Indian Double Standards on Terrorism

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well you beat someone to ground with an iron rod and if he picks up a rock and hits back, he becomes a terrorist. And then you have the gall to talk about someone else's moral bankruptcy.

And you are complaining about the atrocities committed by the Kashmiri insurgents and the Mumbai attacks, after tens of thousands of Kashmiris massacred, raped and tortured by Indian security forces, why?

You seem to conform to the belief that speaking a lie loud enough convinces people about its validity.

I conform to the belief that you cannot defend atrocities and terrorism on one hand (India in 1971) and condemn it when it affects you (J&K).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This was in response of your statement denying India any standing to protest the insurgency in the Indian state of J&K. Didnt realize it was off topic since it responds to your determination that India does not have this standing. If I misunderstood, then my bad.

Indians use the pretext of 'oppression and denial of rights to East Pakistanis' as an excuse for covert intervention in East Pakistan in 1971, they have no standing to criticize Pakistani support, moral or otherwise, to insurgents fighting in Kashmir, given the occupation of Kashmir and the oppression and subjugation of Kashmiris.

Your comments were an off topic rant because they dealt with a perception of Pakistan, whereas my argument you quote above, of no legitimacy to Indian protestations on J&K, is based on the fact that India and Indians defend support for terrorism/insurgency in East Pakistan while condemning it in J&K.

So please, refrain from the emotional off topic rants.

Firstly, your owning up has no relevence. Its the Pakistani State that needs to own this up for this comparison to make any sense.

But lets say it does.. Let me ask you a question first.. Pakistan's support for insurgency in J&K is as old as 1948. Didn't you guys protest against India's activities in 1971 while glorifying your support for Kashmiri insurgency since 1948. How come you had the standing..?? When you can promote insurgency in Kashmir and condemn India's action in East Pakistan, India can do the same. If anything, Pakistan started it...

Actually, owning up or not has no relevance here at all, since India believes we are and criticizes Pakistan for that and I say sure, assume that allegation of support to be correct - since India glorifies and justifies support for insurgents/terrorists in 1971, it has no grounds to be criticizing insurgents/terrorists in J&K.

The invasion of J&K in Kashmir has its match in Indian actions to annex Junagadh and Hyderabad, neither of the latter two with the consent of the rulers of those particular Princely States. What standing did India have in occupying those two States?

And sure, assume Pakistan had the standing to attempt an insurgency in 1965 after Indian obstinacy to allow self-determination, and then later in 1989, and India had the standing to support an insurgency in 1971, by that yardstick the insurgency in J7K also has 'legitimacy and standing' and it is Indian protestations that are illegitimate.

Hence my point, either condemn all instances of supporting insurgency, or condemn none and accept them all as having legitimate standing.

Did

Not really - you haven't explained why selective support for insurgents/terrorists is an acceptable position to take.

I am not confusing that with the court of justice at all. It did not endorse the killings by Bengalis, however did term that as a response to PA Army's genocide against them. Bengalis just refused to turn the other cheek as PA expected. In this case, the terrorist got terrorised back. I call it a response (unfortunate) to a genocide and not a terroist action.

The international press reports I quoted in the other thread pointed to atrocities and killings by Bengali rebels both before and immediately after the Military Operation. The timelines do not allow for the canard of 'motivated by genocide' to work in this case.

About selection of the jurists and the credibility of their opinion, it definitly has more than any report published by Pakistan which is the real culprit in this situation.

Reports in Pakistan that drew extensively on eyewitness testimony and quoted the international media as well, and were extremely critical of the MLA's actions, and therefore offer a very well researched and balanced account.

Thats what your opinion is. Unfortunately does not match the rest of the world's.

Don't worry about the 'rest of the world', worry about illustrating why Indian support for terrorists and insurgents in East Pakistan in 1971 and condemnation of them in J7K is not a double standard.

Instead you are too busy justifying the murders of innocent men, women and children.

 

[Aslan]

The attitude of the indians here can be summed up with only one thing...........

 

[toxic_pus]

That determination, 'nature and scale', is not yours to make - from Pakistan's perspective, the denial of the right to self-determination, multiple rigged elections, tens of thousands massacred, raped and killed by the Indian security forces, and the deployment of hundreds of thousands of soldiers to enforce the occupation of a people is more than enough cause to support insurgents fighting against Indian occupation and State terrorism.

The above argument assumes that Pakistan is entitled to have a perspective on Indian side of Kashmir. (That famous Pakistani sense of entitlement !!!!).

