as an insider, considering that the Pakistani or the Indian liberal is not privy to the efforts of the deep state, that there was an actual reluctance to discover anything useful for the case.

Once, however, you make the categorical statement that it was within your knowledge that there were people who wanted Hafiz Sayeed behind bars, the matter takes on a different complexion. Presumably these were responsible people you were referring to. Under those circumstances, it must be a case of trust, but verify. Since we cannot possibly verify as we should like to, we have no reasonable option but to respect the word of someone whose integrity is apparent.

Under these very specific circumstances, I retract my charge of it being a disgraceful cover-up.

All your concerns are valid and perfectly understandable, considering the acrimonious and trust-deficit environment that we live in. I deliberately brought in the environment that our courts are functioning in, one to highlight the environment that exist with regard to criminal justice system and the court proceedings and second, a lot of Indian posters were indicating towards this aspect as well. You never indicated any such thing - I am sorry, I should have mentioned this when explaining the aspect.

The fact that when our judicial commission went to India, they were not allowed to question the witnesses - not even the main accused, also complicated the proceedings. These are difficult proceedings under even difficult existing environment.

Knowing what I know, I don't think it was a deliberate and designed cover up. The evidence just didn't add up.

 

[ajtr]

That's silly, we don't have religion based representation. An MP is expected to represent everyone including those who voted against him. Having MP's on religious basis would mean the disenfranchisement of those members of his/her constituency who don't subscribe to the same religion as the MP. There is no way India would have has a Sikh PM on that pathetic basis.

We do have reserved seats for SC/STs.Even today indian sikh PM is not chose by the people of india but imposed on indians.

 

[Bang Galore]

Actually some of the perceptions in India are incorrectly formed and I can understand the reasons. I know for a fact that there were people who actually wanted Hafiz Saeed behind bars. And to say that India presented incontrovertible evidence is also incorrect as this was not the case. I know efforts were made, but then these things are never easy to prove in a court unless you have a slam dunk. And courts in Pakistan are in an activist form these days, and have released some others due to lack of evidence as well. At the same time, many have been prosecuted and punished. Pakistan's criminal justice system needs reforms and there are efforts going on towards such improvement. Till then there may be slippages.

Though for Indians, it may seem a coverup, the fact remains that Hafiz Saeed was not found guilty by a court of law. And I respect the court's decision. For me as a Pakistani, I have to learn to respect this, even if I disagree with many of court's decisions.

Hafiz Saeed's case was no different. He was tried in the court of law and pronounced innocent due to lack of evidence against him. Presumptuous statements that the government security is there to protect him is your presumption - and you are free to presume such things.

This is exactly why I believe that the Indian government is wrong in wasting its time providing dossiers to Pakistan when Pakistanis including their courts are going to give scum like Hafiz Saeed the "benefit of doubt" like you have.

The whole trial is a charade, a brazen display of support for terrorist & terrorism directed against India. Pakistan simply had no jurisdiction to try a a case for a crime committed in Mumbai, India. If the trial was for conspiracy to commit a crime, it follows that Pakistan should rustle up the evidence (since ostensibly the conspiracy was hatched in Pakistani & India could not be expected to provide evidence on that) & the fact that the only refrain from Pakistan has been that Indian evidence is either literature or insufficient etc.. is proof that Pakistan has neither any interest nor desire to prosecute the Mumbai conspirators. No amount of "whitewashing" will help here.

 

[Ticker]

That's silly, we don't have religion based representation. An MP is expected to represent everyone including those who voted against him. Having MP's on religious basis would mean the disenfranchisement of those members of his/her constituency who don't subscribe to the same religion as the MP. There is no way India would have has a Sikh PM on that pathetic basis.

I am not saying it is religious based - all I am saying is that as per the population percentages Muslim representation has been and is dismal. I am not discussing the reasons here.

We in Pakistan have reserved minority seats for their representation in addition to their participation in open elections in our national and provincial assemblies. Though there are those, even in the minorities who are against such practice - but I feel that it obviates "no or less representation" through majority vote. It has its merits and demerits.

