GHQ Attack-Serious Questions

Re: # 265

Progressive as in Benazir setting up the Taliban???

Tahmed please enlighten us as to who are the progressive forces and any progressive act they have done.

Sanatani

Re: # 270 nkg says: "contrary to the believe that, civilian govt. in Pakistan is far more useless than Military Govt....
The Civilian Govt. has to keep anti-india sentiments alive to garner vote, but not the military one.... "

Nkg your view is complete contrast to the view expressed by Pew#266. I do not have any specific views on the Pak govt to be democratic or militry based, as it is for the Pakis to decide.

It does not matter who is in control, as long as the Pak decision making is driven by the zero sum game with India. All I am interested is that the Pak ideas engine that fires up ideas such as 93Mumbai, 99Kargil, 99Kandhar, 2001Parliament, Mumbai26/11, how that can be stopped.

Re: # 271 tahmed32:

We have gone thru this blow-hot-blow-cold ewlationship before. No different this time also.

"How, e.g., do you propose "nip in the bud" evil plots being brewed by the Pakistani state?"
- Please re-read my statement. It talks about "Ensuring" (strengthen - first stage), this capability, but not "executing" (protection/defend - second stage). There is a difference. I am in no way suggesting that India go ahead and "pro-actively (attack - stage three)" do what the Pak state/non-state actors are doing currently. Currently India is always reacting/defending (stage - zero), from a position of ill-equipped/ill-prepared to face the threats knowing fully well how much love the Pakis have for them.
- Pak encroched into Kargil, India only defended and pushed back the encrochers to the LOC. India has never done nor do I suggest India do a Kargil onto Pak. All I meant was that Indian security should have been foolproof enought, not to let Pak get such ideas. Simple.

"I dont see any Pakistani equivalent of an arjun or a jay (i.e. someone obsessing 24/7 about how India is evil)"
- Ahhh...that is the gem of self-praising. There are enough numbers of persons of this category from both countries. You probably do not feel the presence of such Pakis, probably because you are also one of them and cannot make the distiction. The ideas of "nuclear wasteland", "fight in panipat", "redirect the talibans to kashmir" are all very pious thoughts made by the Pakis for which the Indians must be greatful. But do you notice these Indians can only express empty threats on the net, but your average Kasabs really get fired by such passions and make an unsuccessful attempt to achieve it. The 93Mumbai, 99kargil, 99Kandhar, 2001Parliament, Mumbai26/11, etc. are not very old. You cannot find equivalent of them done by the Indians.
- Secondly you conveniently remain silent on India's main concerns i.e. how you/Pak plans to stop future such events.
- In fact if an educated Paki (of 3rd category - as you defined) like you can get so agitated so easily and make such threats, how do you convince me with the past events looming so large, that the average Pakis are different and peace loving, friendship seeking with India etc. In fact I should be complianing to you for the problems created to India, rather you are complaining for showing you your real position.

"And of course the difference between a democratic government vs a dictatorship totally escapes you."
- You are fully right. Are you referring to the differences between:
(a) India (democratic) and Pakistan (dictatorship) or
(b) Pak democratic govt and Pak dictatorship govt.
- But why should I worry about these differences. You be what you want to be and I have always maintained that is none of my business. So why should I ever worry about the differences. Why are you dragging me into this matter, when I want to be completely away. I have my opinions on this matter but like I said earlier also that I donot gain any satisfaction, win, lose feeling expressing them.
- But do you realise when some Indians like you mentioned, get too much involved into the nitty-gritties and do talk about such Indo/Pak differences and want to show India look better and Pak look poor, most Pakis/you dislike them. But now you are having a problem even for the "non-interferrence though process" that I follow. I dont know if you have realised by now my basic thought process of - "Pak's past/present/future is fully in the hands of Pakis and India/Indians have no/little influence on it's govt/image/problems/solutions etc." But frankly speaking many times I find the Pakis themselves not living upto the good image that I hold for them.

"If the Pakistani state really wanted, it could turn India into a nuclear wasteland in a matter of a few minutes. So get real, man!"
- I presume you must be regretting for making this statement and showing your true colors and intentions. Now I dont know which facet of your to believe "Pak friendship hand" or the above one. The time taken to move from one end to another has been pretty short.

(As for "image" - what kind of an "image" do you think India has? That of "India shining" as you imply, or "India the poverty-stricken" whose current economic growth looks good only compared to its miserable performance earlier.)
- I am in full agreement of your statements above. Your statements show your frustration rather than a mature respose. I have never commented about Pak's image as good or bad, all I have said it is in your hands and the events happening in your country. The same statement is fully true for India/Indians also. Again you are dragging me into a complete non-issue from my side.

So how do feel now....

SPY #268 Your basic point seems to be that "India the dosiers were definitely much cheaper way of putting Pak in the dock", that Pakistan has a poor "image", and that the Pakistani people "Pak society and Tahmed know exactly what is their society the root cause for churning terrorist (LeT)". That I have "have conveniently built a whole castle on the foundation that a strong civil govt in Pakistan is good for India and the Indo-Pak relationship." and that "India's security is strong enough to "detect and nip in the bud" any potential sinister effort of the Pak state or non-state actors. "

I cant imagine a more unrealistic, and frankly absurd, set of statements.