Anyway, I was going through some old newspaper articles about Pakistani genocide of Bengalis in 1971. The editorial in The Guradian on 14th April, came up. A tiny excerpt:

Pakistani defence policy (and the whole existence of the generals) rests on confrontation with India over Kashmir. Pakistan alleges that India holds the Pakistani loving Kashmiris in check by steely repression. It is the most ludicrous of cases now, as the junta of Islamabad openly exercises just such repression on 75 million bona-fide Pakistanis. The United Nations will surely collapse in bitter laughter if Kashmir comes up again. The issue is as dead as the students of Dacca University.​

I have uploaded a scanned pdf (165 KB) of the editorial, here.

It appears that your crocodile tears never fooled anyone, and they still don’t.

The insurgents did not make that choice, the Indian State did, by unilaterally rejecting the option of self-determination for the Kashmiris and annexing the State.

And Pakistan unilaterally refused to implement the pre-conditions to such 'self-determination', which in any case was India's self imposed obligation.

But even accepting for argument's sake, that it was India's choice that made the insurgents to chose, the question remains, when the choice has already been made why do you keep asking for plebiscite?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The above argument assumes that Pakistan is entitled to have a perspective on Indian side of Kashmir. (That famous Pakistani sense of entitlement !!!!).

And who gave India a 'sense of entitlement' in East Pakistan?

That famous Indian double standard on terrorism and all else under the sun related to Pakistan!!!!

Anyway, I was going through some old newspaper articles about Pakistani genocide of Bengalis in 1971. The editorial in The Guradian on 14th April, came up. A tiny excerpt:

Pakistani defence policy (and the whole existence of the generals) rests on confrontation with India over Kashmir. Pakistan alleges that India holds the Pakistani loving Kashmiris in check by steely repression. It is the most ludicrous of cases now, as the junta of Islamabad openly exercises just such repression on 75 million bona-fide Pakistanis. The United Nations will surely collapse in bitter laughter if Kashmir comes up again. The issue is as dead as the students of Dacca University.​

I have uploaded a scanned pdf (165 KB) of the editorial, here.

It appears that your crocodile tears never fooled anyone, and they still don’t.

Thanks - but snide rhetoric in an editorial does not do away with the dichotomy of the Indian stance on supporting terrorism in East Pakistan and protesting it in J&K.

And Pakistan unilaterally refused to implement the pre-conditions to such 'self-determination', which in any case was India's self imposed obligation.

We have had this discussion elsewhere, and you were unable to conclusively show that Pakistan had to unilaterally implement any pre-conditions before both parties to the dispute, India and Pakistan, came to an understanding with the UN appointed rapperteurs/commission.

And given your penchant for hijacking threads onto any subject but the topic at hand, please respond to the above in the relevant thread where a large part of the discussion has already been held.

But even accepting for argument's sake, that it was India's choice that made the insurgents to chose, the question remains, when the choice has already been made why do you keep asking for plebiscite?

It is not just an 'argument', it is fact that India unilaterally refused to allow Kashmiris the right to self-determination, and the choice to take up arms is with the specific goal to gain that right to self-determination, or more generally, 'freedom', hence the continued focus on self-determination.

 

[prodevelopment]

Agno

Difference between India and Pakistan is:

India admits to openly helping Mukhti Bani while criticising insurgency in Kashmir.

Pakistan criticised insurgency in Bangladesh yet admits of providing 'moral support' to Kashmiri insurgents.

Everyone knows how hollow that 'moral support' bullshit is. You admitted it yourself.

So let the Pakistani Establishment admit in open support of Kashmiris. Then we'll have equally hypocritical nations. Till then, Indian double standards are slightly less than the Pakistani.

 

[Aslan]

Agno

Difference between India and Pakistan is:

India admits to openly helping Mukhti Bani while criticising insurgency in Kashmir.

Pakistan criticised insurgency in Bangladesh yet admits of providing 'moral support' to Kashmiri insurgents.

Everyone knows how hollow that 'moral support' bullshit is. You admitted it yourself.

So let the Pakistani Establishment admit in open support of Kashmiris. Then we'll have equally hypocritical nations. Till then, Indian double standards are slightly less than the Pakistani.

It still stinks less then the clever cloth of deception in the name of Gandhism that you guys wear in front of the world while back stabbing others. Like they say bagal main churi and mun main ram ram. As far as Pakistan is concerned we have accepted our stance in front of the whole world. Unlike our eastern neighbors who apparently are never at fault.