Even 30% seats for the women are reserved - though they rule every house in Pakistan through their forced governance order.

 

[Ticker]

This is exactly why I believe that the Indian government is wrong in wasting its time providing dossiers to Pakistan when Pakistanis including their courts are going to give scum like Hafiz Saeed the "benefit of doubt" like you have.

Exchanging dossiers is a charade - I wonder if you have seen Indian dossiers presented to Pakistan on various aspects. It is BS.

The whole trial is a charade, a brazen display of support for terrorist & terrorism directed against India. Pakistan simply had no jurisdiction to try a a case for a crime committed in Mumbai, India. If the trial was for conspiracy to commit a crime, it follows that Pakistan should rustle up the evidence (since ostensibly the conspiracy was hatched in Pakistani & India could not be expected to provide evidence on that) & the fact that the only refrain from Pakistan has been that Indian evidence is either literature or insufficient etc.. is proof that Pakistan has neither any interest nor desire to prosecute the Mumbai conspirators. No amount of "whitewashing" will help here.

Pakistan is an independent and sovereign state and it has its own judicial and criminal justice system. You can and may believe that evidence presented by India is sufficient.

In Pakistan it is the Pakistani judicial system which shall and will decide this.

 

[Ticker]

No matter I want to be part of this fascinating discussion, I have to detach myself for some hours.

 

[indian_jigar]

Exchanging dossiers is a charade - I wonder if you have seen Indian dossiers presented to Pakistan on various aspects. It is BS.



Pakistan is an independent and sovereign state and it has its own judicial and criminal justice system. You can and may believe that evidence presented by India is sufficient.

In Pakistan it is the Pakistani judicial system which shall and will decide this.

Trying Hafeez Saeed in a Pakistani court is the biggest joke ever, especially when the Govt of Pakistan has so much to lose if he is convicted guilty. If I go to America and commit murder there, I would be tried for the murder case in an American court, not an Indian one. Same with Hafeez Saeed.

 

[pk_baloch]

I want to clarify few misconceptions here. First of all i just presented my personal opinion and did not speak for all Pakistani. You should do the same instead of speaking for all Indians. Secondly its not about Pakistani but its about Islam who ask Muslim to be loyal to religion before anything else. Islam don't ask Muslim to consider themselves Indian or Pakistani before Muslim. If i am wrong then ask your Indian Muslims and ask them to bring any evidence from Islamic sources to prove me wrong. How obsession with nationalism(blind nationalism) is better than obsession with religion? I think whenever someone talk about Islam, you guys bring picture of Taliban in your mind and assume that he would be intolerant guy who would love to kill all infidels and would not want any kind of good relationship with infidels and will never take them as friends, would never let minorities to practice their beliefs etc and all other such non sense which is great injustice to great religion Islam. I am Muslim but still have many Hindu/Sikhs/atheist friends. My considering religion before nationality has no negative impact on my relationship with people of different beliefs

Dude you might agree with jade but we see a big gap between theory and practice in India. Again tell me if nationalism was stronger than religion in India then why would any Hindu indian kill fellow Indian muslim to take the revenge of fellow Hindus? If nationalism was stronger than religion then Muslims of Pakistan never demanded separate land because they were not getting equal political and social rights from Hindus of same land. Why many Hindus still demand destruction of mosque because according to them there was temple there centuries ago? We see that Hinduvata forces still talk about Hindu nationalism more than Indian nationalism . Whenever Islam and Hinduism use two opposite political force then people don't care nationalism. I also met many Hyderabadi indian Muslim who consider Islam before nationality and according to them they can compromise on many things but not on their religion. I am not saying that Indian Muslim should not be loyal to their land. Its natural to love your nation and follow the laws of land but saying that they are Indian before Muslim is opposite to Islamic teaching. Muslim consider Laws of Allah before laws of land or any other laws

excellent post.....