What's new

Denouncing Indira Gandhi

Sweety? No way
-
By Lt-Gen. J.F.R. Jacob

I got to know Indira Gandhi a little before the 1971 war. In 1969, she asked me to help her deal with the Naxalite problem, which had started from Naxalbari in West Bengal. Later, she had to focus on East Pakistan, where Yahya Khan’s atrocities and anti-democratic steps led to anger and rebellion. The Pakistan army, which was known for its professionalism, came down on the protesters, and waves of refugees entered India. In effect, it was a great human disaster.

Indira started receiving urgent telegrams from the chief ministers of Assam, West Bengal and Tripura. She had to act as India could not take any more of this wave of refugees, and she took the decision to go to war.
But we had to execute a successful war. East Pakistan was low-lying, waterlogged and crisscrossed by large rivers, mangroves and paddy fields. A monsoon war would have been foolish. We started preparing, as India had given political and diplomatic signals. As the commander of the Eastern Command, I held a staff conference at Fort William and issued orders to build up the infrastructure and logistics based on the draft outline plan we had made, without waiting for operation instruction from Army Headquarters.

Poor road and rail communications, particularly in Tripura, and a complete lack of any viable infrastructure meant that preparations would have to start early. There was a metre-gauge line from Assam to Dharamnagar in Tripura, which had a capacity of 30 wagons a day. This had to be increased. The road from Dharamnagar to Agartala and beyond was in poor condition and unfit for heavy traffic.

We requested the Border Roads Organisation to increase the capacity in this section. The preparatory work was done before the monsoon and even before the operation order from Army Headquarters was issued. Had we waited for the operation instruction or for the monsoon to end, we would not have been in a position to launch a successful offensive when the war broke out.
War brings out the best and the worst. What helped us was India’s political will. Sam Maneckshaw, despite our disagreements, did a great job. My friendship with Indira grew after the war when I became Governor of Meghalaya. She loved Shillong and the northeast. After all, it was the northeast that gifted her victory in the war.

Successful execution of the war was possible because of the dedication of our jawans. The 1971 war will be remembered for our soldiers, who proved that if political masters do their job well, then the soldiers can take on any adversary. India’s soldiers are unparalleled.

Though we gave every kind of food to the soldiers, because of the pressure of the war, they often took a liking for tea as the only source of nutrition. Once I was told that refrigeration had broken down and milk could not be kept for long. I was worried because without milk our soldiers would not get their tea. To solve this problem, I used wisdom learnt in my childhood. My uncle ran an ice factory in Kidderpore Dock, Kolkata.

We are Baghdadi Jews who have been living in Kolkata for centuries. I remember my uncle producing large blocks of ice for ships as they set sail. I told my juniors to freeze the milk and cover it with bhusa (sawdust). On reaching the soldiers, the milky ice was melted and boiled for tea. Such everyday wisdom helped us win the war.

Sam wanted to take control of towns around Dhaka. But I was focused on a Dhaka-centric strategy. It was similar to the one espoused by Babu Jagjivan Ram. He was the real backroom hero of the war. Once on a visit to Kolkata before the war broke out, he called me frantically as he was finding it difficult to convince people in the Writers’ Building about some matter. I went in and in my characteristic style dealt with all the opposition. After the meeting, Babuji hugged me outside the hall. I was flattered.

We had excellent political coordination at the top level, great military moves and finally a flawless execution that led to a quick war and a surprising surrender of more than 93,000 Pakistani soldiers under Lt-Gen. A.A.K. Niazi. The surrender was historically exceptional. Most other surrenders were long after hostilities had ceased, usually signed aboard a ship, as in the case of the Japanese surrender in WW-II, and grandly orchestrated. But the Pakistani surrender was a public affair at Dhaka. There was so much anger among the Bengalis that the ceremony had to be held in public.

After the war was over, I got to see another aspect of Indira. She once told me that her favourite musical was Fiddler on the Roof and that she liked cuttlefish. It was her decisiveness that made the difference in 1971. I think the “Sweety” joke attributed to Sam is just a myth. Considering who she was, no one could have addressed her like that.


Picture perfect
Before signing the Simla Accord, Indira personally helped arrange accommodation for Zulfikar Bhutto and his daughter Benazir. She removed a portrait of herself from Zulfikar's room so he would not have to be under her watchful eye all the time.