 

[prodevelopment]

It still stinks less then the clever cloth of deception in the name of Gandhism that you guys wear in front of the world while back stabbing others. Like they say bagal main churi and mun main ram ram. As far as Pakistan is concerned we have accepted our stance in front of the whole world. Unlike our eastern neighbors who apparently are never at fault.

Agreed about Indian Hypocrisy there. But has Pakistani really accepted their stance in front of the world? What's this 'moral support' bullshit I keep hearing then?

Come out in the open. Koi bhi doodh ka dhula nahi hai. We all have our faults.

Step 1 is to admit it.
Step 2 is to start taking steps to rectify them.

 

[foxbat]

And you are complaining about the atrocities committed by the Kashmiri insurgents and the Mumbai attacks, after tens of thousands of Kashmiris massacred, raped and tortured by Indian security forces, why?

I conform to the belief that you cannot defend atrocities and terrorism on one hand (India in 1971) and condemn it when it affects you (J&K).

Cause and effect my dear Watson.. By your definition, collateral damage caused by PA in SWAT etc is also terrorism. Its not because its in response to a preceeding terrorism by the Taliban..

In East Pakistan, the real mass scale terrorism was practised by the Pakistan Army. Hence that was the terrorist. Bengalis responded thru revolt which had Indian backing. That stopped the terrorism of PA and had colleteral damage which you talk of. Still was of a lower magnitude than 3 million kiiled by the Pakistan Army as claimed by many..

In Kashmir, again, it was the Pakistan Establishment who used the policy of state sponsored insurgency/terrorism in 1948, 1965 which went up exponentially in 1988 resulting in deployment of the army with the colleteral damage

Your arguement ignores that in both cases the real acts of terrorism were committed by parts of Pakistani Establishment.

What you call terrorism in EP was an unfortunate response to the acts of PA, which were unfortunate, but the blame of that lies at the door of Pakistan and not India or Bangladesh. Hence no one in the world including Pakistan Establishment formally blames Bangladesh for those acts but blames Pakistani Army as a perp of genocide.

And hence its Pakistan without a standing on this and not India. Pakistan committed atrocities in Bangladesh and is condemned for it

Pakistan backed militants commit atrocities on civilians in J&K and rest of India and hence get condemned..

 

[toxic_pus]

And who gave India a 'sense of entitlement' in East Pakistan?

I am guessing, thousands of refugees, who poured in during the weeks following PA’s crackdown in Dacca and who threatened to completely ruin our border economy and demographic balance.

Thanks - but snide rhetoric in an editorial does not do away with the dichotomy of the Indian stance on supporting terrorism in East Pakistan and protesting it in J&K.

That ‘snide remark’ is indicative of how fatuous your argument of Pakistani’s ‘perspective’ of Indian Kashmir is.

We have had this discussion elsewhere, and you were unable to conclusively show that Pakistan had to unilaterally implement any pre-conditions before both parties to the dispute, India and Pakistan, came to an understanding with the UN appointed rapperteurs/commission.

So even UN rapperteur’s comments in black and white is not enough. OK. If you say so.

And given your penchant for hijacking threads onto any subject but the topic at hand, please respond to the above in the relevant thread where a large part of the discussion has already been held.

Aye aye kapitan.

It is not just an 'argument', it is fact that India unilaterally refused to allow Kashmiris the right to self-determination, and the choice to take up arms is with the specific goal to gain that right to self-determination, or more generally, 'freedom', hence the continued focus on self-determination.

You did not just say that, did you?

You mean, the insurgents want their right to choose. So they chose Pakistan to arm them to the teeth so that they can demand from India their right to choose Pakistan.

OK. If you say so.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agno

Difference between India and Pakistan is:

India admits to openly helping Mukhti Bani while criticising insurgency in Kashmir.

Pakistan criticised insurgency in Bangladesh yet admits of providing 'moral support' to Kashmiri insurgents.

Everyone knows how hollow that 'moral support' bullshit is. You admitted it yourself.

So let the Pakistani Establishment admit in open support of Kashmiris. Then we'll have equally hypocritical nations. Till then, Indian double standards are slightly less than the Pakistani.

We don't have to admit to anything while supporting an insurgency - India wasn't going around bragging about its covert support to East Pakistani rebels at the time either.

Expressing overt support, or not, is irrelevant to the principle of supporting or condemning insurgency - either you condemn all support for insurgents or you accept that they all have a degree legitimacy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Step 1 is to admit it.

