Who the hell is so cruel ?

[RajsParadise]

.. In the paradigm of an uncertainty its quiet evident that the incompetence or self denial are construed as a saviour to protect one's own lameness.

.. I bet you on this one, even if Kashmir issue gets resolved Pakistan will try to digress every act committed by its own in their home land,as a covert act of Indian Raw, or a perpetual design of GoI because the very sustenance of terrorism in Pakistan evolves from the word India and you know what, guess who talk about Kashmir all the times when it comes to have a strong standing in Pakistan and why?

.. with a billion people and sustained economic and democratic policies India is on a path of progress of its own nature, and let me not compare India to any other developing nation because we are what we are at the end of the day.

.. I believe that the fanaticism of word India would never diminish in Pakistan even after Kashmir is resolved cause when the sky becomes clear it will be hard to digest the fact that, its own people might have engraved or I should say encroached upon her sovereignty.

.. I wouldn't dwell into who is politically, economically or militarily superior, but what baffles my logic is how long this episode of India-Pakistan will continue, its getting boring more than that Shaas Bhau thing.

.. and at times when I go to certain thread and just read the comments, I tend to think, and just to check myself I made my entire team to read the comments on the forum and they just don't understand the deeply rooted hatred among each other here. (I work in an MNC).

.. Look back at the days when India cricket team toured Pakistan for the first time in 2004, I was baffled by the generosity and attitude of Pakistanis towards touring Indians then. Politicians are politically motivated but why are ordinary citizens like us compel ourselves to get overwhelmed by these things.

 

[wtf]

To the extent that India pushed hard for the LeT arrests and closures, her position was justified. The LeT did indeed cross the line by doing what they did.


The Indians knew that neither the Pakistani military nor the government had any interests in vitiating the atmosphere with something like the Mumbai attacks, given how close we were to a breakthrough in our relationship. Pakistan had also held to its end of the bargain in drastically cutting of cross-LoC infiltration and maintaining the ceasefire, yet the GoI chose to completely destroy all the goodwill that had been generated under Musharraf and the peace process.

Thanks.

Remember what Indians said ? They said Pakistan speaks with many voices and that Zardari was honest in his fight against terror. I don't think that even Indian govt. believed that the govt. was involved in the attacks (the foreign minister specifically asked for the non-state actors to be handed over).

This is a reaction to what happened with the earlier peace process. The civilian government said we'll talk, India said we'll talk, but then the military went ahead and did Kargil. So I am assuming that India suspected that this time, while Zardari/Musharraf wanted peace, some other power center in Pakistan may be involved in destabilizing the talks and that some people within the establishment may be involved (esp. when Pakistan said they would not hand anyone over).

As far as Mumbai goes, I think the issue was handled better than most issues have been handled between the countries (by both sides).

Don't confuse Indian position with what happens on Indian "Talk shows" - many of them are there on the shows only because they generate sound bytes and tend to be on the extremes of opinion.

And is the fact that India did not consider it an act of war not indicative of India's belief that it was not an action from Pak. govt. ? I mean 200 lives in Mumbai need to be accounted for, so is not some amount of aggression justified ? Anyway, I don't know, but I think trading insults is better than trading bullets?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

On the other hand the list you made seems to include every sort of trouble you seem to be having - Come on, what does India have to do with NWFP ? The first link I get when I google NWFP + India is this one which says Taliban is not just Pakistans problem.

The Taliban is not only Pakistan's problem

I forgot to respond to this -

Support (diplomatic) for Afghan efforts to raise the issue of Pashtunistan was given by Nehru post-Independence, but the movement failed miserably.

I am not convinced the Indians are involved in the North West currently, though I do believe that they remain involved in funneling funds to the Baluch insurgents.

 

[jeypore]

To the extent that India pushed hard for the LeT arrests and closures, her position was justified. The LeT did indeed cross the line by doing what they did.

However, the Indian government did engage in blaming Pakistani institutions, and continuous 'leaks' and 'official sources' vilified Pakistan and her military from day one, and to a smaller degree continue to do so. That was unacceptable from a Pakistani perspective, especially when you look at the back channel diplomacy that had almost resulted in a breakthrough on Kashmir and other major issues under Musharraf. The GoI's position poisoned the atmosphere between the peoples of both nations and the sabre rattling distracted from the WoT.
The Indians knew that neither the Pakistani military nor the government had any interests in vitiating the atmosphere with something like the Mumbai attacks, given how close we were to a breakthrough in our relationship. Pakistan had also held to its end of the bargain in drastically cutting of cross-LoC infiltration and maintaining the ceasefire, yet the GoI chose to completely destroy all the goodwill that had been generated under Musharraf and the peace process.