How, e.g., do you propose "nip in the bud" evil plots being brewed by the Pakistani state? If the Pakistani state really wanted, it could turn India into a nuclear wasteland in a matter of a few minutes. So get real, man!

Working backwards from their - as for what the two populations think, I dont see any Pakistani equivalent of an arjun or a jay (i.e. someone obsessing 24/7 about how India is evil).

As for "image" - what kind of an "image" do you think India has? That of "India shining" as you imply, or "India the poverty-stricken" whose current economic growth looks good only compared to its miserable performance earlier.

And of course the difference between a democratic government vs a dictatorship totally escapes you.

I could go on - but your post is so absurd that I would rather do something more useful.

Ciao.

PS: Thanks for not abusing.

SPY...
contrary to the believe that, civilian govt. in Pakistan is far more useless than Military Govt....
The Civilian Govt. has to keep anti-india sentiments alive to garner vote, but not the military one....

Re: # 267 Krishna

1. Terrorism
2. Trade
3. Kashmir/Siachin
4. People to people links/cultural exchanges

Re: # 266 Pew / Tahmed32: Good you people enlightened me about some of the World courts and their scope etc. Although interesting but you people digressed too much.

Coming back where it all started - "strained Indo/Pak relationship: its past and future", I see this time to be no different from the earlier times. Although the path travelled (war-mongering vs dialog) is different, but the relative positions are same (i.e. each country is at opposite ends), so the end result is the same. But yes for India the dosiers were definitely much cheaper way of putting Pak in the dock, than the militry build up done last time. For Pak the continued stalling of the action against mumbai conspirators is seen as victory, without realising the depth to which their nation's image has fallen. (tahmed - besides the weekly blasts, the mumbai 26/11 and saeed proceedings are some events that paint your country's image and not the bigotted hindus).

Secondly you people are mixing two very different issues: a strong Indo-pak relationship and strong Democratic govt in Pakistan. You have conveniently built a whole castle on the foundation that a strong civil govt in Pakistan is good for India and the Indo-Pak relationship. All these are independent of each other.

The presence of strong or weak, democratic or militry ruled govt in Pakistan, it is entirely in the hands of Pak people. India can be a rallying point for the Pak masses for a short duration during Indo-pak conflict, but not a decisive factor of Pak govt making. Maybe the USA and Saudi have some remote controls but definitely not India. It is false pat on the Indian back for strengthening the Pak civil govt, when no tangible results are coming out. Nobody in Pak cares about these Indian efforts.

From India's point of view, what can be controled to ensure that India's interests are secured and maintained:
a) Ensure India's security is strong enough to "detect and nip in the bud" any potential sinister effort of the Pak state or non-state actors.
b) Indian accepts Pak hand of friendship/dialog or continues to stay cool as presently
c) Presence of strong/weak, civil/militry govt in Pakistan, with or without Indian govt help.

None of these options is 100% foolproof or would work in isolation, but when it comes to putting my money, I would go with option (a). I would like to know where Pew would like to put his money.

As for Pak, it is said in our society that a wife knows exactly (99.9%) the fidelity of her husband or a parent knows the doings (well behaved or going astray) of a teenage child. Applying the same logic, I am sure the Pak society and Tahmed know exactly what is their society, the root cause for churning terrorist (LeT) and how it can be resolved/fixed. That does not require any Indian support to Pak govt or friendship hand or Indo/Pak talks etc.

As one of the British minister said that resolving Kashmir issue would not resolve the Indo-Pak conflicts. The LeT would not start driving taxis after the kashmir issue is resolved. Tahmed finds it hard to have a look at his society that generates LeT or find ways to put a stop to it altogether, but cannot overlook the stumbling block in India's refusal to have dialog. The first option requires introspection and self-correction, while the second is conditional and requires action from the other party (India). Very convenient.

Despite all your polite discussions on the net, the bottomline remains "On the ground it is still a zero sum game". Untill the realistic issues/problems are not identified head on and resolved, the Indo / Pak relationship would remain the same.

#266 Pew_Research

[I agree with you that the civilian government in Pakistan needs to be strengthened, and India should do whatever it can to do so.]

Since Tahmed is finding it inconvenient to answer, maybe YOU can tell me. WHAT IS IT India should be having a "dialogue" with Pakistan about? What is it India should be doing? Or not doing?

Re: # 265 Tahmed

I agree with you that the civilian government in Pakistan needs to be strengthened, and India should do whatever it can to do so.

PewResearch #263 We can go on this subject till the cows come home. The bottom line that remains is - the Zardari government is asking for a dialogue with the Indian government with a improving relations. And the Indian government is refusing to go down this path. And this at a time when the progressive forces in Pakistan are stronger than they have ever been in a long time.