So what if Pakistan openly admits it? Will India suddenly say that, oh sorry, we condemn Indian support for terrorism in 1971. India already blames Pakistan for supporting the J&K insurgency, so the argument that accepting support for the J7K insurgency will change anything is pointless.

On the other hand, if India condemns its own support for the insurgency in East Pakistan, then its protestations on J&K can be considered legitimate - otherwise it is double standards.

 

[foxbat]

Your comments were an off topic rant because they dealt with a perception of Pakistan, whereas my argument you quote above, of no legitimacy to Indian protestations on J&K, is based on the fact that India and Indians defend support for terrorism/insurgency in East Pakistan while condemning it in J&K.

So please, refrain from the emotional off topic rants.

You are wrong sir..While it is a fact that Indians support what happened in East Pakistan, but its just your opinion (a Pakistani) that it was terrorism. And since you floated a Pakistani opinion on India's standing, my response on the credibility of Pakistan to have an opinion on India's standing is perfectly valid. Please understand that your opinions are not facts simply because they are yours..

Actually, owning up or not has no relevance here at all, since India believes we are and criticizes Pakistan for that and I say sure, assume that allegation of support to be correct - since India glorifies and justifies support for insurgents/terrorists in 1971, it has no grounds to be criticizing insurgents/terrorists in J&K.

Oh but it does. Getting caught in a lie goes a long way to prove guilt. And Pakistan has been caught in lies around this insurgency multiple times(Kasab, Kargil etc).

And your rest of the arguement is a strawman as what is happening in Kashmir is the action started by Pakistan in 1948 and what happened in East Pakistan was a reaction to the terrorism and genocide of Pakistani Army.

The invasion of J&K in Kashmir has its match in Indian actions to annex Junagadh and Hyderabad, neither of the latter two with the consent of the rulers of those particular Princely States. What standing did India have in occupying those two States?

Irrelevant to the topic of East Pakistan and Kashmir. dont hijack the topic please..

And sure, assume Pakistan had the standing to attempt an insurgency in 1965 after Indian obstinacy to allow self-determination, and then later in 1989, and India had the standing to support an insurgency in 1971, by that yardstick the insurgency in J7K also has 'legitimacy and standing' and it is Indian protestations that are illegitimate.

This line was ok to be towed if you did not protest during 1971 of India's participation since as per above arguement, we had the standing. But you did. That makes our protests now fairly legitimate.

Hence my point, either condemn all instances of supporting insurgency, or condemn none and accept them all as having legitimate standing.

Right after you condemn insurgency in J&K, since you did the same in East Pakistan.

Not really - you haven't explained why selective support for insurgents/terrorists is an acceptable position to take.

Did that and did it again.. Because they were not terrorists but victims hitting out. You cant start beating someone all over and then ask him to follow the rules of boxing.

The international press reports I quoted in the other thread pointed to atrocities and killings by Bengali rebels both before and immediately after the Military Operation. The timelines do not allow for the canard of 'motivated by genocide' to work in this case.

They do. The escalation in violence only happened after the Army's reposne. If you go thru the ICJ report, you will know why it was the Pakistani Army that was the terrorist there.

Reports in Pakistan that drew extensively on eyewitness testimony and quoted the international media as well, and were extremely critical of the MLA's actions, and therefore offer a very well researched and balanced account.

But cant be admitted as unbiased because Pakistan Army was the perpetrator of genocide in East Pakistan and hence any account that could have been influenced by the Pakistani state can not be treated as valid.

Don't worry about the 'rest of the world', worry about illustrating why Indian support for terrorists and insurgents in East Pakistan in 1971 and condemnation of them in J7K is not a double standard.

Instead you are too busy justifying the murders of innocent men, women and children.

Because India condemns terrorism in J&K and supported a response to terrorism of Pakistani Army in East Paksitan. Thats what the world believes, Indian believes and I believe.

And sir, its you who is justifying the murder, rape and terrorism by Pakistani Army in East Pakistan by calling the reaction to that as terrorism while ignoring the actions that led to that reaction

 

[prodevelopment]

So what if Pakistan openly admits it? Will India suddenly say that, oh sorry, we condemn Indian support for terrorism in 1971. India already blames Pakistan for supporting the J&K insurgency, so the argument that accepting support for the J7K insurgency will change anything is pointless.

What will happen if Pakistan openly admits to supporting insurgency in J&K? Well, for starters, it'll make the resolution of this issue a lot easier. There will be tremendous mutual trust between the two sides that this time the opposite party really wants to resolve this issue rather than just playing games.