Sweety? No way
 
Well that's the point, the more excuses they come up with to not denounce those views of IG, the more their insincerity is exposed.

We are against the idea expressed in the quotes. However, no where has it been proven that those were indeed Indira Gandhi's quotes. Kissinger is famous for his anti-Indira venom and well less said about the book by a certain member of this forum the better. So where is the question of denouncing Indira Gandhi?

As i said above, we condemn the ideas expressed in the quotes. However, if you want us to denounce Indira Gandhi, please provide neutral sources to prove that those quotes are indeed hers.

Actually when you think about it, we already condemn Indira Gandhi for the million horrendous domestic policy decisions by her. After all, Salman Rushdie call her "an old widow" in Midnight's Children. We condemn her for creating that fool Sanjay Gandhi, we condemn her for imposing the emergency, we condemn her for "License raj", etc. However, her foreign policy was admirable and need to be applauded, until proven otherwise.
 
Chew on this my Chuddi-Buddies:

Kissinger regrets India comments

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has expressed regret over anti-India comments he made to former US President Richard Nixon.

"The Indians are bastards," Mr Kissinger said shortly before the India-Pakistan war of 1971, it was revealed this week.

Mr Kissinger also called former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi a "*****" during the conversation.

At the time, the US saw India as too close to the Soviet Union.

The conversation was revealed in documents the US State Department declassified this month on US foreign policy of the time.

According to the documents, President Nixon called Indira Gandhi an "old witch" in a conversation with Mr Kissinger.

'High regard'

Mr Kissinger, 82, has now told a the private Indian television channel NDTV that his comments did not reflect American policy during the 1970s.

"I regret that these words were used. I have extremely high regard for Mrs Gandhi as a statesman," he said.


"The fact that we were at cross purposes at that time was inherent in the situation but she was a great leader who did great things for her country."

One key conversation transcript comes from the meeting between President Nixon and Mr Kissinger in the White House on 5 November 1971, shortly after a meeting with the visiting Indira Gandhi.

"We really slobbered over the old witch," says President Nixon.

Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon
Kissinger and Nixon opposed an independent Bangladesh

"The Indians are bastards anyway," says Mr Kissinger. "They are starting a war there."

He adds: "While she was a *****, we got what we wanted too. She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn't give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she's got to go to war.

Mr Kissinger told NDTV that this was not a "formal conversation".

"This was somebody letting off steam at the end of a meeting in which both President Nixon and I were emphasising that we had gone out of our way to treat Mrs Gandhi very cordially," he said.

"There was disappointment at the results of the meeting. The language was Nixon language."

Relations between India and US have strengthened since Mr Kissinger's days.

"The US recognises that India is a global power, that is a strategic partner of the US on the big issues," Mr Kissinger said.

However, President Nixon and Mr Kissinger's remarks have angered India's ruling Congress party.

"It is shocking that the head of state of a country and his principal adviser chose to use such intemperate language against a popularly elected prime minister of another country," party spokesman Anand Sharma said.

"These words have no relevance today... we hope the present US leader also rejects these remarks which were definitely in very poor taste."

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

^Source: BBC NEWS | South Asia | Kissinger regrets India comments
 
Yes, articles, many by Baloch dissidents and their apologists.


Well, you'll have to include the Dawn's editors in that category. This is from today's paper:

But losing trust in the state is a different matter altogether. Votes don’t enter the equation and protests against real or perceived crimes by the centre stay peaceful only up to a point. At some stage the country’s territorial boundaries come to be questioned. For many in Balochistan this threshold was crossed decades ago — shortly after the country’s creation, in fact, and years before East Pakistanis began pressing for a separate homeland. It seems that those who call the shots in this country have learnt few lessons from the 1971 debacle. Today there is a feeling in Balochistan that the province is part of the federation on paper alone, at the mercy of a state that continues to exploit its natural wealth and quell any sign of dissent with disproportionate force. Promises by the centre mean little, for the simple reason that they have rarely been honoured.

DAWN.COM | Editorial | Balochistan ignored

Be that as it may, as I have mentioned earlier on this thread

I would not condone anybody deliberately stirring up trouble anywhere

... and ...

I would be happy to support any fair and amicable arrangement which the people of Pakistan come to amongst themselves ....

Subject to some minimal norms of civilized behavior being adhered to by Pakistan, namely -

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.

I think that's about as reasonable as can be.
 