You may or may not disagree with me when I say that the Indian government is merely using mumbai as a pretext. And even if you disagree on this point - it does not change the basic point I was making - i.e. that instead of treating Pakistan as a monolith ruled by some kind of an Inner Chamber in the ISI, the Indian government would serve the interests of India better if it distinguished between the progressive vs retrogressive forces in Pakistan. This is simply smart politics.

#262 Pew_Research

[As I mentioned earlier, India can't go to court (ICJ) alone under the rules of the ICJ - the parties in dispute have to both ask the court for settling the matter. Presuming India takes the matter to the ICJ, the first thing that the court will want to hear is if both India and Pakistan agree to the matter being tried in the ICJ. If Pakistan refuses, end of story - ICJ will send the matter back. If Pakistan agrees, then the court will want to know why the Mumbai terror attacks is a dispute between states, and not an ordinary criminal conspiracy for which the laws of either state can apply. Pakistan will then have to say that it is party to the matter because India is accusing Paksitan of the terror attacks because Sayeed/LeT are agents of the Pakistani state (hence Pakistan is a party to the issue). Will Pakistan admit to the fact that they are agents of the Pakistani state? If Pakistan does not admit, then the ICJ will angrily ask why is the ICJ even hearing the matter - it is a matter between a state and a private party. If Pakistan admits, then that will be an entirely new public admission by Pakistan on this matter on its relationship with Sayeed/LeT.]

Give Tahmed some time to cook something up. He knows he has two options now:

1) Try to change his reasoning ONCE MORE to suit the newly-encountered set of facts,

or, do what he usually does -

2) disappear from THIS article interacts, only to surface again when he thinks that the coast is clear.

Re: # 259 Tahmed

Not sure that Manmohan Singh issued a threat to Pakistan. It is quite unlike him to do so.

Re: # 259 Tahmed

Not sure that you share my understanding of this issue.

As I mentioned earlier, India can't go to court (ICJ) alone under the rules of the ICJ - the parties in dispute have to both ask the court for settling the matter. Presuming India takes the matter to the ICJ, the first thing that the court will want to hear is if both India and Pakistan agree to the matter being tried in the ICJ. If Pakistan refuses, end of story - ICJ will send the matter back. If Pakistan agrees, then the court will want to know why the Mumbai terror attacks is a dispute between states, and not an ordinary criminal conspiracy for which the laws of either state can apply. Pakistan will then have to say that it is party to the matter because India is accusing Paksitan of the terror attacks because Sayeed/LeT are agents of the Pakistani state (hence Pakistan is a party to the issue). Will Pakistan admit to the fact that they are agents of the Pakistani state? If Pakistan does not admit, then the ICJ will angrily ask why is the ICJ even hearing the matter - it is a matter between a state and a private party. If Pakistan admits, then that will be an entirely new public admission by Pakistan on this matter on its relationship with Sayeed/LeT.

I hope this clarifies the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

#259 tahmed32

[PewResearch #256 Assuming Pakistan would refuse to settle in court, then that would vindicate India's position IF India had the evidence. So that should be all the more reason for India to go to court. Instead, the Indian PM/FM have chosen to simply issue threats to Pakistan - threats which they know they cant back with military action.]

Well, Pakistan has lost every war it has fought with India. The disproportionate strength of the Indian Army vis-a-vis the Pakistani army has only grown since then. What makes you think India cannot carry out their threat? Talking about Nuclear weapons as a "deterrant" is good for the bruised national ego, but I don't think Pakistan would commit national suicide by lobbing a nuclear warhead if confronted by conventional forces from India. I suggest that that would be very unlikely. Not everyone in the pak establishment thinks like a suicide bomber, and I suggest Gilani & co. would much rather face defeat and humiliation (yet once again) rather than be vaporized along with everybody else in Pakistan.

The interior minister of Pakistan was answering questions today, which included one on Sayeed. His response was that the Pakistan police had brought 4 (5?) individuals to court on charges of mumbai conspiracy - and that the Indian government should wait to see the outcome of this process. When asked about Sayeed - his response was that there was no proper evidence against him and the Pakistan government was not going to punish an innocent man simply to make the Indian government happy

Based on known facts and the one surviving terrorist's testimony it is absurd to believe that the entire operation was planned and executed by 4 (or 5) people. It needed finances, training and logistics. Now it is certainly possible that any one individual is innocent but for the Pakistan government to keep insisting that India should somehow conduct a remote investigation, identify specific culprits and hand over evidence that will lead to conviction is not just absurd but in itself an admission of an inability or unwillingness to address this incident.

None of this is very surprising. What is worrying is that well-meaning Pakistanis are buying their government's story so easily without asking hard questions.

PewResearch #256 Assuming Pakistan would refuse to settle in court, then that would vindicate India's position IF India had the evidence. So that should be all the more reason for India to go to court. Instead, the Indian PM/FM have chosen to simply issue threats to Pakistan - threats which they know they cant back with military action. Seems very much to me they are merely singing the tune they think will prevent BJP from painting them as "soft". Hell of a way to run a foreign policy!!