Denouncing Indira Gandhi

[oceanx]

’71 happened -> Pak starts looking for ‘strategic depth’ -> Finds strategic depth in Afghanistan via Taliban -> Taliban patronizes Al Qaida -> Al Qaida pulls a 9/11. Et voila. Ms Gandhi is responsible for 9/11.

Time to grab some popcorn.

I just haven't worked up the panache to get there yet. But you clearly anticipated me. Yeah you see, I was going to crown her the god-mother of Taliban, too.

On a serious note - Pakistan's need for "strategic depth" was definitely made more acute by the outcome of 1971, irrespective of how you spin the timeline - for necessity is the mother of all inventions - physicial, conceptual, or geo-political.

Anyhow, some walk away with "bragging rights", while others walk away with a geopolitical windfall and increased defensibility.

To me my conclusion and to you the shrine of IG - to each his own toxic brew!

 

[logic]

One should never expect an enemy to be kind.
If it would be kind it would not be an enemy.

Pakistan and India will have to realize at some point that us fighting each other only goes on to strengthen others.

Asia will be more prosperous than Europe if India Pakistan and China stop this tussle among st them and work for a better future for the region.

We will have to recognize each other as partners without inherent bias that is the only way to progress.

 

[toxic_pus]

I just haven't worked up the panache to get there yet. But you clearly anticipated me. Yeah you see, I was going to crown her the god-mother of Taliban, too.

I have never doubted your ability to connect unconnectable dots.

On a serious note - Pakistan's need for "strategic depth" was definitely made more acute by the outcome of 1971, irrespective of how you spin the timeline - for necessity is the mother of all inventions - physicial, conceptual, or geo-political.

I have provided my analysis. You could provide yours. Maybe I will learn something new, that I may have overlooked. But if you follow the line, 'its-true-because-I-believe-so', then there isn't much we can do.

Can we now?

Anyhow, some walk away with "bragging rights", while others walk away with a geopolitical windfall and increased defensibility.

We got our 'bragging rights' for free. Its the 'geopolitical windfall and increased defensibility' that we worked hard for. . Although much credit goes to our Pak friends' talent for shooting themselves in their feet.

To me my conclusion and to you the shrine of IG - to each his own toxic brew!

Hallelujah

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Somethings still burning, but then thats expected.

Calling names won't change the fact that she was a great stateswoman and changed history and geography as we see it today...even in her grave she makes you lose your maturity

i'm not worried about it

but it seems that the Sikh Khalestanys still want revenge

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

You mean it is as funny as the term 'pak(i)' to mean a certain demeanor, which is exclusively associated with Pakistan?

actually in UK --where it is considered "derogatory" (me personally I dont care, '****' refers to almost anyone --from Middle Easterners to Central and South Asians.

The word itself is a compliment, I don't see how the word PAK can mean anything negative.


nice try, try harder next time

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Even if one takes at face value, Dr Kissinger’s interpretation of what Ms Gandhi had implied – which, from the original record of the conversation, appears to be a stretch, there is absolutely nothing there to denounce.

Your ‘position’ that no Indian can ‘talk of being sincere in wanting peace with and accepting the existence of Pakistan’ without first denouncing Ms Gandhi’s personal views, as if somehow, these two are mutually exclusive, only serves to your personal demons. Beyond that, nothing.

PS: I see that you have referenced Ms Gandhi's speech on 30th Nov, 1970 from Mr Munshi's book. Well, I haven't read the book. But we all have the (mis)fortune of reading Mr Munshi on this forum. And judging from his musings, I am not sure how much credible that book is.

The 'congenital defects' phrase is not really what I considered offensive, so whether that was part of what she said or not is irrelevant - what is implied in those comments is offensive since it rejects Pakistan's territorial integrity and identity.

To suggest that an Indian familiar with these comments, and desirous of peace with Pakistan and acceptance of it, not denounce them only points to more dissemblance on your part to skirt the issue.

It is not possible for someone opposed to racism to not denounce those who support(ed) racism.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

P.S: The first post has been edited with reference to sources for all three quotes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

One should never expect an enemy to be kind.
If it would be kind it would not be an enemy.

So does that mean the refusal of some Indians to denounce Indira Gandhi's comments today means they are enemies?

But see, that is what many will deny till they are blue in the face, along with any desire to break apart Pakistan or not accept it - if the denials are sincere (and obviously in some cases evident on this thread they are neither sincere or non-existent to begin with) then denouncing those comments should be a non-issue.

 

[Skeptic]

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”.

Sources:
1. The White House years, by Henry Kissinger
2.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB193/HAK%202-26-76.pdf

Page 27 of the above document.

