Why India came back to the negotiating table

[rajeev]

So what do we do, find people at a JUD rally and arrest them? For what? For making speeches and chanting slogans? You need a bit more than that to get them into a courtroom and prosecute.

JuD is a banned outfit. You mean the ban didnot work and they disappeared after the street rally and after the speech.

For your reference:
Pakistan bans Jamaat, arrests Hafiz Saeed - Pakistan - World - The Times of India

Jama'at-ud-Da'wah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TechLahore]

My contention is that whenever Pakistan decides to go to war, the war settlement should happen after a nice punch by Indian army.

We don't agree on history. So you can't list out your version of the past and expect anyone here to care much for it. Keep that for your own consumption.

But more importantly, you are now changing your tune. You started off by suggesting India would initiate action against Pakistan. Now you are saying that Pakistan holds this initiative. So by that coin, India will shut up and put up until Pakistan decides to drive across the international border? Then we agree. This is exactly what I was saying. There will be no war because India will keep talking about Cold-start and similar fiction, but will never actually do anything. And Pakistan doesn't believe that it has to cross the international border to defend its interests.

 

[blain2]

JuD is a banned outfit. You mean the ban didnot work and they disappeared after the street rally and after the speech.

For your reference:
Pakistan bans Jamaat, arrests Hafiz Saeed - Pakistan - World - The Times of India

Jama'at-ud-Da'wah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay after you have established that, do understand that these rallies are held under different names and organizations. These groups morph.

Pakistan arrested Hafiz Saeed, asked India for direct evidence, but got none that would hold in a court of law, thus he was released.

 

[rajeev]

We don't agree on history. So you can't list out your version of the past and expect anyone here to care much for it. Keep that for your own consumption.

But more importantly, you are now changing your tune. You started off by suggesting India would initiate action against Pakistan. Now you are saying that Pakistan holds this initiative. So by that coin, India will shut up and put up until Pakistan decides to drive across the international border? Then we agree. This is exactly what I was saying. There will be no war because India will keep talking about Cold-start and similar fiction, but will never actually do anything. And Pakistan doesn't believe that it has to cross the international border to defend its interests.

Yes, I agree that India should not cross the borders at its own initiative. But I also don't agree to:
* Talking to Pakistan until Pakistan disassembles the terrorist infrastructure.

* Don't respond when there is sufficient proof that Headley along with some retired and some working ISI agents were behind the Mumbai attacks. Similar attacks, if they have ANY hands knowingly (done by state) or unknowingly (by ex- militrary/ISI establishment) should have consequences.

Rather than wasting effort negotiating with Pakistan, India should focus on connecting itself (aka trade) with China, Nepal, Srilanka, Bhutan and Bangladesh. Also reach out to strategic interests like Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Atleast these would bear fruit and have positive impact on India.

 

[blain2]

There is no proof that any serving member of Pakistani Army or ISI were involved. This has been nothing more than a charge.

As to your last paragraph, I think it has nothing to do with what is being discussed on hand. India is free to build relations with all of those that you have listed and if talking to Pakistan is not in Indian interests, then they should be avoided. I too agree that talks yield nothing. After all Musharraf went farther than most and this yielded nothing.

 

[TechLahore]

Yes, I agree that India should not cross the borders at its own initiative. But I also don't agree to:
* Talking to Pakistan until Pakistan disassembles the terrorist infrastructure.

Rather than wasting effort negotiating with Pakistan, India should focus on connecting itself (aka trade) with China, Nepal, Srilanka, Bhutan and Bangladesh. Also reach out to strategic interests like Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Atleast these would bear fruit and have positive impact on India.

I already said this earlier. Pakistan shouldn't AT ALL talk to India. It is fruitless and a complete waste of time.

Yes, you should try and pursue the policy you discussed and we should pursue our own efforts. Let us see whose side China, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. etc. end up on.

We are building the IP(C) pipeline, constructing rail links via Iran and Turkey, we've just upgraded the KKH, the world's highest highway, we'll probably provide China naval basing rights in Gwadar, we are the conduit for Central Asian reserves to reach warm water ports etc. etc. Let's see how India matches Pakistan and China's diplomatic efforts in South Asia/Middle East...