Again, I contrast that with the official position Pakistan takes on the Baluch insurgency and other terrorist attacks in Pakistan = we have just as much reason, if not more, to point the finger at India for these terrorist attacks, yet the GoP sticks with the vague 'possible foreign hand' statement, because the GoP does not ostensibly want to create an atmosphere that precludes any meaningful dialog, even if unofficial.

Mr. Am, you know as well as I do, the biggest contingency for the back channel diplomacy on the Kashmire issue was to stop all cross border terrorism and LOC skirmishes. With a delicate relations between the two countries if any of this incendent did realise, would have put an end to the diplomacy at work. In Musharaff reign, it did come very close to fruition.

What would be the purpose of LeT attack on Mumbai was regarding? Was it to stop the diplomacy. I believe so.

Then why blame India, since it was all in Pakistan control to stop the illegal organization.

 

[dbc]

I have always argued that whether the Indians are involved in funneling money and weapons to the militants in the North West of Pakistan is moot from the standpoint of Pakistan addressing the security threat in the present. So long as we cannot control our own tribal areas, we will find it hard to address the threat from beyond our borders, if it exists. Our primary objective and focus must therefore be on restoring the writ of the government on every inch of Pakistani soil.

I also think it is important for a single power center to emerge and assert itself in Pakistan, the absence of leadership is apparent. Imagine for a minute a Pakistani Nelson Mandela, FDR, Winston Churchill or Jinnah emerging to take charge and steer Pakistan towards the vision of its founding fathers. Cometh the hour, cometh the man/women . If General Kiyani is that man so be it, Democracy can wait..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Anyway, I don't know, but I think trading insults is better than trading bullets?

I think that the two hundred lives lost would have been better served with an honest assessment and engagement with Pakistan. The only way those lives can be avenged is by bringing the perpetrators to justice, not by scapegoating Pakistan to appease domestic opinion, though I understand that such is the need of politicians anywhere.

You are correct though that the reaction to this crisis paled in comparison to the one in 2002, perhaps because the GoI did realize that there was no support or knowledge of the Mumbai attacks at any official level.

 

[wtf]

For example, the recent allegations of Pakistan supporting the Bangladesh Border Guard mutiny were iniitated and pushed vigorously not by the Bangladeshi media, but the Indian! And links connecting the ISI to the North East troubles were again bandied about.

I think Times of India was the one posting that one. ToI is a hit or miss thing.They have been accused of doing anything for newspaper sales (Read this one about selling editorials -http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FE18Df05.html) . On the other hand they sometimes come up with surprisingly good news.

A well respected voice of India would be "The Hindu" or if you want something that is honest, but often wrong, "The Indian Express".
A better source of Info on all things North East is B Raman who writes on Rediff (he actually worked for RAW in the same area). He has been silent so far.

( Raman's strategic analysis: Search results for bangladesh )

All things said, don't confuse India with Times of India

Anyway a background on Assam/Bangladesh etc. - Assam/Bangladesh share a complicated border. And there is huge amount of immigration from Bangladesh ( I have actually met a few immigrants as far away as Bangalore). So it is a common point of tension between India & Bangladesh. It is also known that ULFA runs into neighbouring countries whenever there is trouble (Bhutan actually lead their army to clear out the mess). This much atleast is fact.

So when a gunrunner known to be favouring ULFA is implicated in a BDR issue and opposes Sheikh Hasina , there is a tendency to put stories together - especially for someone who makes money selling news.

The real truth will come out much later, Sheikh Hasina has asked for a UN enquiry on the 1971 War Trials (allegedly the motivation for Pak Intervention in Bangladesh). I doubt that the trials were a big enough motivation for Pakistan to get involved.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I also think it is important for a single power center to emerge and assert itself in Pakistan, the absence of leadership is apparent. Imagine for a minute a Pakistani Nelson Mandela, FDR, Winston Churchill or Jinnah emerging to take charge and steer Pakistan towards the vision of its founding fathers. Cometh the hour, cometh the man/women . If General Kiyani is that man so be it, Democracy can wait..

Unfortunately I believe the time for a non-democratic (or non-Islamist autocratic leadership) has passed us for good with the passing of Musharraf. The media and sections of society will not accept such a leadership, as should be apparent from the pro-judiciary protests. In addition, a non-Islamist autocratic leadership will give the extremists even more reasons to continue their activity, and find support amongst the people, by playing the 'dictator regime' card.

The future has to be a democratic one, though not necessarily in the mold of Western Democracies. I think the model we saw in play with the current government may perhaps be ideal. The military remains on the sidelines when it comes to governing except when times of crises force its intervention. That intervention should however be limited to encouraging the power brokers to compromise and resolve the situation, and not to take control of the country.