On the other hand, if India condemns its own support for the insurgency in East Pakistan, then its protestations on J&K can be considered legitimate - otherwise it is double standards.

India has, over the past 60 yrs, supported many insurgent movements. India supported the LTTE in the beginning. However, India felt that the collateral damage happening was just too great and therefore withdrew its support.

In case of Mukti Bani, the entire movement was over within an year. The loss of life was minor as compared to years of atrocities by the PA.

It's not double standards, it's different solutions for different situations.

It's upto Pakistanis to decide whether over 20 years of killings by these insurgents, is it worth their support?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Cause and effect my dear Watson.. By your definition, collateral damage caused by PA in SWAT etc is also terrorism. Its not because its in response to a preceeding terrorism by the Taliban..

The cause in this case would be the occupation and denial of self-determination to the Kashmirs my dear Holmes, the insurgency was in response to oppression by the Indian State on that count.

In East Pakistan, the real mass scale terrorism was practised by the Pakistan Army. Hence that was the terrorist. Bengalis responded thru revolt which had Indian backing. That stopped the terrorism of PA and had colleteral damage which you talk of. Still was of a lower magnitude than 3 million kiiled by the Pakistan Army as claimed by many..

In East Pakistan the rebels practiced 'mass terrorism', both before and after the Military Operation, and before any 'genocide canard'. And there remains no evidence that anywhere over a couple of hundred thousand were killed by both sides in 1971, but that is a topic discussed in several other threads already.

And Indian support for the rebels in EP started long before the 'millions' canard could be applied.

In Kashmir, again, it was the Pakistan Establishment who used the policy of state sponsored insurgency/terrorism in 1948, 1965 which went up exponentially in 1988 resulting in deployment of the army with the colleteral damage

Again, unless you condemn India's actions in Junagadh and Hyderabad, you really have no standing to be criticizing Pakistani actions in 1948. The rest of your post is just a distortion of facts - there was no 'continuing insurgency' from 1965 to 1988 that was 'stepped up' by Pakistan. The attempt to spark an insurgency in 1965 failed, and a second attempt to spark an insurgency in 1989 succeeded, which continues to this day. But in any case, if you are condemning those incidents of supporting insurgency, then you must also condemn the Indian support of insurgency in East Pakistan.

This double standard of supporting terrorists on one hand in East Pakistan and condemning them in J&K de-legitemizes your protestations about 1965, 1989 and anywhere else you can think of.

Your arguement ignores that in both cases the real acts of terrorism were committed by parts of Pakistani Establishment.

Not at all- in 1971 the GoP had the right to deploy the military to quell a violent rebellion that had seen atrocities committed both before the military operation and days after it.

In J&K it is India that has 'oppressed' the locals, through denial of self-determination and rigged elections - to argue 'terrorism by Pakistan' is just a canard to deflect away from Indian double standards on terrorism.

What you call terrorism in EP was an unfortunate response to the acts of PA, which were unfortunate, but the blame of that lies at the door of Pakistan and not India or Bangladesh. Hence no one in the world including Pakistan Establishment formally blames Bangladesh for those acts but blames Pakistani Army as a perp of genocide.

Genocide has never been proven, those that accuse Pakistan do so without any credible evidence backing their claims, but again, discussed in other threads.

And the events this canard of 'genocide' is built upon, occurred after Indian support for EP rebels and after EP rebel atrocities had occurred, so it has no bearing on the point of Indian support for the insurgents/terrorists in EP.

And hence its Pakistan without a standing on this and not India. Pakistan committed atrocities in Bangladesh and is condemned for it

Pakistan reacted militarily to atrocities committed, and instability caused, by East Pakistani militants. Indian support for the EP rebels and terrorists occurred long before any so called 'genocide', and therefore an alleged event that occurred after the fact (of Indian support for insurgents) cannot be used as justification for Indian State support for terrorists/insurgents.

Had India supported the insurgents in 1972, after the so called 'genocide', then your argument might have some validity.

Pakistan backed militants commit atrocities on civilians in J&K and rest of India and hence get condemned..

East Pakistani militants committed atrocities in East Pakistan before and days after the Military Operations - innocent men, women and children were massacred and burnt alive - where is your condemnation for that? You conveniently ignore those acts of terrorism, or try to offer excuses for them, in order to justify Indian support for those committing those atrocities.

What moral turpitude, and Indians have the gall to suggest that it is Pakistanis with 'hate' and other nonsense in their 'DNA'. The moral bankruptcy of many Indians is clearly displayed on the pages of this thread.