 

[rajeev]

Okay after you have established that, do understand that these rallies are held under different names and organizations. These groups morph.

Pakistan arrested Hafiz Saeed, asked India for direct evidence, but got none that would hold in a court of law, thus he was released.

When a law is passed or a rule is implemented, the goal of State is not that literal meaning is followed but rather the true intention behind the issue is addressed. Just because JuD is now called TTQA does not mean that Pakistan will ONLY address the issue when another Mumbai attack happens.

I dont know any specific about Hafiz Saeed - may GoI has proof or may be it is just their intuition, and my replies are not specific to this individual either.

What I am saying is that if in your country, terrorists are allowed to assemble, discuss plans on how to attack India, can carry arms, allow their bases close to Indian porous mountainous border, allow to print Jihadi propaganda and provide money either through government or through "retired" ISI agents (aka financial backing) and Pakistan government claims that just JuD is banned and TTQA is not and hence they should be allowed to spread terrorism, can you explain what does this imply? To me, it implies, Pakistan backs such action when India has requested time and time again of such events and Pakistani media is able to report such events.

 

[rajeev]

I already said this earlier. Pakistan shouldn't AT ALL talk to India. It is fruitless and a complete waste of time.

Atleast, I hope that Pakistan government has some sense and reject the talks.

Yes, you should try and pursue the policy you discussed and we should pursue our own efforts. Let us see whose side China, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. etc. end up on.

Other than China, I don't think any one else hardly registers in India defense radar. And historically even during 1971 war, China didnot intervene. Also, in a couple of years, India and China would be trading more than the GDP of Pakistan. (Current trade between India and China (2008) was 60 billion, slightly more than 1/3 of Pakistan GDP). Though China has border disputes, they are not as important as Taiwan issue (aka possible US-China war) and I dont think China could afford to keep US at war by having enemy in its southern border.

We are building the IP(C) pipeline, constructing rail links via Iran and Turkey, we've just upgraded the KKH, the world's highest highway, we'll probably provide China naval basing rights in Gwadar, we are the conduit for Central Asian reserves to reach warm water ports etc. etc. Let's see how India matches Pakistan and China's diplomatic efforts in South Asia/Middle East...

Yes, those economic benefits have been useful, but those as good as unreliable. Let take the example of IP pipeline. The natural gas India would be provided can be utterly reliable :
* When Pakistan would attack India, or
* When terrorist outfits will blow the pipe up.

No major industry can rely on it to convert it into useful purpose. So these would be provided to mostly consumers and their ability to cook food and heat the home would be totally dependent on neighboring country especially the events emanating from there make it appear as unstable.

 

[karan.1970]

I already said this earlier. Pakistan shouldn't AT ALL talk to India. It is fruitless and a complete waste of time.

Yes, you should try and pursue the policy you discussed and we should pursue our own efforts. Let us see whose side China, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. etc. end up on.

We are building the IP(C) pipeline, constructing rail links via Iran and Turkey, we've just upgraded the KKH, the world's highest highway, we'll probably provide China naval basing rights in Gwadar, we are the conduit for Central Asian reserves to reach warm water ports etc. etc. Let's see how India matches Pakistan and China's diplomatic efforts in South Asia/Middle East...

I folly of your logic is around China. Pakistan today is moving towards becoming a proxy of China against India as it was of US against USSR. And we know how that went down.. Its the single minded dependence on China (IPC pipeline, Gwadar, Jf -xx, Al khalid, KKh, Combined diplomacy etc..) that is the biggest variable for Pakistan's future. Take China away and suddenly Pakistan's most options just vanish. I know its not gonna happen, but how oftern do you see a nation really growing by being so dependent on another nation..

 

[Contrarian]

Prove it! We are fighting militants that get succor from your side. Its a two-ways street.

Bull-$hit. The rest of the world and quite a lot of Pakistani's agree that Pakistan has sponsored terrorism in India, starting from Kashmir and spreading elsewhere from there.

