Pakistan must not be used for terror, Singh tells Zardari

[jeypore]

Pakistan obviously is afraid of losing the last bargaining chip on Kashmir.


Indians care about economic prosperity and peace much more than Kashmir (taken on average, especially with Manmohan at helm). Pakistani public opinion is one of fear of a big neighbour and "we'll starve for Kashmir". So obviously in a deal about Kashmir, they want the perception that "make a deal, or else"- the or else part is the one which seems to link every single issue in India to Kashmir.

And that gives justification for freedom fighters!!!

First of all the political scene is link with the issue of Kashmir in Pakistan, and the one that screams the loudest wins. Currently the only reason Zardari is not doing so because his hands are tide with the talibs, but the actions of GoP is played out very well, it is status quo. The strategy is very simple kill the talib movement keep the kashmir movement. And if any thing that happens in between Call them Non-State actors.

 

[Spitfighter]

Terrorism is subjective isn't it.

The Mukti Bahini could wear uniforms and organiza themselves into whatever force they wanted to, the fact remains that they were a non-government entity wielding arms and fighting the government of Pakistan through violence.

Many of East Pakistan rebels were also trained in Indian camps per Manekshaw and authors like Raina.

Raina also argues that Indian involvement in destabilizing East Pakistan started in the 1960's.

I was referring to Indian support for the Northern Alliance warlords.

Lets not compare apples and oranges here, rebels, separatists are not in the same league as terrorists. For example Naxals only target the military or the police they almost never harm civilians, even the LTTE did not target civilians, it was always political or military targets. The mukti-bhani also primarily targeted the military. These guys were rebels, they were locals who were trying to force change.

Terrorists on the other hand, like LeT, target civilians and other soft targets, they like hitting things like trains, shopping malls, hotels and schools, furthermore, nearly all the people involved in terrorist attacks that are of significant magnitude are foreign (at least in India's case), there were no kashmiris involved in any attacks in recent history. So there is clearly a distinction here.

They may have started out as rebels, but that's not the case anymore. As such it is Pakistan's responsibility to end any and all support for these people and prevent them from using Pakistani soil to plan attacks on India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

East Pakistan has been explained above. And what about Afghanistan? Despite what you and many others espouse in Pakistan, no other country has even bothered to acknowledge that Pakistan's accusations are even remotely valid.

East Pakistan has not been explained - just because a violent insurgent group wears a uniform does not cahneg the dynamics involved. I suppose Pakistan supporting the Kashmir freedom movement is alright so long as we make sure they wear matching camo!

And I clarified the context of my reference to India supporting proxies in Afghanistan - the alleged support for insurgents in Pakistan through Afghanistan in the present is not something I am getting into at the moment.

SriLanka?? Has India not stopped support for LTTE for decades now? Need i remind you, that the ONLY reason why SLA defeated LTTE recently has been because of India. India has been supporting Sri-Lanka in its war for a long time, visible material support however is kept to a minimum because of sensitivities in South India.

Just like US stopped support for Taliban for over decades now. Times change, however Pakistan still harbours the militants and training camps.

Just as Pakistan has topped sending militants across the LoC, and helped almost eliminate the insurgency in Kashmir.

Pakistan also no longer supports the Afghan Taliban.

That you stopped supporting certain groups does not hide the fact that India has 'employed terrorism as an extension of State policy'.

Do read the recent reports about ISI being involved in smuggling weapons to insurgents in North East India.

Has anything beyond the newspaper report allegedly blaming the ISI come about?

Yes it has, a good while back. Pakistan however seems to be the only one left holding the baton of supporting militancy in other countries now.

Hogwash - as pointed out above, Pakistan no longer supports as a matter of state policy either the Taliban or the Kashmiri groups activities in either Afghanistan or Kashmir respectively.

Heck the British PM has had to say that 2/3rds of all the terrorist activities there have links to Pakistan. Why is Pakistan the center for Global terrorism? Why does the rest of the world point its finger directly at Pakistan?

