Indians At It, Again

[Bang Galore]

What part of the Supreme Court's actions so far have not been constitutional?

Why should people who disagree with the government, its policies and those who support it/them not call them out for what they are or how they perceive them? Are you not advocating against freedom of speech here?

The SC issue is a recent one, the campaign of villification has gone on for a lot longer than that.

You are at liberty to disagree with your government or its supporters, I'm not arguing the merits of the case. My point was limited to the observation that those calling others fascists can also be hit with the very same charge. Insistence of one's own opinion as the only correct one & favouring the disabling of the government by whatever means necessary, simply because one belives that it isn't behaving, in what one assumes is national interest is, I believe, taking the freedom of speech argument a tad too far.

 

[KS]

BTW what is the big deal again ?

Indians are not your friends exactly and we are only doing what we are supposed to be doing.

I don't understand the nautanki and especially one by Ahmed Qureshi who cant even write a high school essay properly.

 

[RazPaK]

There has to be trust and balance in power. The government(elected by the Pakistani people) should have power over the PA. Its not the PA job to take the government to court its the job of the people of Pakistan to remove the government from power if they don't like the way they are performing.

The PA is also an extension of the people, and attempts to demonize them will only empower them further.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But as an Indian,I get the distinct impression that Pakistan is throwing a spanner into the efforts of India deliberately and just for the sake of throwing a spanner.

Pakistan is not calling for a roll-back of India's exemptions, it is calling for an extension of those exemptions to Pakistan - I don't see how this could be construed as 'throwing a spanner into the works of India'.

# When Hillary Clinton made the proposition to India to engage the East as an addendum to our "Look East" policy and this is something that has little relevance to Pakistan and yet it was Pakistan that came up with the retort "not going to accept any chaudry in the region". Why must Pakistan be so presumptuous in it's mindset as to think everything is aimed at them?

I don't think the response mean that US comments were aimed specifically at Pakistan (IMO) but reflected a general opposition to the perceived push to make India a nation that would act as a 'hegemony' in the region - region would include Pakistan as well.

# Why bring up the topic of training troops in the immediate aftermath of India's proposal? You do realize it does look like Pakistan trying every trick of the trade to negate India's efforts from our side.

Why not? As I pointed out, the proposals have been long running - Pakistan would have been blamed for being 'reactive' regardless of when it reiterated its position, since it would technically be 'after the Indian proposal'. Why not call out India or trying to negate Pakistan's efforts and being a copy-cat since Pakistan had been making these proposals for a while? Don't you see this as being rather silly? Criticizing one country or the other over the fact that country X made a proposal after country Y announced a similar proposal? Both nations have interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan more so given geography and ethnic ties, so it stands to reason that Pakistan would continue voicing its proposals for training the Afghan security forces.

Would you accept it if the Indian government goes out on it's way to deliberately harm Pakistan's interests as a nation even where they are not required? Haven't we shown support and cooperation in non essential regions be it by voting for Pakistan in the UN or offering an MFN status more than a decade back.Where is the reciprocity in intentions?

I don't really see any attempt by Pakistan to 'deliberately harm India's interests as a nation' in the examples you discussed above.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The SC issue is a recent one, the campaign of villification has gone on for a lot longer than that.

The campaign of vilification has been the doing of the PPP led government - it has been the result of its shenanigans at playing Machiavelli and absolutely piss-poor governance. Had it chosen to govern rather than play political games, it would not find itself in the position it has so frequently.

My point was limited to the observation that those calling others fascists can also be hit with the very same charge. Insistence of one's own opinion as the only correct one & favouring the disabling of the government by whatever means necessary, simply because one belives that it isn't behaving, in what one assumes is national interest is, I believe, taking the freedom of speech argument a tad too far.

If I did not believe my opinion to be correct, I would not waste time arguing it. However, the fact that I do argue it means I am also open to counter-arguments.

IMO the 'fascist' label for people such as NFP, Kamran Shafi etc. is appropriate since they display a singular lack of tolerance for the religio-cultural views of 'conservative Pakistanis' - and I am not talking about things like 'beating your wife, treating women like second class citizens' but just a general denigration of all conservatives day in and day out over their perceived overt religiosity and desire to see Pakistan follow an independent foreign policy.

There is rarely any 'logical/rational' refutation of the positions taken by conservatives on national security or foreign policy - its usually just snide and derogatory commentary.

BTW, since KS is choosing to avoid the question, do you agree that certain Pakistani 'liberals' are hypocritical in the extreme in cheering/supporting US extra-judicial massacres via drone strikes and ops, while condemning extra-judicial killings allegedly by the Pakistani security forces?

Has the HRCP ever strongly condemned US drone strikes and US military ops in Pakistan?

 

[lem34]

There was a reason I put the post OP. The reason was that I am frankly fed up of seeing TV interviews on news channels and in press when there is "neutral analyst come expert brought on" who clearly has ulterior motives. Here in the west we have it all the time. We have a situation that they supposedly report in a neutral way they then bring an analyst who has his own axe to grind and then pass it off as informative neutral journalism which it is not.