It is not for no reason Pakistan is always found in the center of a majority of the terrorist acts.

Again, with regards to fighting militants supported by India. Pakistan has been screaming this from the top of its lungs, and when it comes to giving ANY kind of proof to the international community, they calmly back off and say they would do so at an 'adequate time'.

There may be none. I am just saying you have no choice but to talk. You have tried isolation, but the world is not India only. We have not talked for 14 months, its for your democracy to decide if they want another 14 months of the same. Pakistan is no hurry out of the ordinary.

Pakistan is in no hurry out of the ordinary? The world might not be India, but the world is increasingly listening to what India says.

The problem for you folks is that you have a very selective memory. Pakistan-India history does not start with Kargil. You may want to go back further and see who started the mess in East Pakistan. For those of us who have been around, nothing that Pakistan has done post-71 comes even close to the mess you created in 1971. So lets not try to play this Mr. nice guy thing. It may work with gorays and the likes, but not with us.

Yeah, so you keep trying after 71 to get back right? So that means we have legitimate rights to try the same in retaliation?

Get over it, '71 happened. And right in the middle of peace talks and a visit from the Indian PM, Pakistan moves its army to Indian vacated bunkers.

You folks should debate this within your country. Who is putting a gun to your head this time around to do this? Its certainly not us Pakistanis. Why don't you guys ask your Uncle (the Americans) about this push?

Do i start on who the uncle and provider of succour for Pakistan is?

So what do we do, find people at a JUD rally and arrest them? For what? For making speeches and chanting slogans? You need a bit more than that to get them into a courtroom and prosecute. Personally I am absolutely against people of Pakistani origin going into India to cause carnage. However do not expect us to herd people at rallies and the speakers and attendees and shove them in jails without proper evidence.

Pakistan is prosecuting those against whom evidence has been provided. The bottom line is that Pakistan has exactly "zero" interest in sponsoring an attack against Indian citizens and leading the two countries to war. This should be well understood.

Again, Bull-$hit. Pakistan has consistently promoted terrorism in India. This is born out of COUNTLESS admissions from your personnel who have retired and come out with books and the like. It is an internationally accepted fact that Pakistan rerouted its jehadis after Afghanistan to Kashmir and thence India.

Pakistan has used terrorism as an extension of its state policy.

Militancy in the entire region is getting fed by an active war in Afghanistan which generates ample opportunities for people to get training, arms and also the motivation to strike. They have struck Pakistan, they have struck Afghanistan and India. Now if you do not want to talk to Pakistan then it should be a national decision in India.

Militancy in the entire region is fed by a war against terrorism? Im sorry, but for the last decade who has been fostering terrorism? Why is it that FATA/NWFP have become terrorist havens. Pakistan since Zia's time have allowed considerable autonomy to the terrorists and provided logistical support.

When US/NATO entered Afghanistan, Pakistan allowed terrorists sanctuary in these areas. Why then did the PA ensure the writ of Pakistani state in these areas.

Do it. Instead of talking, do what your country must. Why come here and complain about something that is inherently wrong with your own policy making. If your countrymen feel that by prosecuting a war they can achieve their goals, then do so by all means but with a caveat that teaching Pakistan a lesson is not as easy as you think.
Call Pakistan's bluff next time.

The point is discussion. We have the right to discuss the policies of our government. This is a discussion board or am i missing something?

 

[rajeev]

^^

I folly of your logic is around China. Pakistan today is moving towards becoming a proxy of China against India as it was of US against USSR. And we know how that went down.. Its the single minded dependence on China (IPC pipeline, Gwadar, Jf -xx, Al khalid, KKh, Combined diplomacy etc..) that is the biggest variable for Pakistan's future. Take China away and suddenly Pakistan's most options just vanish. I know its not gonna happen, but how oftern do you see a nation really growing by being so dependent on another nation..