The British are not accusing the Pakistani government of supporting terrorism - lets not disingenuously twist facts to make a dishonest point.

The links that do exist are the result of the Afghanistan debacle and the groups that fought there. That is precisely what the recent military actions against the Taliban are intended to prevent.

 

[wtf]

I don't think the Pakistani establishment really buys the argument that Hafiz Saeed was involved, because I don't think any conclusive evidence has been presented linking him to Mumbai, but it is going along on that count to ease international pressure.

I mean, this evidence cannot be that secretive and classified - eventually you need to present it in a court of law, yet we have almost no idea of what exactly the case against Saeed is based on, other than the fact that he used to be part of the LeT.

The claim is that evidence in the Indian Dossier was not presented to the courts and that the evidence in the Lahore courts was all from Pak Intelligence.

The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | No proof against Saeed: Court

Anyway, as long as he is in Pakistan and Pak intelligence continue to not produce evidence against him, nothing will ever be proved in any court. And I guess, you could potentially continue to say "there was no evidence".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Lets not compare apples and oranges here, rebels, separatists are not in the same league as terrorists. For example Naxals only target the military or the police they almost never harm civilians, even the LTTE did not target civilians, it was always political or military targets. The mukti-bhani also primarily targeted the military. These guys were rebels, they were locals who were trying to force change.

Terrorists on the other hand, like LeT, target civilians and other soft targets, they like hitting things like trains, shopping malls, hotels and schools, furthermore, nearly all the people involved in terrorist attacks that are of significant magnitude are foreign (at least in India's case), there were no kashmiris involved in any attacks in recent history. So there is clearly a distinction here.

They may have started out as rebels, but that's not the case anymore. As such it is Pakistan's responsibility to end any and all support for these people and prevent them from using Pakistani soil to plan attacks on India.

The East Pakistan rebels committed plenty of atrocities against non-combatant West Pakistanis and supporters of West Pakistan that existed. Those were soft targets.

The Northern Alliance warlords did the same.

The IA is also accused of committing numerous atrocities against the local Kashmiri population by international HR groups.

And if separatists are not in the same league as 'terrorists', then no need to btch about Pakistani support for the Kashmiri freedom movement.

The point here is that too many Indians apply double standards - you supported terrorism and used it as an extension of state policy in numerous places, yet single out Pakistan for it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The claim is that evidence in the Indian Dossier was not presented to the courts and that the evidence in the Lahore courts was all from Pak Intelligence.

The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | No proof against Saeed: Court

Anyway, as long as he is in Pakistan and Pak intelligence continue to not produce evidence against him, nothing will ever be proved in any court. And I guess, you could potentially continue to say "there was no evidence".

I have not read through the entire Indian dossier - mostly I have picked up reports related to its content (in the case of Shah and Lakhvi) from articles in the press.

Would you mind posting the contents in the dossier related to Saeed?

 

[wtf]

I have not read through the entire Indian dossier - mostly I have picked up reports related to its content (in the case of Shah and Lakhvi) from articles in the press.

Would you mind posting the contents in the dossier related to Saeed?

There was a list of items in the Dossier in one of the articles. I'll post it if I can hunt it down. I don't think the actual text is public yet (except for interrogation statement of Kasab and the Phone call transcripts).

UPDATED: Some of the contents of the first dossier here . Does not seem to include the DNA evidence, pictures etc.
The most obvious one I could spot is the Muridke training facility of LeT where Kasab was trained.
http://www.hindu.com/nic/dossier.htm

 

[Energon]

I have to disagree with Agnostic Muslim on this point again.

Despite all the counterarguments there is nothing palpable that suggests that when it comes to the employment of terrorism as a frontline state policy that India and Pakistan have been equals.

Pakistan is very much unique in this regards as are its problems on account of the blowback.

even the LTTE did not target civilians, it was always political or military targets

Please tell me you're joking. The LTTE not only targetted civilians for assassinations (most of which aren't even recorded or documented since they were from "competing" tamil groups) but they also used child soldiers, which is to date one of the ghastliest form of civilian abuse. They were an out and out terrorist organization, which is why they lost all support from governments who actually cared about the Tamils.

