AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Speculation on both our parts either way - we do however know that it was raised at multiple levels with the US government - Presidential, Military leaders and the intelligence leaders, multiple times. The description of the nature of the evidence that has been presented all of those times, mentioned by various sources (this time by the IGFC himself) is that it is photographic and of Baluch insurgent leadership meeting with Indian officials, some in Afghanistan.Or it was disregarded because there isn't any evidence to begin with.
Pakistan would not have raised the issue at the highest levels, and talked about it publicly, had the evidence not been significant. Nonetheless, until the evidence is made public, I agree that Indians have cause to be skeptical.
All fine and dandy - but India has a history of supporting insurgent movements in Pakistan - Baluch, Pashtun, and of course in East Pakistan. Support for the LTTE is another example of covert support for violent insurgents in another nation.I have no problems with that GOP giving evidence of alleged Indian involvement. As our PM put it, we have nothing to hide.
And the Prime Minister is not exactly going to admit Indian guilt - very few criminals actually do.
The only way a 'closer Indian relationship with Afgahnistan; hurts Pakistan is if that relationship is used by both to support terrorism and insurgencies in the Baluch and Pashtun - both of which have happened in the past. So unless this 'Indo-Afghan friendship' is going to mark a return to those past policies (and Pakistan believes it already has), Pakistan has no issue with the Indian presence in Afghanistan.You don't think India helping out Afghanistan by building up it's infrastructure and thereby developing a closer relationship with the Afghan people and government concerns Pakistan? Specially considering Pakistan has always regarded Afghanistan as under their sphere of influence. Please read afriend's post above in this regard.
In fact, since Pakistan has accused both Afghanistan and India of supporting or abetting terrorism by insurgents in Pakistan, Indian investment in Afghanistan's infrastructure is a moot point, since it is the covert activities Pakistan is worried about, not roads and hospitals.
In any case, isolated attacks against the Indian embassy or consulates serve no purpose. Its an extremely childish argument that somehow Pakistan expects to drive out the Indians from Afghanistan by carrying out two bombings against the embassy in 15 months.
Please explain to me, since you are arguing that is a motive, how exactly such a policy will drive out India from Afghanistan?
a) Indian efforts in Afghanistan are not dependent upon half a dozen consulates - reconstruction to the extent that it is, and catering to the rather small Indian presence in Afghanistan and equally small Afghan travel to and from India, could be handled by the embassy alone.The terrorism from Indian consulates charge has been made to a) undermine Indian efforts in Afghanistan, b) To somehow justify certain camps in Pakistani Kashmir and c) To divert attention from an insurgency which is a result of home grown problems.
To argue that Pakistan's demand for reducing the number of Indian consulates will impact Indian reconstruction efforts is just silly.
b) No justification is being made since there is no correlation. Kashmir is internationally recognized as disputed whereas Baluchistan and NWFP/FATA are not. The camps of banned organizations have been shut down or controlled.
c) The domestic problems that exacerbate the Baluch insurgency are being tackled, but that does not mean there is no Indian support for the insurgency. In East Pakistan as well, the causal factor for Bengali resentment and separatist sentiment was domestic, but Indian support and training for insurgents and separatists was a major issue as well.