You mean to Pakistan was not a proxy of China before. China had provided the Uranium in the late 1980's to Pakistan. China has always used Pakistan as a proxy to tie India down and thanks to our socialist economic model, things were terrible. Now, I dont think even a sane person would think Pakistan can tie India down.

Today, India is growing at incredible rates. I have seen reports that India has possibility to raise it above 10-12% growth.

China's main contention is with Dalai Lama and future "Dalai Lama" and not really AP land. It is more about Tawang city than anything else.

China's diplomatic options are the one that is closing out. If China attacks India, India would firmly move into US camp. If China attacks US, US would provide high-tech weapons to India. Russia is now aware of its slowly disappearing capabilities w.r.t. to China and China's ability to copycat any new high-tech from Russia which should mean no top-of-line weapons to China.

As an Indian, I think we should just keep quiet. Neither befriend any country nor be a stranger and play our cards. Like I read somewhere, India should play China card, just like China played USSR card with US.

 

[TechLahore]

Atleast, I hope that Pakistan government has some sense and reject the talks.

I think both countries will try to get out of them in a way that lays the blame on the other party. Outright rejection would be too easily used by India. It'll be a little more complicated than that.

Other than China, I don't think any one else hardly registers in India defense radar.

Really? Seeing the vast majority of your military resources parked on your western border would have the rest of the world believe otherwise.

a couple of years, India and China would be trading more than the GDP of Pakistan. (Current trade between India and China (2008) was 60 billion, slightly more than 1/3 of Pakistan GDP).

This is meaningless. America *owes* China about $800BN which is not that far below India's $1100B GDP. So what does that prove? Can China use this debt to cause America to bomb India? Or abandon economic relations with it?

Please see things in context. China continues to support Pakistan on every issue, and this is not linked to trade between India or China. Not to mention that on the subject of trade, China will have the upper hand. Indian industry is not sufficiently developed to compete with China.

Anyway, not to get derailed on economic issues, China sees India as a regional player that is working its way into the hands of powers that would like to see China contained. And it is irrelevant whether you or I believe this, because the Chinese do and their military strategy and development, combined with their recent more aggressive posture toward India, is proof positive of this. They will present India with strategic challenges, such as control of the Indian ocean, for which they are now developing a network of Naval bases in Sri Lanka, Gwadar and elsewhere. Trade will not cause China to forfeit its other interests viz India. They will also continue to pursue other diplomatic initiatives against India, such as the issue of the border, blocking of aid to India at international fora (they just pulled off one of these moves recently), using their influence in Africa and South Asia to foil Indian diplomatic/military objectives etc. etc.

Though China has border disputes, they are not as important as Taiwan issue (aka possible US-China war) and I dont think China could afford to keep US at war by having enemy in its southern border.

I don't understand this logic. Because by this coin, how can India afford to look towards China while it faces a supposed military threat from Pakistan - a threat that could wipe out the entire sub continent? You can't have it both ways. If you're going to make China-US comparisons and cast India as a possible factor, I can make the exact same India-China comparison and place Pakistan as an even stronger player in that dynamic.

Yes, those economic benefits have been useful, but those as good as unreliable. Let take the example of IP pipeline. The natural gas India

You misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that India should participate in these initiatives to benefit from them. I was pointing to a few things Pakistan is doing to develop our relations further with some of the countries you named. And I was further pointing out that our geographic position makes us indispensable to a lot of these initiatives. That said, I think it is great that India decided to not participate in the defunct IPI pipeline and that the project is now morphing into the IP(C) pipeline. From Pakistan's perspective, this will tie China, Iran and Pakistan together far more closely at the expense of India. So it is a victory that just fell in our lap.

 

[Jackdaws]

We don't agree on history. So you can't list out your version of the past and expect anyone here to care much for it. Keep that for your own consumption.

But more importantly, you are now changing your tune. You started off by suggesting India would initiate action against Pakistan. Now you are saying that Pakistan holds this initiative. So by that coin, India will shut up and put up until Pakistan decides to drive across the international border? Then we agree. This is exactly what I was saying. There will be no war because India will keep talking about Cold-start and similar fiction, but will never actually do anything. And Pakistan doesn't believe that it has to cross the international border to defend its interests.