India’s Sikhs Wait for Justice 25 Years after Pogrom​
NEW DELHI: For Gurdeep Kaur, this weekend marks the 25th anniversary of the day she saw her son burnt alive during an orgy of anti-Sikh genocide sparked by the killing of India's then prime minister.

Sitting in her ramshackle home in west New Delhi, the 65-year-old sobs as she recalls hearing the shrieks of a mob approach her house on November 1, 1984, the day after Indira Gandhi's assassination by her Sikh bodyguards.

‘I peeped through the window and saw my elder son running towards me, he looked terrified. There was a huge crowd behind him,’ says Kaur, tears welling up in her eyes.

‘One of the men reached out and hit him with a stick. He fell down, the mob was on him in a second, he was beaten, doused with kerosene and burnt alive. He was just 21,’ says Kaur, who lost four male relatives that day.

Kaur is one of countless women widowed by the anti-Sikh riots in New Delhi and elsewhere that raged for four days following Gandhi's killing on October 31, 1984, claiming at least 2,700 lives.

As India gears up to mark Gandhi's 25th death anniversary on Saturday, wounds left by the violence are far from being healed, with many still waiting for those accused of inciting the violence to be brought to justice.

‘My son was coming to tell me my husband had been killed and the shop he used to run, burnt down too. Our men were hunted down in cold blood and killed, it was like butchers slaughtering cattle or pigs,’ adds Kaur.

Her story echoes those of her neighbours who live in a crammed, run-down apartment complex in one of the many neighbourhoods where the 1984 riot victims were re-settled.

The pogrom in New Delhi and other states began hours after Gandhi was shot dead as she left her residence on the way to give an interview to British actor Peter Ustinov for the BBC.

Her slaying was seen as revenge for her decision to send in the army to evict Sikh separatists from Sikhism's holiest site, the Golden Temple, in Punjab. The state was racked by a violent insurgency at the time.

Hindu mobs began rampaging through Sikh neighbourhoods almost immediately, with the alleged connivance and encouragement of police and political figures from Gandhi's Congress party, which rules India today.

By the time calm was restored, tens of thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed. Many Sikhs had removed their turbans and cut their hair to avoid being recognised.

‘Every year on the anniversary, I cannot sleep — all those horrible scenes keep replaying before my eyes. I cannot forget the brutality and the savagery,’ says Asubhi Kaur, Gurdeep's neighbour.

Nirmal Kaur, who was barely a teenager when her father, uncles and several cousins were killed, is still bitter so little has been done to bring those responsible to justice.

‘Neither tears nor our pleas for justice have made any difference,’ she says.

Only a handful of police officials have been punished and none of the Congress leaders accused of inciting the mobs has been successfully prosecuted.

‘We saw these Congress politicians encouraging the crowds to target us. Despite our evidence and testimonials, no one has been convicted,’ says Gurdeep Kaur.

Federal detectives have investigated Jagdish Tytler, one of two former ministers accused of inciting the mobs, as well as senior Congress party leaders Sajjan Kumar and former minister H.K.L. Bhagat.

Police said they were unable to find witnesses to testify against Tytler, while Kumar is still the subject of a probe. Bhagat has died.

They all denied any involvement.

Hindu-majority India has come some way in the 25 years since the carnage, though intra-religious fighting still blows up occasionally — against Christians recently and against Muslims in 2002.

Indira's son Rajiv Gandhi, who was himself assassinated by a Tamil Tiger bomber in 1991, notoriously downplayed the violence afterwards when he said ‘there are always tremors when a great tree falls’.

However, Rajiv's son Rahul called the riots ‘absolutely wrong’ last year during a visit to the Golden Temple.

H.S. Phoolka, a lawyer and activist representing riot victims, says many people have given up hope of seeing justice.

‘This is what the culprits wanted, that we should get frustrated and stop pursuing it,’ he says.


DAWN.COM | World | India?s Sikhs wait for justice 25 years after pogrom


6fc3648890d95fd62486a74568f09873.jpg
 
Wow, "acceptance of Pakistan and its territorial integrity should be unconditional" irrespective of Pakistani support of non-state actors in Afghanistan and India.

That's rich!
Be concerned with your own affairs, since it is the intentions of Indians, in the context of Indira Gandhi's comments, that is being talked about, not Afghans.

Support for non-state actors is subjective.