**EDIT**

I suppose Pakistan supporting the Kashmir freedom movement is alright so long as we make sure they wear matching camo

In some ways it would actually be better to formally induct these people into the PA (matching camo and all) and launch a direct military offensive if Pakistan is really that intent upon taking Kashmir from India.

 

[Contrarian]

I opt out. We've been going in circles over the same issues in different threads at different times.

 

[wtf]

And that gives justification for freedom fighters!!!

First of all the political scene is link with the issue of Kashmir in Pakistan, and the one that screams the loudest wins. Currently the only reason Zardari is not doing so because his hands are tide with the talibs, but the actions of GoP is played out very well, it is status quo. The strategy is very simple kill the talib movement keep the kashmir movement. And if any thing that happens in between Call them Non-State actors.

Again, theoretically, if Kashmiri groups trained in Pakistan, then wore uniforms and attacked Indian Army, it would be very difficult to call them terrorists. I am not saying that would justify anything, but it would be near impossible to get UN to accept them as terrorists.But India would clearly see the attack as an act of war from Pakistan.
(Actually that is pretty much what happened in Bangladesh, Pakistan declared war on India first and then Indian Army and Mukti Bahini moved in).

The Kashmiri terrorists currently do not wear uniforms and mostly kill civilians (And chase out the Pandits). Their acts are clearly meant to terrorize. I don't think I can see in what way they could be called anything else.


BTW, I have this hope that maybe Zardari understands that if you give people guns and train them, at some point of time they will turn against you. Attack on Benazir (by Talibs? Lal Masjid Gang? ) and the fallout of the deals with Taliban should have taught him that. And it is for this reason that I think he may be harder on Kashmiri terrorists than anyone else has been. How Kayani will play it out is questionable.

 

[wtf]

I opt out. We've been going in circles over the same issues in different threads at different times.

Thanks for the pointer. I'll follow you out.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have to disagree with Agnostic Muslim on this point again.

Despite all the counterarguments there is nothing palpable that suggests that when it comes to the employment of terrorism as a frontline state policy that India and Pakistan have been equals.

Pakistan is very much unique in this regards as are its problems on account of the blowback.

The employment of terrorism by India on so wide a scale as to split apart a nation is something yet to be matched by Pakistan.

In terms of the 'blow back' of the covert policies pursued by the two nations, yes, Pakistan has come out worse. But there is little to distinguish the two nations in terms of how often they have utilized 'terrorism as an instrument of state policy'.

Again, East Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka are testament to that, and while India has not suffered the 'blow back' of India's involvement in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankans certainly have.

In some ways it would actually be better to formally induct these people into the PA (matching camo and all) and launch a direct military offensive if Pakistan is really that intent upon taking Kashmir from India.

Given that we are not supporting the groups in doing so any more, a bit of a moot point.

That does not take away form the absurdity of the argument that putting matching uniforms on violent insurgents, as is the claim here in terms of Indian support for terrorists in East Pakistan, somehow makes it more 'acceptable'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I opt out. We've been going in circles over the same issues in different threads at different times.

Not repeating the same canard, of Pakistan supports terrorism and ignoring India's own 'employment of terrorism as an instrument of state policy', again and again would help.

In any case - peace.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually that is pretty much what happened in Bangladesh, Pakistan declared war on India first and then Indian Army and Mukti Bahini moved in

That is patently untrue - India was supporting destabilizing elements in East Pakistan starting from the sixties. India's 'official' involvement began only after Pakistan realized what Indian intentions were, with the situation in EP spiraling out of control.

Manekshaw and Raina both admit that Indian involvement preceded the massive flood of refugees and the Pakistani declaration of war.

 

[Goodperson]

I opt out. We've been going in circles over the same issues in different threads at different times.

No need to go circle over the crisp and clear message from PM Dr Manmohan Singh which is the thread title. Pakistan PM's embarrassment sums it all.