India not against US-Pak nuclear deal: Pranab

[HAIDER]

So, IPI deal is successfully sabotage, through this deal.

 

[Desipride]

DP:
Trust me it isn't flattering by any means.
Most Pakistanis, if you were to ask them on how India's "Pakistan centric' policy plays out, woudl point to alleged Indian support for militancy and terrorism in Baluchistan and elsewhere, and attempts to undermine Pakistan globally any chance it gets. Thats not really 'attention' that is welcome.

Putting it in somewhat offensive tone for a lack of better phrase .. as you are so you think others to be i.e. I believe that Pakistanis think that India is involved in anti-Pak activities because they feel India is retaliating for the misdeeds of their govt and prove all those ex-Raw bosses disclosures and defections as false and staged.

To be honest I find it hard to digest that India would be involved in terror attacks in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan etc. (Balochistan, Taliban etc.)

If Pakistan has proof it must bring attention at any opportunity, forcefully, globally & at all platforms so that the Indian public becomes aware of the clandestine nature of their govt.'s support to Islamic terrorism which has claimed thousands of lives in India as well.

Indian govts claims about Pakistan and ISI have been substantiated and acknowledged by the world, though it took some time, so their reputation viz a viz Pakistan is far greater.

It will be a tough task for Pakistan to muster enough credibility to portray India as the one who promotes Islamic terrorism and Pakistan, the world and India itself surprisingly is a victim of their govt's nefarious activities. If India is really guilty of it and Pakistan is the victim, I don't see why justice wouldn't be served ?

But if such is not the case then these empty statements are meant to divert attention from the real issues, now the tricky part for a Pakistani would be whether to trust the Indians/Yohood-e-Nasr or Pakistanis?

 

[PeaceForAll]

it is not 'give me proof'.. and it is not 'innocent until guilty'. It is just the generations of mistrust between the two nations. Honestly, I hate it when religion becomes a hedge between the two countries.. apart from that I really do not see anything wrong. Indian s and Pakistanis live like friends in UK as well as USA and elsewhere.. Its just the Politicians, vote bank and cheap politics that is so prevalent among these countries. May be someday we should have a forum for all young people who would like to join politics to change this..

A couple of my friends from indian institue of technology (they say a premier institute) have already started it.. though its still in a nascent stage..

time for Pak to do it too..

 

[Neo]

Some Pakistani members did comment that the Indian nuclear deal would destabilize the world and so much else along the lines.

No, most Pakistani's believe that Indo-US deal would trigger a nuclear arm race that could destabalise the Sub-Continent, not the world.

Wonder if they would feel the same if they get a similar deal! Or all would be hunky dory then.

Similar deal will stabalise both Pakistan and SA.

 

[Neo]

AM, you must admit that no American administrations (executive or legislative) was willing to listen to David Albright report. Simple case is that he has shown biased towards India proliferation.

The report is factually supported with links and events, its not the report that should be marked as biased but US' blind policy towards India.

Btw American administration doesn't want to listen to Michael More either, does it make him bias?

 

[nitesh]

Neo, arms race can be started is a wrong phrase and unnecessarily put in phrase. Nuclear bombs are not like conventional arms. It is supposed to be used as a last resort. And pakistan already possess it. Let's take some superficial numbers. Suppose pakistan has 100 nuclear weapons and a capacity to produce 10 more per year. India whereas having 150 nuclear weapons and capacity to have 20 more per year. (These are superficial numbers just used to give an example). So how it will start an arms race. I mean why if some other country is having x numbers of nuclear weapons pakistan needs to have x. I can't digest this. Nuclear weapons are for deterrent and they are serving the purpose. So instead the point should be that pakistan needs green electricity that can come with nuclear reactors. So pakistan should raise the point that it is a nuclear power and want to have a civilian deal on it's terms and conditions. Not by saying arms race and all.

 

[jeypore]

The report is factually supported with links and events, its not the report that should be marked as biased but US' blind policy towards India.

Btw American administration doesn't want to listen to Michael More either, does it make him bias?

Neo keep in mind that Mr. Albright has been reporting negative nuclear profiliration on India as well as Pakistan. He has never wanted both our countries to have nuclear at all. With such biased individual, i am glad the US gov't is not even communicating with this person.

And Michael Moore, he is simply a nut case. Ofcourse my personal opinion about this man.

 

[Goodperson]

So, IPI deal is successfully sabotage, through this deal.

No its still on, But this is not the right thread to discuss about.

 

[Goodperson]

Pardon the cynicism Vinod, but as of a few months ago India was opposing Pakistani weapons sales to Vietnam and Sri Lanka.