Firstly, the older Congress hands (who happen to be leading the ruling coalition government) are either kicking the bucket or retiring. The younger ones replacing them don't share their same pre-dominantly Gandhian viewpoint. The likes of Purohit are in jail but the likes of Modi are still capable of forming the government at the center. To believe that the response of a Modi govt. would be as self-restrained as that of a Manmohan govt. is not rooted in logic.

Secondly - history is also written by neutral observers and what he posted was aligned to what non-Indian and non-Pakistani historians say.

 

[Awesome]

I am sorry but I do not agree.

The Congress owes Indians a sincere no-bullshit explanation as to why it is engaging Pakistan again. The Indian voter will accept nothing less, barely a year on from the heinous Mumbai carnage.

What has changed since then?

It is my opinion, shared by many many Indians today, that the best and possibly the only way to deal with Pakistan is complete and total isolation.

Ignore them long enough and they will start turning on each other .... as the past year has shown. It is the nature of the beast.

Cheers, Doc

Pakistan should isolate India in return. Cancel the 128 daily flights that go over Pakistan. Remember the last time it happened it crippled the Indian Airline industry. You need us for everything, but I guess its an ego booster in India to talk tough and act soft.

We're still waiting for India's 'decisive action'. Don't ignore us so much.

 

[TechLahore]

I folly of your logic is around China. Pakistan today is moving towards becoming a proxy of China against India as it was of US against USSR. And we know how that went down.. Its the single minded dependence on China (IPC pipeline, Gwadar, Jf -xx, Al khalid, KKh, Combined diplomacy etc..) that is the biggest variable for Pakistan's future. Take China away and suddenly Pakistan's most options just vanish. I know its not gonna happen, but how oftern do you see a nation really growing by being so dependent on another nation..

I don't think China needs proxies against India. It is taking India on directly in the Indian ocean, on the northern border and in international fora by blocking India access to aid.

And Pakistan is not singularly *dependent* on China. It is most definitely a relationship that has withstood the test of time for five decades and will continue to go from strength to strength as Pakistan and China share regional and international perceptions almost to a T. That said, Pakistan has excellent relations with countries as diverse as Turkey, Ukraine, South Africa, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran etc. etc. On that last one in particular, despite Indian maneuvering, why did Iran agree to eject India from the IPI and still continue building the pipeline? Not due to a stellar success of Indian diplomacy, I would guess.

Afghanistan is another element of Pakistan's foreign policy that hasn't involved China much. We have navigated our relations with the west in a positive way, in my opinion. We don't always see eye to eye, but we have positioned ourselves effectively, to mutual benefit, and have participated - and continue to participate - in various alliances with the West over the past 60 years. Yes, we have those periods now and then where we call each other names - but the French and the Americans do that to each other all the time too - it doesn't change the fact that high level cooperation exists between Pakistan and all the major western players. In fact, the whole undercurrent of this thread is that India is giving in to US pressure in returning to the negotiating table with Pakistan.

Now, short of questioning our intent in these relationships - which is a pointless subjective discussion - I think they highlight your assertion regarding Pakistan being solely dependent on China to be false.

Some of the most significant projects going on in Pakistan today, such as the UAE/Pakistan Khalifa refinery ($1.5B project - will add 30% to Pakistan's refining capacity), the expansion of the Pak-Arab refinery, rail modernization and highway projects with Turkey etc. etc. and the list goes on, are with countries other than China. The ruling family of UAE has God-knows-how-many palatial residences in Pakistan, a country they have always considered a second home. How many do they have in India? Almost all the armed forces in the middle east, save Iraq and Egypt, have had Pakistani trainers and even officers directly commanding their troops. The Indonesians were the ones who offered to send a naval flotilla to help Pakistan in 1965 and our relations continue to be very strong with them. So, please, let's not make assertions that fly in the face of reality.

It is a massive underestimation if you honestly believe that Pakistan's diplomacy has yielded excellent relations only with China.