Manmohan Singh's hypocrisy

[HAIDER]

SHARM EL SHEIKH: In what appeared to be a move to neutralise criticism by some opposition circles in his country to the agreement with Pakistan to resume talks and rebuild ties damaged after the Mumbai attacks, Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh appeared to contradict what he had committed in the joint statement he had signed here earlier on Thursday with his counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani.
Talking to the international media, Dr Singh explained the main points in the joint statement in which the two leaders agreed that action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process.
But a little later, talking to a group of Indian journalists, he said that peace talks with Pakistan would remain on hold until Islamabad took action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks last year.

‘A composite dialogue cannot begin unless and until the terrorist attacks that shook Mumbai are accounted for and the perpetrators of these heinous crimes brought to book,’ Mr Singh said.

DAWN.COM | World | Singh moves to pacify Indian Opposition

 

[LiberalPakistani]

this should not come as a suprise..............................remember 1971 the ugly truth India always denied its involment is anything Pakistan should denie any charges regarding to terrorist because the Kashmire Mujahideen need a morale boost by calling them "terrorist" than Pakistan give its dream up for getting Kashmire....we've never learned from our past.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nehru set the standard ... what's new?

 

[zombie]

just following jinnahs footsteps.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

just following jinnahs footsteps.

What did Jinnah promise to India and the world as the leader of a nation, that he backtracked on?

 

[jeypore]

Nehru set the standard ... what's new?

Lets talk about Backtracking:

We will Send High offical of ISI, next day no we will not.
Kasab is not Pakistanie, Kasba is Pakistanie.
Etc.... that we all no about.

Lets talk about recently,

Zardari says that in our old policy we did habor terrorist camp (oopps he actually meant "freedom fighter" camps). Next day no he meant to say they where cold war policy issues.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Lets talk about Backtracking:

We will Send High offical of ISI, next day no we will not.

Did we say that we would send the ISI chief in an official joint statement?

Lets not compare apples and oranges here.

Kasab is not Pakistanie, Kasba is Pakistanie.

India was refusing to share any evidence or cooperate - so why expect Pakistan to accept India's word, or go by what the media was stating?

Etc.... that we all no about.

All irrelevant comparisons.

Lets talk about recently,

Zardari says that in our old policy we did habor terrorist camp (oopps he actually meant "freedom fighter" camps). Next day no he meant to say they where cold war policy issues.

Sorry, but could you post the first quote attributed to him?

 

[jeypore]

Did we say that we would send the ISI chief in an official joint statement?
Lets not compare apples and oranges here.

So Mr. Am "Official joint Statement" represent a statment from the GoP, the chief of the Army, and the head of ISI. So Pakistan really needs to make a organization that extrapolates from these governing bodies and make a real offical statement then, isn't it!!!

I am comparing apples to apples, there is no dening the Zardari and company has made lots of offical statements and next day Mr. Ramin would correct it. If link is needed it is not hard to do in this case.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So Mr. Am "Official joint Statement" represent a statment from the GoP, the chief of the Army, and the head of ISI. So Pakistan really needs to make a organization that extrapolates from these governing bodies and make a real offical statement then, isn't it!!!

I am comparing apples to apples, there is no dening the Zardari and company has made lots of offical statements and next day Mr. Ramin would correct it. If link is needed it is not hard to do in this case.

Please understand the difference between the leaders of two nations getting together for talks with their assistants, and issuing a joint statement at the end after exhaustive discussions and arguments lasting over hours, and a President merely suggesting that he would send XYZ individual to another country for talks.

 

[third eye]

India puts Pakistan talks on hold

BBC NEWS | South Asia | India puts Pakistan talks on hold

India will not start peace talks with Pakistan until the Mumbai attacks suspects are brought to justice, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said.

Mr Singh was speaking after meeting his Pakistani counterpart in Egypt.

A joint statement said the two countries would co-operate to fight terrorism - and this should not be linked to wider peace talks.

The talks were suspended after the Mumbai (Bombay) attacks in which militants killed more than 160 people.

India has accused Pakistan-based fighters from the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba of carrying out the attacks.