Surely if there is a problem in a country you should try to bring on someone who has some expertise rather than ulterior motives. The other alternative would be if they want to play fair bring on two people with opposing views and then the viewer or reader can make their own mind up.

For Indian members how would you like an Indian Problem (and both India and Pakistan have problems) to be aired and then without asking an Indian "expert" they put on Hamid Gul or someone as an expert who suggests how to right Indian problems

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Pakistan would not benefit from a weakened PA, Pakistan would benefit from a strong and effective government - the two are not mutually exclusive.

True but worst things that happened to Pakistan when it was under military rule. ex: Zia era extremism, 1971

 

[Areesh]

So how is Supreme court asking PM to appear in the supreme court for not following Supreme court's orders is non democratic?

Writer seems to have some weird definition for the word "democracy".

 

[cyphercide]

Pakistan is not calling for a roll-back of India's exemptions, it is calling for an extension of those exemptions to Pakistan - I don't see how this could be construed as 'throwing a spanner into the works of India'.

Of course you wouldn't.Being from our respective countries,we are conditioned to track only our gains or losses.While you see the prospective as;

"Great if we could seal the contract along with India.It lends credibility to our nuclear program and if the deal goes kaput,it probably will throw water to India's request."

I see it as;

"Why does Pakistan want to barge into something that our diplomats worked their behinds off in securing? Deal with Australia,no issues in that.Just don't use our name as leverage."

I don't think the response mean that US comments were aimed specifically at Pakistan (IMO) but reflected a general opposition to the perceived push to make India a nation that would act as a 'hegemony' in the region - region would include Pakistan as well.

My sentiments exactly.Why bother,right? Yet the loudest of noises come from the Pakistani camp.Does India blast Pakistan for it's warm ties with China or cry foul if a nuclear agreement comes into being amongst the two?

Why not? As I pointed out, the proposals have been long running - Pakistan would have been blamed for being 'reactive' regardless of when it reiterated its position, since it would technically be 'after the Indian proposal'. Why not call out India or trying to negate Pakistan's efforts and being a copy-cat since Pakistan had been making these proposals for a while? Don't you see this as being rather silly? Criticizing one country or the other over the fact that country X made a proposal after country Y announced a similar proposal? Both nations have interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan more so given geography and ethnic ties, so it stands to reason that Pakistan would continue voicing its proposals for training the Afghan security forces.

I don't really see any attempt by Pakistan to 'deliberately harm India's interests as a nation' in the examples you discussed above.

Silly how? Any Pakistani minister could've easily specified that this has been Pakistan's intentions(if your claims of Pakistan making such an advance prior to India are true)for a while and sorted the whole matter out.Instead,it looks like a counterclaim as it currently stands.

I am not saying Pakistan must not pursue it's independent foreign policy but kindly refrain from using India as a talking point to get across.It makes your diplomats look juvenile with their "Humein bhi chahiye" approach to things.Imagine if India started on a similar policy,it would make for some interesting claims!!!

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Does India blast Pakistan for it's warm ties with China or cry foul if a nuclear agreement comes into being amongst the two?

Yes, and yes.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Does India blast Pakistan for it's warm ties with China or cry foul if a nuclear agreement comes into being amongst the two?

Oops.

India sees red over China-Pak nuclear deal - IBN Live

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I see it as;

"Why does Pakistan want to barge into something that our diplomats worked their behinds off in securing? Deal with Australia,no issues in that.Just don't use our name as leverage."

Pakistani diplomats would still have to 'bargain their behinds off' when it came to the terms of any 'nuclear agreement' - the current focus on the Indian exemption is to merely try and argue for 'equal treatment' in terms of being given the option of a civilian nuclear agreement.

The problem is not with Pakistan's stance, the problem is with the manner in which India was offered an NSG exemption - there are no rules for 'exemptions'. Technically the Indian exemption flies against the central principle of the NSG itself - of not engaging in nuclear trade with NPT non-signatories. So like it or not, referencing the Indian exemption is the only 'established rule for exemption' that Pakistan can use.

Were the NSG to establish a set of guidelines and objectives it wished NPT non-signatories to abide by and implement before being considered for an 'exemption', Pakistan would probably have no reason to reference India. The situation here is not of Pakistan's creation - Pakistan is merely trying to work with what it has.

My sentiments exactly.Why bother,right? Yet the loudest of noises come from the Pakistani camp.Does India blast Pakistan for it's warm ties with China or cry foul if a nuclear agreement comes into being amongst the two?

Perhaps the other nations do not have any issues with Indian hegemony, why should it matter to Pakistan what they think? Pakistan perceived those US comments as indicative of a push to make India the regional hegemon, and Pakistan expressed its displeasure with that.

And yes, India has in fact raised a lot of hue and cry over Pakistan's nuclear cooperation with China, especially in the wake of its own NSG agreement. If anything, India's objections to Pak-China nuclear cooperation fit the bill of 'deliberately harm Pakistan's interests as a nation' better than Pakistan's attempts to obtain an NSG exemption similar to India's.