Democracy is a messy process, more so in a country such as Pakistan with the political elite also largely being Feudal/Tribal, and the problems confronting it. There is however no option IMO but for the Pakistani political elite and Pakistani society to go through this process and for the former to learn their duty is to serve the public, or the latter to gain enough awareness to kick the former out of the political scene. The Army can perhaps act as the safety valve on the system, a valve that will hopefully be used less and less as Pakistani systems and institutions mature.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Sorry late with this, got interrupted:

Wtf:
Bane Blade’s comment just reflects many such comments about this forum. So my comment is not as such directed at him as to all same scapegoat approach.

And sorry BUT it is an ostrich behaviour when things happen ad all one does is blame some outside source for ones own failings. Since most here suddenly rush off to a case of “India did it”, “Its RAW’s fault”, “US is anti what ever/pro this or that” it is an ostrich approach.

The thing is no one from this forum is going to drag anything to the UN or Interpol because they don’t have anything but some blind belief.

As for the GoP, its the same as the GoI, always the innuendo; neither useful nor useless, but pure politics at the gutter level.

You talk of conspiracy theories; yes much can be laid to simple things as trust in government, the education, the press. But culture, that is an acquired issue so that would stem from some distance back many generations to percolate to the extent it has.
In the so called technological/internet age the media carries a huge weight of blame.

AM; I would agree to most of this:
It is by no means a stretch to imagine this kind of ideology as having spread its tentacles in Pakistan and wreaking similar havoc.

I have always argued that whether the Indians are involved in funneling money and weapons to the militants in the North West of Pakistan is moot from the standpoint of Pakistan addressing the security threat in the present. So long as we cannot control our own tribal areas, we will find it hard to address the threat from beyond our borders, if it exists. Our primary objective and focus must therefore be on restoring the writ of the government on every inch of Pakistani soil.

jeypore:
The concept of propaganda war does not in the mentality of today’s world have to be directly controlled by a government. In the Mumbai attack the worst opportunist being the media and its hype. The propaganda side was theirs and their backers. But the government has some say but did not; hence it can be construed simply that the government by not doing anything is also a contributor to such propaganda.
The GoI would have politically been smarter to denounce the media for the hype.

Not sure what you mean here as it could imply somethings totally unwarranted on your part:
mumbai attack was a great source for India to play propaganda war towards Pakistan, or was it credible justification for India to push Pakistan.

Part carries the implication that the Mumbai attack was justification for India to push Pakistan, implies India had something to do with that attack and hence its needed use.
Somehow I don’t think that was your intension.

Going on what I think you actually meant, simply is both nations stopped the somewhat odd behaviour of finding each other at fault for all issues and cooperated with serious intent both will not need subtleties to do any prising.
But I suppose that is just pushing thing a tad too much at present.

 

[wtf]

I forgot to respond to this -

Support (diplomatic) for Afghan efforts to raise the issue of Pashtunistan was given by Nehru post-Independence, but the movement failed miserably.

Are you talking about "Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan" aka Border Gandhi? Actually our (atleast mine) history text books do mention him as a great freedom fighter and uniquely non-violent.
Outside of the text books, people talk about India abandoning NWFP post independence (while Kabooliwala's were all the rage in the late 80s). Some were blaming Nehru for leaving NWFP & Bacha Khan to Pakistan so that he could come to power in India.

Thats all I have heard about that part of Pakistan in India - I don't think anyone here cares. There are no news from NWFP in Indian media, there is no talk from politicians, nothing. I have not yet heard of anyone wanting that territory to be part of India or for Pashtoon Independence.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

.. and at times when I go to certain thread and just read the comments, I tend to think, and just to check myself I made my entire team to read the comments on the forum and they just don't understand the deeply rooted hatred among each other here. (I work in an MNC).

To understand this 'hatred' please read the preceding sections of your own post, that I'll paste below for your convenience:

.. In the paradigm of an uncertainty its quiet evident that the incompetence or self denial are construed as a saviour to protect one's own lameness.

.. I bet you on this one, even if Kashmir issue gets resolved Pakistan will try to digress every act committed by its own in their home land,as a covert act of Indian Raw, or a perpetual design of GoI because the very sustenance of terrorism in Pakistan evolves from the word India and you know what, guess who talk about Kashmir all the times when it comes to have a strong standing in Pakistan and why?...

.. I believe that the fanaticism of word India would never diminish in Pakistan even after Kashmir is resolved cause when the sky becomes clear it will be hard to digest the fact that, its own people might have engraved or I should say encroached upon her sovereignty.

Would you not say that in the above lines you did exactly that which you were raging against? Vilify and denigrate the 'other'? And what sort of response would you expect in return?