Pakistan has admitted they were partly planned on its soil - and vowed to do all it can to bring the suspects to justice.


Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Mr Singh met in Egypt, on the sidelines of a summit of the Non-Aligned Movement.

It was third high-level meeting between the two nuclear-armed neighbours since the Mumbai attacks last November, which brought an abrupt halt to peace talks.


Both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries

"Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and co-operate with each other to this end," the joint statement from the talks said.

"Pakistan has provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks," the statement said.

The two leaders also agreed to "share real-time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threat".

Last week Pakistan said the trial of five men suspected of involvement in the attack on Mumbai's Taj Hotel was likely to start this week.

The prime ministers' joint statement said action on terrorism "should not be linked to the composite dialogue process" - which includes talks on the disputed territory of Kashmir.


The Mumbai attacks led to a freeze in ties between the two countries
The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says many in India were likely to see this as a major climb-down in Delhi's stance.

But later, Mr Singh told a news conference: "Composite dialogue cannot begin unless and until terrorist heads which shook Mumbai are properly accounted for, [and] perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to book."

Mr Gilani told the BBC he was confident things were moving in the right direction - and he was happy that the Pakistanis had supplied new intelligence of interest to the Indians.

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 AM ----------

Please understand the difference between the leaders of two nations getting together for talks with their assistants, and issuing a joint statement at the end after exhaustive discussions and arguments lasting over hours, and a President merely suggesting that he would send XYZ individual to another country for talks.

Either way , its a comment coming from a head of state. Does this suggest that the Pres can make sweeping statements & get away with it ?

 

[afriend]

Well.. i read the story after the joint statement.. and i guess now its nowhere to be found in indian media. May be indian government understood the goof up and withdrew it or may be some wrong interpretation of some journalists.

However if he have contradicted thats not a good sign for our stable diplomacy. And there is no point in comparing it with pakistan. They have their own share of contradictions.. but we should concentrate more on making sure we dont do that.

 

[Fracker]

& i was thinking about solving kashmir issue, and friendship between india and pakistan..

 

[Spitfighter]

Did we say that we would send the ISI chief in an official joint statement?

Lets not compare apples and oranges here.

India was refusing to share any evidence or cooperate - so why expect Pakistan to accept India's word, or go by what the media was stating?

All irrelevant comparisons.

Sorry, but could you post the first quote attributed to him?

Lets not get confused here. Pakistan is no angel. You accuse India of hypocrisy?

Have we forgotten Kargil already? do you remember any of the BS the GoP was spewing about peace and stability before Pakistan occupied Indian bunkers in Kashmir? not to mention how Pakistan did not admit that the intruders were Pakistani regulars, same old freedom fighter, non state actor garbage. Not that the rest of us didn't know any better though.

It has been the state policy of Pakistan for close to two decades to train, arm and infiltrate terrorists across the LoC, Pakistan merely put the insurgency on hold after the Americans demanded an end to it, not because they cared but only because they needed Pakistan to play its front line role in the WoT.

You talk as if Pakistan has been nothing less than a forthcoming and sincere neighbor trying its best to work together, but alas, India has been sooo 'uncooperative'. The GoP needs evidence against people they've trained, armed and who live within your country? Don't insult my intelligence.

I wonder where a bunch of kids would learn such sophisticated tactics?

There has been no change in state policy, once the pressure lets up Pakistan will pick up right where it left off. Peace is an imperative, but India should not waste its time if Pakistan is going to lead us in circles all over again.

Terrorism will not be legitimized, therefore dismantling it will remain a prerequisite to any dialogue.

 

[Fracker]

Even if I accept what ever you said, can you tell us why exactly this all started? if you had solved the kashmir issue, wouldn't interfere in Bangal.. then thing would be much better then today. It is habit of hypocrite indians to 1st forward the peace hand, when time comes to implement things, they back stab.

Ps: i never wanted to be anti-indian, but you guyz don't deserve friendship. Indian will always be anti-Pakistan..

 

[Spitfighter]

it started when the PA intervened in Kashmir in 1947. Then again in 1965, 88 and 99.