I'll buy this shift from being 'Pakistan centric' when I see policies that actually will have an impact - unlike in this situation where we all know that there is almost nothing India can do to influence the outcome.

Irony is prior to India's Nuclear deal Pakistan openly opposed it, Now if at all Pakistan goes for the deal India has already affirmed its position wrt to it.
Remove cynicism take optimistic view.

 

[Goodperson]

Neo keep in mind that Mr. Albright has been reporting negative nuclear profiliration on India as well as Pakistan. He has never wanted both our countries to have nuclear at all. With such biased individual, i am glad the US gov't is not even communicating with this person.

And Michael Moore, he is simply a nut case. Ofcourse my personal opinion about this man.

Albright should be addressed as She and she was the first lady "Secretary of state in US"

 

[Vinod2070]

AM, my comments were more at a strategic level. Pakistan is becoming an increasingly smaller component of the Indian strategic outlook and I guess the reverse is also true to an extent.

The incidents you mention are minor tactical issues. The nuclear deal is a strategic issue and India has already made clear that we have no issues with that.

Its a welcome development for both sides as far as I see it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, my comments were more at a strategic level. Pakistan is becoming an increasingly smaller component of the Indian strategic outlook and I guess the reverse is also true to an extent.

The incidents you mention are minor tactical issues. The nuclear deal is a strategic issue and India has already made clear that we have no issues with that.

Its a welcome development for both sides as far as I see it.

The proof will be in the pudding - again, if India cannot even allow 'minor tactical issues' to go by without attempting to undermine Pakistan, then its focus has not changed.

If the focus has changed, it is welcome indeed, but I need to see tangible evidence of that first.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Irony is prior to India's Nuclear deal Pakistan openly opposed it, Now if at all Pakistan goes for the deal India has already affirmed its position wrt to it.
Remove cynicism take optimistic view.

Not entirely true - Pakistan opposed the Nuclear deal because it had genuine concerns that it would allow India to violate safeguards and boost production of its WMD stockpile, and this would be a unilateral boost - i.e. only India would get to violate those safeguards.

Now the deed is done, Pakistan's argument of a similar deal is to restore balance, along with meeting its own genuine energy needs.

There is nothing ironic about it.

 

[Neo]

Albright should be addressed as She and she was the first lady "Secretary of state in US"

Huh?? Aren't you confused with Madeline Albright?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Putting it in somewhat offensive tone for a lack of better phrase .. as you are so you think others to be i.e. I believe that Pakistanis think that India is involved in anti-Pak activities because they feel India is retaliating for the misdeeds of their govt and prove all those ex-Raw bosses disclosures and defections as false and staged.

To be honest I find it hard to digest that India would be involved in terror attacks in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan etc. (Balochistan, Taliban etc.)

If Pakistan has proof it must bring attention at any opportunity, forcefully, globally & at all platforms so that the Indian public becomes aware of the clandestine nature of their govt.'s support to Islamic terrorism which has claimed thousands of lives in India as well.

Indian govts claims about Pakistan and ISI have been substantiated and acknowledged by the world, though it took some time, so their reputation viz a viz Pakistan is far greater.

It will be a tough task for Pakistan to muster enough credibility to portray India as the one who promotes Islamic terrorism and Pakistan, the world and India itself surprisingly is a victim of their govt's nefarious activities. If India is really guilty of it and Pakistan is the victim, I don't see why justice wouldn't be served ?

But if such is not the case then these empty statements are meant to divert attention from the real issues, now the tricky part for a Pakistani would be whether to trust the Indians/Yohood-e-Nasr or Pakistanis?

What evidence in support of terrorism has India given, other than reports compiled by its own intel. and LEA's?

On that count Pakistani intel and LEA's have their own reports implicating India.

When the Pakistani Defense attaches confronted an Indian security official at a conference about providing evidence, the respond was that India did not do so because it was being 'neighborly' - hogwash.

Pakistan has supported freedom fighters in Kashmir, fighting in disputed territory, not in India, that we admit. Evidence in support of Pakistan officially supporting terrorism in India is about just as good as the evidence Pakistan has about Indian complicity in terrorism in Pakistan. Pakistani officials have repeatedly voiced the allegation of Indian complicity. In fact, Pakistan as late as this summer provided the US evidence of Indian complicity in Baluchistan - once more a case of double standards. US interests are not served by yanking India's chain at this point.

However we are going on a tangent - you completely misunderstood my earlier post. I was not talking about whether Pakistani accusations are credible or not, rather pointing out to you that Pakistanis do not 'flatter' themselves by viewing India as 'Pakistan centric' they have genuine concerns over its activities and policies as they relate to Pakistan - and those concerns as validated given India's actions and policies since Independence.