Support for an occupied people in disputed territory does not count as support for 'non-state actors' in India, for one thing. Secondly, respect for Pakistan's territorial integrity and existence has to be unconditional since making ti conditional to things like 'support for non-state actors' leaves extraordinary room for concocted excuses to initiate aggression against Pakistan - which is what we saw in East Pakistan, and signs of which we saw in the statements by the GoI in the aftermath of Mumbai. In the latter case I am referring to the plethora of statements by the GoI and Indian military blaming Pakistani institutions, despite not providing any credible evidence showing the involvement of Pakistani institutions.

Therefore, support for Pakistan's territorial integrity and existence has to be unconditional.
And give one proof of "India supporting terrorism in Balochistan". Or is it another fairly tale like "India blocking water"?
I'll provide proof when the GoI provides evidence for its accusations against Pakistani institutions in Mumbai.
 
Henry Kissinger and his relationship with Indira Gandhi were not exactly rosy and him making up stuff about Indira Gandhi while talking to her staunchest enemy in prime of the cold war is not beyond the scope, infact very likely. I stand by my view that ideas can be denounced by most Indians but unless proven, I will reserve my comments for Indira Gandhi.

If the policies you want to discuss, they are much more part of public domain - pick up a document and we can discuss from there, based on hearsay and random comments by someone not averse to lying(I can quote of other instances) and taking back statements with an apology(specifically with Indira Gandhi).

Ms. Gandhi is denounced for the domestic policies - most for emergency among other things, but those were proven policies and shows that she is not above criticism, but to denounce her for some comments, which are themselves on shaky ground - is for asking too much. yes if you want to stress, if Manmohan Singh was to make this statement on TV today, I'd denounce him, but unless proven - its a no go.

PS: do let me know once Mr. Munshi reveals his source.

I would like Indian readers to denounce IG for the expression of those ideas.
Kissinger is a former SoS, and therefore a very credible source - his apology was related to his use of abusive language against IG, not because he fabricated something.

I would have to see good reason to discredit him - so far all you have offered is that he 'did not like IG'. That is not enough to credibly argue that he just went and concocted all this stuff.

And I have already suggested that Indians can do a conditional denouncement - 'if these are IG's comments, then XYZ denounces her for them and disagrees with them'.

Of course those who agree with the comments don't have to do a thing.
 
As i said above, we condemn the ideas expressed in the quotes. However, if you want us to denounce Indira Gandhi, please provide neutral sources to prove that those quotes are indeed hers.

As I pointed out before Kissinger is a former SoS and a very credible source. However, you can do a 'conditional denouncement' as I also suggested.
Actually when you think about it, we already condemn Indira Gandhi for the million horrendous domestic policy decisions by her.
I don't care whether you condemn her for anything else or not - as a Pakistani my concern is solely that Indians that argue they have accepted Pakistan's existence and respect its territorial integrity (which also includes the GoI) condemn the views expressed by IG and denounce her for those views specifically - you can consider her God's gift/curse to mankind outside of those comments for all I care.
 
Be concerned with your own affairs, since it is the intentions of Indians, in the context of Indira Gandhi's comments, that is being talked about, not Afghans.

Support for non-state actors is subjective.

Support for an occupied people in disputed territory does not count as support for 'non-state actors' in India, for one thing. Secondly, respect for Pakistan's territorial integrity and existence has to be unconditional since making ti conditional to things like 'support for non-state actors' leaves extraordinary room for concocted excuses to initiate aggression against Pakistan - which is what we saw in East Pakistan, and signs of which we saw in the statements by the GoI in the aftermath of Mumbai. In the latter case I am referring to the plethora of statements by the GoI and Indian military blaming Pakistani institutions, despite not providing any credible evidence showing the involvement of Pakistani institutions.

Therefore, support for Pakistan's territorial integrity and existence has to be unconditional.

I'll provide proof when the GoI provides evidence for its accusations against Pakistani institutions in Mumbai.


Support for non-state actors is subjective.

Definite subjectiivism.You want us to unconditionally accept your territorial integrity, or whatevers left of it while you carry on with your freedom fighter theories to support terrorism and undermining territorial integrity of India, atrocious.


In the latter case I am referring to the plethora of statements by the GoI and Indian military blaming Pakistani institutions, despite not providing any credible evidence showing the involvement of Pakistani institutions.