I make no bones about the fact that I am a nationalist to the core, but do not construe my criticism of India as 'hatred' for Indians - it is just that criticism and an attempt to point out that for all the finger pointing at Pakistan, Pakistan has as much reason to do the same to India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Are you talking about "Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan" aka Border Gandhi? Actually our (atleast mine) history text books do mention him as a great freedom fighter and uniquely non-violent.
Outside of the text books, people talk about India abandoning NWFP post independence (while Kabooliwala's were all the rage in the late 80s). Some were blaming Nehru for leaving NWFP & Bacha Khan to Pakistan so that he could come to power in India.

Thats all I have heard about that part of Pakistan in India - I don't think anyone here cares. There are no news from NWFP in Indian media, there is no talk from politicians, nothing. I have not yet heard of anyone wanting that territory to be part of India or for Pashtoon Independence.

I am not sure whether KAGK was directly involved, I doubt that, though he may have been a factor in Nehru's plans later on.

My understanding of this issue is that Nehru supported the idea because of the Indo-pak war of 1948, and on the other side, Pakistan's official entrance into the war was driven by a need to deny India geographical proximity to the NWFP (an argument made by the British commander at the time surprisingly) and subsequently have a strong base to push for a Pashtunistan movement in conjunction with the Afghans.

 

[Proud2Indian]

To the extent that India pushed hard for the LeT arrests and closures, her position was justified. The LeT did indeed cross the line by doing what they did.

However, the Indian government did engage in blaming Pakistani institutions, and continuous 'leaks' and 'official sources' vilified Pakistan and her military from day one, and to a smaller degree continue to do so. That was unacceptable from a Pakistani perspective, especially when you look at the back channel diplomacy that had almost resulted in a breakthrough on Kashmir and other major issues under Musharraf. The GoI's position poisoned the atmosphere between the peoples of both nations and the sabre rattling distracted from the WoT.

The Indians knew that neither the Pakistani military nor the government had any interests in vitiating the atmosphere with something like the Mumbai attacks, given how close we were to a breakthrough in our relationship. Pakistan had also held to its end of the bargain in drastically cutting of cross-LoC infiltration and maintaining the ceasefire, yet the GoI chose to completely destroy all the goodwill that had been generated under Musharraf and the peace process.
Again, I contrast that with the official position Pakistan takes on the Baluch insurgency and other terrorist attacks in Pakistan = we have just as much reason, if not more, to point the finger at India for these terrorist attacks, yet the GoP sticks with the vague 'possible foreign hand' statement , because the GoP does not ostensibly want to create an atmosphere that precludes any meaningful dialog, even if unofficial.

In past Indian offcials has talked "Foreign Hand" without naming any country. They named Pakistan this time because they had evidence.

Its same with Pakistan. Till they are not able to get evidence to link terror attacks with India, they can't name it.


tx

 

[Proud2Indian]

Thank you for acknowledging the lack of a Pakistani connection with the North East problems, but the impressions one gains from other Indian forums and the media is somewhat different from yours.
For example, the recent allegations of Pakistan supporting the Bangladesh Border Guard mutiny were iniitated and pushed vigorously not by the Bangladeshi media, but the Indian! And links connecting the ISI to the North East troubles were again bandied about.


Your media is not merely satisfied with blaming Pakistan for everything under the sun in India, but cheer-leading efforts to link us to anything that goes wrong in other countries as well, with some pretty absurd conspiracy theories - but point out to me one Western analysis that paints this inane conspiracy mongering by Indians as 'a distorted world view' or 'paranoia.

The brunt of those comments is to be solely born by Pakistanis and Muslims apparently.

From attitudes such as these I cannot but form an extremely critical opinion of Indian intentions towards Pakistan (and the West to some degree)

And what you say abt Pakistan media talking abt RAW involvement in BD. Do they talked based on some proof? Media in both countries are to make money. Increase TRP.


tx

 

[RajsParadise]

Originally Posted by: AgNoStIc MuSliM

Would you not say that in the above lines you did exactly that which you were raging against? Vilify and denigrate the 'other'? And what sort of response would you expect in return?

At this point I would only says that our perceptions differ because you were not able to read between the lines, rather than hatred its just an anguish to see the denigrating approach towards each other and I believe you might have missed on the abstract part in the end where I quoted the exemplary behavior of Pakistani's during 2004.

.. I am not looking for an optimistic response coz my assertive way with a concrete approach would not blemish the fundamental and rudimentary believes imbibed in any one in just a matter of phrase but i am certain not seeking a hostile approach either.

.. My emphasis, to put in simple words is, if continental agencies and governments follow a holistic approach towards each other, why in the hell are we persuading them and why. As per opinions expressed by learned members here from both sides the eventuality is nothing but a grave yard dig for ourselves.