3. The India Doctrine, by MBI Munshi

AM: Even before starting to read the thread, the title itself is inappropriate. The question is whether you want the reader to denounce the idea of a broken Pakistan and seeking validation for existence of Pakistan, I am with you. I accept Pakistan as a nation has an existence and NWFP etc are part of Pakistan.
I fail to understand whether you want us do denounce Indira Gandhi or these ideas??
But there is something further to it, the hidden motive of Using Indira Gandhi's name and associating some shady comments to her, credibility and truthfulness of which are under question. This makes me doubt if this thread is meant to establish whether or not Indians believe in peace with Pakistan or exactly the opposite. Deterring them from accepting the fact (which they otherwise easily would) by associating Ms. Gandhi's name to it.

I am sorry to say but the effort on you part is not to determine the truth but to ignite the nationalist feelings by involving a former PM.

Just ask plainly if they accept NWFP and Baluchistan as Pakistan and if they accept Pakistan as a nation, answer would be an emphatic YES. If you want to malign a national figure by hearsay and some extremely shady sources (Mr. Munshi will certainly be towards the bottom in my credibility list) then its a firm NO.

If ever it boils down to denouncing there are to far too many sinister things to denounce than some unverified comments.

 

[PostColonial]

Obviously, India being on the Soviet side of the bipolar cold-war-era world, Kissinger would find reason not to trust Indira Gandhi's intentions against their trusted ally (Pakistan).

However, given the circumstances of the time, I have absolutely no criticism of her foreign policy or her actions in East Pakistan. Her domestic actions too are highly questionable, but I'm inclined to believe that she did what she could with the cards that were presented to her.

To interpret praise for Indira Gandhi's actions 40 years ago as an active desire to destabilize today's Pakistan is just piling assumption upon assumption. The circumstances are different, and the possible scenarios that could emerge from the destruction of the Pakistani state are too dangerous for any sane person to risk their realization.

In any case, our Prime Minister (Manmohan Singh) is very much a dove. His personality is very different from Ms Gandhi.

 

[ironman]

The 'congenital defects' phrase is not really what I considered offensive, so whether that was part of what she said or not is irrelevant - what is implied in those comments is offensive since it rejects Pakistan's territorial integrity and identity.

To suggest that an Indian familiar with these comments, and desirous of peace with Pakistan and acceptance of it, not denounce them only points to more dissemblance on your part to skirt the issue.

It is not possible for someone opposed to racism to not denounce those who support(ed) racism.

I'm yet confused about the purpose of this thread.. Is that only Indian leaders making offensive comments ? Is that only India rejecting its rival's territorial integrity and identity ? .. The holy path of denouncement is an one way road?

 

[Halaku Khan]

Pakistan is made up of various ethnicities and sects.

The question is, whether Pakistan, as presently constituted, best serves the interests of its people.

There are many Pakistanis who think it doesn't.

As far as I am concerned, I would be happy to support any fair and amicable arrangement which the people of Pakistan come to amongst themselves. Subject, of course, to the condition that there be no support to terrorism in India, in particular, no support to non-state actors on the Indian side of the LoC. Also, there needs to be the recognition that Afghanistan is a sovereign independent nation, which has the right to have friendly relations with any other nation, and whose people have a right to democratically elect their own government.

 

[toxic_pus]

The 'congenital defects' phrase is not really what I considered offensive, so whether that was part of what she said or not is irrelevant - what is implied in those comments is offensive since it rejects Pakistan's territorial integrity and identity.

I didn’t refer to ‘congenital defects’ phrase in the post that you have responded to. I had referred to ‘Dr Kissinger’s interpretation of what Ms Gandhi had implied’. And once again, from the original record of the conversation it appears, that she made no such comments that would imply rejection of ‘Pakistan’s territorial integrity and identity’.

To suggest that an Indian familiar with these comments, and desirous of peace with Pakistan and acceptance of it, not denounce them only points to more dissemblance on your part to skirt the issue.

It is not possible for someone opposed to racism to not denounce those who support(ed) racism.

The question is if Ms Gandhi’s comment can be called ‘racism’ – metaphorically speaking, of course. You have already decided that it is. Hence the conundrum.

 

[PostColonial]

LOL Racist? What next, Nazi maybe?

 

[toxic_pus]

actually in UK --where it is considered "derogatory" (me personally I dont care, '****' refers to almost anyone --from Middle Easterners to Central and South Asians.

The word itself is a compliment, I don't see how the word PAK can mean anything negative.


nice try, try harder next time

Naivety has its perks. Someday, when you finally have a clear head, do try to figure out why the slur is associated with your country, and not any other 'Central and South Asian' country.