Maybe you'll take Hillary's word for it.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has questioned Pakistan's commitment to the fight against al-Qaeda, saying she found it hard to believe that no-one in the government knows where senior figures are hiding.

"I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to," she told a group of newspaper editors during a meeting in the city of Lahore on Thursday.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/37553-hillary-clinton-visit-pakistan.html


I'll provide proof when the GoI provides evidence for its accusations against Pakistani institutions in Mumbai.

What does it have to do with Indian accusations about Mumbai, you need to prove India's spreading terror for us to denounce it. We are pretty well used to Pakistanis mouthing off claims without anything to back up, there are threads full of crap here about uncircumcised penises and Indian origin weapons which turn out not so Indian after-all.
 
Definite subjectiivism.You want us to unconditionally accept your territorial integrity, or whatevers left of it while you carry on with your freedom fighter theories to support terrorism and undermining territorial integrity of India, atrocious.
Yes - since accusations of 'support for non-state elements' are subjective, and India's record for intervention and aggression (or threat of aggression) against Pakistan does not show it in a favorable light as far as the credibility of evidence she bases those accusations on is concerned.

Therefore acceptance of Pakistan's territorial integrity and existence must be unconditional - if concerns exist, engage in dialog. Of course that is not what IG did, and I don't really think either you or Halaku (and some others) really see anything wrong with IG's philosophy and policies as represented in those quotes, and therefore will keep finding poor excuses to not condemn.

What should I take from it?

I find it hard to believe she could make such a categorical statement of where the leadership is and not inform us of their locations if she is so sure.

From what I gather, she was getting annoyed by the rather pointed questions she was being subjected to about US duplicity in relations with Pakistan, and threw that out. Then she backtracked and said that maybe the leaders were 'not gettable'.
What does it have to do with Indian accusations about Mumbai, you need to prove India's spreading terror for us to denounce it. We are pretty well used to Pakistanis mouthing off claims without anything to back up, there are threads full of crap here about uncircumcised penises and Indian origin weapons which turn out not so Indian after-all.
You need to prove Pakistan is sponsoring terror against India - 'there are threads full of crap around here and elsewhere about the ISI, Navy, SSG, Army, (N)SSG, supporting the Mumbai attacks and Nepali currency rackets and Eastern Indian insurgents and what not - all without a lick of credible evidence.
 
Kissinger is a former SoS, and therefore a very credible source...

I would have to see good reason to discredit him - so far all you have offered is that he 'did not like IG'. That is not enough to credibly argue that he just went and concocted all this stuff.
Dr Kissinger is indeed a highly credible source, regardless of his personal likes and dislikes. For me, speaking entirely for myself, it is good enough.

That’s all fine and dandy.

Fortunately for us, the conversation between Ms Gandhi and President Nixon, to which Dr Kissinger was referring, is recorded and these records are currently in public domain. This gives us that unique opportunity to countercheck what Dr Nixon claimed to have heard.

Now if I have to chose between Dr Nixon’s recollection and USG records which were kept classified for a long 30 years, I would chose USG records any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. A quick recollection of USG document, once again:
Prime Minister Gandhi stated that India was not being driven by anti-Pakistan motives. India had never wished the destruction of Pakistan or its permanent crippling.[…]Baluchistan, as well as the provinces along the northwest frontier, has a strong desire for greater autonomy. There has been, therefore, a long history of separatist policies in Pakistan which heretofore has not necessarily been supported in India.

Foreign Relations of United States, Vol XI, South Asia 1969-1976, pg 496-497
The above record doesn’t even come close to what Dr Kissinger had been trying to impress upon Bhutto and later, in a more diluted tone, in his memoirs.

Btw, did I mention, that the above USG document was also drafted by Dr Kissinger and that the conversation was tape recorded as well.

I am not discrediting Dr Kissinger. I am merely choosing what he had chosen to say to his own government as a matter of record, over what he had chosen to say to Bhutto as a matter of foreign policy, and later to the world at large, as a matter of selling his book.
 
...acceptance of Pakistan's territorial integrity and existence must be unconditional
Yes, thats correct.

- if concerns exist, engage in dialog. Of course that is not what IG did,
Thats your assumption based on ignorance. Forget Ms Gandhi, the whole world was literally pleading with Pakistani leadership.
 
In my opinion people of Pakistan should denounce

General Yahya Khan and Zulfiqar Bhutto

These were the two pig ignorant peasants that lead us to the humiliation of 1971.