Silly how? Any Pakistani minister could've easily specified that this has been Pakistan's intentions(if your claims of Pakistan making such an advance prior to India are true)for a while and sorted the whole matter out.Instead,it looks like a counterclaim as it currently stands.

I don't see why Pakistan should offer a history of its position on any policy every time it issues a statement, just because of the fear of being branded 'reactive'.

I am not saying Pakistan must not pursue it's independent foreign policy but kindly refrain from using India as a talking point to get across.It makes your diplomats look juvenile with their "Humein bhi chahiye" approach to things.Imagine if India started on a similar policy,it would make for some interesting claims!!!

Again, the nature of India's NSG exemption, as I argued above, leaves no choice but to use the Indian exemption itself as a template to argue for an exemption for Pakistan - the NSG has no other avenue or rules or processes outlined that Pakistan could try and follow to obtain its own exemption.

 

[Areesh]

Many Indians are a living example of what blind bigot and hatred can do to an individual. Nothing strange with that article of WSJ or many other articles of Indians if we keep this basic fact in mind.

 

[cyphercide]

Pakistani diplomats would still have to 'bargain their behinds off' when it came to the terms of any 'nuclear agreement' - the current focus on the Indian exemption is to merely try and argue for 'equal treatment' in terms of being given the option of a civilian nuclear agreement.

The problem is not with Pakistan's stance, the problem is with the manner in which India was offered an NSG exemption - there are no rules for 'exemptions'. Technically the Indian exemption flies against the central principle of the NSG itself - of not engaging in nuclear trade with NPT non-signatories. So like it or not, referencing the Indian exemption is the only 'established rule for exemption' that Pakistan can use.

True.India's diplomatic wing worked tirelessly to bring the disapproving back on the table whether the case was to push through with the Indo-US nuclear deal or to secure Uranium exports from Australia which is still on shaky ground.What's stopping Pakistan from trying the same approach rather than arguing against India's claim and being detrimental to our cause?Being an IAEA member,India didn't vote against Pakistan's nuclear reactors.Concerned?Yes,Voted against Pakistan? No.So it's hard to agree with the rationale that Pakistan didn't have any choice .

Were the NSG to establish a set of guidelines and objectives it wished NPT non-signatories to abide by and implement before being considered for an 'exemption', Pakistan would probably have no reason to reference India. The situation here is not of Pakistan's creation - Pakistan is merely trying to work with what it has.

Like I stated,It depends on which side of the fence you are on.What Pakistan is following makes sense for them but considering the ruptured ties with the West,even Pakistan has a fair idea on the exemption going sour with or without quoting India's case.So why persist? Surely,your diplomats can fare better

Perhaps the other nations do not have any issues with Indian hegemony, why should it matter to Pakistan what they think? Pakistan perceived those US comments as indicative of a push to make India the regional hegemony, and Pakistan expressed its displeasure with that.

The fact that only Pakistan made a fuss over it is disconcerting.But like you said,to each his own.I would also like to point out,as claimed by many members that India has problems with all it's neighbors,not many came and expressed dissent on the development.

And yes, India has in fact raised a lot of hue and cry over Pakistan's nuclear cooperation with China, especially in the wake of its own NSG agreement. If anything, India's objections to Pak-China nuclear cooperation fit the bill of 'deliberately harm Pakistan's interests as a nation' better than Pakistan's attempts to obtain an NSG exemption similar to India's.

I don't see why Pakistan should offer a history of its position on any policy every time it issues a statement, just because of the fear of being branded 'reactive'.

Again, the nature of India's NSG exemption, as I argued above, leaves no choice but to use the Indian exemption itself as a template to argue for an exemption for Pakistan - the NSG has no other avenue or rules or processes outlined that Pakistan could try and follow to obtain its own exemption.

India didn't vote against Pakistan for it's additional reactors.Showing concern and withdrawing support are two completely different things.

I think I have made my thoughts clear on the topic,not many other ways to repackage where I stand on the matter.We don't use Pakistan as a crutch to get ahead in any arena and it would be great if Pakistan follows suit.I am going to leave it at that.

 

[joekrish]

There was a reason I put the post OP. The reason was that I am frankly fed up of seeing TV interviews on news channels and in press when there is "neutral analyst come expert brought on" who clearly has ulterior motives. Here in the west we have it all the time. We have a situation that they supposedly report in a neutral way they then bring an analyst who has his own axe to grind and then pass it off as informative neutral journalism which it is not.

I do agree with the reasons of you starting this thread but strongly disagree with the title you have given it, the title gives away the very intention you had opening this thread.

In your own very words you have shown the anger and frustration you had watching the interviews on the channels that broadcasted the programs, your anger on them is justified but on an Indian who attended the interview is the hight of stupidity. We are countries who have caught wars, it would be surprising if the indian guy did not say what he did, I'm sure that if a Pakistani person was asked to talk on an Indian problem he would 100% do the same thing and I would expect him to do that.

BLAME IT ON THE MEDIA NOT ON THE INDIAN.