Whatever happened happened we should get over it.
 
Yes - since accusations of 'support for non-state elements' are subjective, and India's record for intervention and aggression (or threat of aggression) against Pakistan does not show it in a favorable light as far as the credibility of evidence she bases those accusations on is concerned.

Therefore acceptance of Pakistan's territorial integrity and existence must be unconditional - if concerns exist, engage in dialog. Of course that is not what IG did, and I don't really think either you or Halaku (and some others) really see anything wrong with IG's philosophy and policies as represented in those quotes, and therefore will keep finding poor excuses to not condemn. .

First things first, Indian record of aggression, are you kidding ,

.
India and Pakistan first went to war in October 1947 after Pakistan supported a Muslim insurgency in Kashmir. India agreed to a request for armed assistance from Kashmir's Maharaja, in return for accession of the state to India. But the nature of that accession has long been the subject of debate. The war ended on 1 January 1949, with the establishment of a ceasefire line. The status of the territory remained in dispute because an agreed referendum to confirm the accession was never held..
1965
.
The two countries went to war again after Pakistan launched a covert offensive across the ceasefire line into Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir[/B]. India retaliated by crossing the international border at Lahore.
.

1971

.
.Pakistan descended into civil war after East Pakistan demanded autonomy and later independence. India invaded East Pakistan in support of its people after millions of civilians fled to India. At the end of 1971, Bangladesh was created out of East Pakistan.
1999
.
Conflict again erupted after India launched air strikes against Pakistani-backed forces that had infiltrated Indian-administered Kashmir. Fighting built up towards a direct conflict between the two states and tens of thousands of people were reported to have fled their homes on both sides of the ceasefire line. Later that year, General Musharraf led a military coup in Pakistan..

BBC NEWS | India Pakistan | Timeline

.
What should I take from it?.
This............India's(Pakistan's) record for intervention and aggression (or threat of aggression) against Pakistan(India) does not show it in a favorable light

I find it hard to believe she could make such a categorical statement of where the leadership is and not inform us of their locations if she is so sure.

From what I gather, she was getting annoyed by the rather pointed questions she was being subjected to about US duplicity in relations with Pakistan, and threw that out. Then she backtracked and said that maybe the leaders were 'not gettable'.

Really....and Kissinger's words were the gospel for you since he officialy represented the same country and given the fact we were pro-russian at the time?


.
You need to prove Pakistan is sponsoring terror against India - 'there are threads full of crap around here and elsewhere about the ISI, Navy, SSG, Army, (N)SSG, supporting the Mumbai attacks and Nepali currency rackets and Eastern Indian insurgents and what not - all without a lick of credible evidence.

No sir since you want us to denounce our leader and her policies its your prerogative to provide proof for us to do so.
 
Be concerned with your own affairs, since it is the intentions of Indians, in the context of Indira Gandhi's comments, that is being talked about, not Afghans.

The well-being of the people of a fellow Saarc nation is certainly of concern to India, and will affect Indian policies.

Support for non-state actors is subjective.

Support for an occupied people in disputed territory does not count as support for 'non-state actors' in India, for one thing.
Support for violent non-state actors on territory which is adminstered by India, and deemed by India to be Indian territory, is what was being referred to. For example, the "United Jihad Council", being sheltered on Pakistan occupied territory, certainly falls in that category.

Secondly, respect for Pakistan's territorial integrity and existence has to be unconditional since making ti conditional to things like 'support for non-state actors' leaves extraordinary room for concocted excuses to initiate aggression against Pakistan - which is what we saw in East Pakistan, and signs of which we saw in the statements by the GoI in the aftermath of Mumbai. In the latter case I am referring to the plethora of statements by the GoI and Indian military blaming Pakistani institutions, despite not providing any credible evidence showing the involvement of Pakistani institutions.

Therefore, support for Pakistan's territorial integrity and existence has to be unconditional.

I'll provide proof when the GoI provides evidence for its accusations against Pakistani institutions in Mumbai.

Pakistan's blatant and bald-faced lies about the origins of Ajmal Kasab show complicity, at the very least.

Pakistan does have the opportunity to make amends by sincerely gathering evidence on its own soil and then hanging the perpetrators.

No nation can go around merrily supporting murderous non-state actors, and expect that the victims will not take measures to mitigate the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom