What's new

Baluchistan included in Indo-Pak joint statement.

Now India does not have to meddle in Balochistan because the miscreants who allegedly fled Swat and various parts of Fata in recent months and settled down in Balochistan.

I don't think they will welcome the Army over there.
---

Nationalists fear Swat-like action in Balochistan

Nicely put. Now start blaming swat insurgents in baluchistan.:disagree:

So now Indians build cover for their terror in Baluchistan by pointing finger on swat terrorist moving to baluchistan. Nice one
This clearly shows that India intelligent agencies will continue its role in Baluchistan.
 
Nicely put. Now start blaming swat insurgents in baluchistan.:disagree:

So now Indians build cover for their terror in Baluchistan by pointing finger on swat terrorist moving to baluchistan. Nice one
This clearly shows that India intelligent agencies will continue its role in Baluchistan.

Dear ISI, RAW,MOSSAD, CIA are professional organistation. They work for there respective country's interest. Let them work. Y u take tension......... Duniya me aur bhi bahut gham ha inteligence agengency ke sewa.
 
In "outstanding issues" Kashmir comes,secondly some proofs have been given from Pakistani side thats why "Balochistan and other areas" issue got into the joint statment first time ever i guess.

Pakistan has never given any 'proof' AFAIK.
Any neutral sources?
 
This cycle wont stop as long as india does not give the people of kashmir there right to choose what they want for there nation.
Pakistan meddling in indian affairs is when the ISI starts gving its full support to the maoist.
The only to get anything sloved is to get the kashmir issue solved to the benefit of all parties involved ,only then can we realistically move towards have peaceful relations.

Perhaps the LoC can be taken as the de facto International border.I'm sure that would bring peace:angel:
 
Theres considerable prof of indian invovement in Balochistan. The M.I has recovered numerous small arms of Indian geren from the skirmishes with the B.L.A . More ever the statements given by Brhamdad Bugti are considerable regarding the Indian Invovement in Balochistan.
 
the GoP is yet to go public with the news of any Indian ever caught in balochistan on the account of espionage.
 
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Editorial: Interpreting the Sharm al-Sheikh meeting

The Gilani-Manmohan meeting at Sharm al-Sheikh in Egypt on July 16 has produced two versions of what really happened. The joint statement says that “dialogue is the only way forward”, adding that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”. This gives rise to more ambiguity, which is of the essence when managing intractable crises. From Pakistan’s point of view, the sentence can be taken to mean two things at the same time. It can mean that Pakistan will not act against terrorists unless and until there is a resumption of Indo-Pak talks; it can also mean that India will not make talks conditional to Pakistan’s action against the terrorists.

Within the same text, however, from India’s point of view, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was quoted as insisting on punishing the Mumbai attack culprits before talks could be held; Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s response to this is that Pakistan would do its best “but what about the dossier of questions Pakistan sent to India?” This was thrust and parry par excellence, indicating how the bureaucrats jousted over the text. Pakistan next got in a mention of “some information” it had “on threats in Balochistan and other areas” (an oblique reference to FATA). The Indian side must have fought over this. India is not mentioned but back home in Pakistan everyone knows it means Indian mischief inside Pakistan.

Talking to the press the two prime ministers added, in their own way, to the body of the text. Mr Singh said he would not get into a composite dialogue without Pakistan first showing progress on the anti-terrorist front. He also denied that India was involved in the trouble in Balochistan and other areas in Pakistan. Mr Gilani was more conciliatory but he did get in a reference to Kashmir as “an outstanding issue whose resolution will help in establishing peace”.

The joint statement doesn’t have the word Kashmir in its text. That must have been managed by the Indian diplomats in exchange for allowing Pakistan’s reference to Balochistan, but it was welcomed in certain quarters in India, while rejectionists there latched on to the ambiguity of the “linking” of terrorism to the composite dialogue. There is a history of how Pakistan has gradually made Kashmir remote as the central target of its campaign to talk to India under the Simla Agreement. In the past, it was “separated” from the rest of the agenda of composite talks and consigned to a special basket.

The Balochistan reference is important for Pakistan because Baloch insurgents themselves have talked about getting help from India. The fact that the world has ignored it is less about the lack of evidence and more about the pragmatism of geopolitics. As for India’s involvement in fomenting trouble in FATA, the issue has been handled in Pakistan irresponsibly. The trouble in FATA is home-grown but India has been taking advantage of it indirectly. That is smart from the Indian perspective because it is extremely difficult to find “direct” evidence of its involvement.

Even so government functionaries have been feeding the media this line and most TV channels have come to accept Indian interference as a given without any tangible proof. One TV anchor talking to veteran Indian journalist Kuldip Nayar on Thursday stated that militants killed in Swat were gurkhas of the Indian army because they were found to be uncircumcised (by the way, the Mehsuds are traditionally uncircumcised). This information still has to be tangibly proved inside Pakistan. If however Pakistan is being cautious by not revealing proof and is waiting for an appropriate moment for disclosure, then it may be hurting itself in the interim.

On Friday, the Bangladesh Prime Minister Ms Hasina Wajed went on record as saying that she would not allow the soil of her country to be used for terrorism inside India. This statement followed a complaint from the Indian side that Pakistan was interfering in Assam and the north-eastern states of India while using Bangladesh as a corridor. A lot of literature about this “covert” war indicates that Pakistan is keeping the pot of insurgency boiling in India only through injection of money. If this is true then India could be doing a similar tit-for-tat kind of operation in FATA, deniably and without non-state actors. It is to remove this kind of bilateral mischief too that Indo-Pak talks are needed.
 
Last edited:
As a bargaining tactic, I can't understand what Pakistan has to gain by raising Balochistan issue. If India was really interfering in Balochistan and Pakistan wanted action, the right thing would be to bring evidence to international attention or hand over evidence to India and threaten war.

I think raising the issue in talks is actually counterproductive to Pakistan. Earlier the situation was that India was asking for action on terror and Pakistan was always saying "Kal Aao, Agle Hafte aao" almost like a India being a commoner waiting in line in a govt. office. Now by bringing up Balochistan issue, they suddenly have given India something to counteroffer. Now India can say "You continue to treat Kashmir as disputed and we'll treat Balochistan as disputed" or "You keep Kashmir out of the talks and we'll ignore Balochistan". This allows India a free bargaining chip - I say free because I think India really is not involved in Balochistan and can afford to say "OK, we are no longer interfering in Balochistan" and face no pressure at home or abroad.

I wonder if the whole thing was a set-up to keep people in both countries happy -- focus public attention of people on non-issues while leaving the diplomats the leeway to keep open communications.

(NOTE: The whole theory above fails if India is really messing in Balochistan . If it is terror, I'd condemn it. If it is diplomatic, I'd congratulate Indian diplomats for successfully making a counter-offer on Kashmir.Personally, I don't think India does either and that Pakistan is being paranoid )
 
As a bargaining tactic, I can't understand what Pakistan has to gain by raising Balochistan issue. If India was really interfering in Balochistan and Pakistan wanted action, the right thing would be to bring evidence to international attention or hand over evidence to India and threaten war.

I think raising the issue in talks is actually counterproductive to Pakistan. Earlier the situation was that India was asking for action on terror and Pakistan was always saying "Kal Aao, Agle Hafte aao" almost like a India being a commoner waiting in line in a govt. office. Now by bringing up Balochistan issue, they suddenly have given India something to counteroffer. Now India can say "You continue to treat Kashmir as disputed and we'll treat Balochistan as disputed" or "You keep Kashmir out of the talks and we'll ignore Balochistan". This allows India a free bargaining chip - I say free because I think India really is not involved in Balochistan and can afford to say "OK, we are no longer interfering in Balochistan" and face no pressure at home or abroad.

I wonder if the whole thing was a set-up to keep people in both countries happy -- focus public attention of people on non-issues while leaving the diplomats the leeway to keep open communications.

(NOTE: The whole theory above fails if India is really messing in Balochistan . If it is terror, I'd condemn it. If it is diplomatic, I'd congratulate Indian diplomats for successfully making a counter-offer on Kashmir.Personally, I don't think India does either and that Pakistan is being paranoid )

I don't think raising the issue in the talks and getting India to agree to it necessarily helps Pakistan, other than in terms of a perceived diplomatic victory, and assisting the GoP domestically.

On the other hand, I don't see it as counter productive either. Remember that the negotiations and issues raised during dialog don't necessarily make it into the joint statements. So Pakistan's belief that India is supporting insurgents in Baluchistan would likely have been raised in the past as well, and would continue to be raised in the future so long as Pakistan believes India is involved.

The only quid pro quo in such a situation India could ask for, in return for a cessation of Indian support to Baluch insurgents, is a cessation of Pakistani support for the Kashmir insurgency, but Pakistan has already done that.

Saying 'we'll treat Baluchistan as disputed' rather stretches credulity in terms of being an effective negotiating ploy. Its internationally recognized Pakistani territory, and Afghanistan is possibly the only country that could make that claim, and even they have found few takers or legal support for their contention.

Coming out with such a position on Baluchistan would in fact validate Pakistani allegations against India, so it would in fact be a diplomatic blunder on the part of India.
 
Perhaps the LoC can be taken as the de facto International border.I'm sure that would bring peace:angel:

Yes, if this solution is acceptable to kashmiris then be it. But to find out the solution you have to come forward and speak up on the solution. Rather then running away from the problems..
 
Sorry 2 say, If im wrong notifiy me plz.

If ISI done it is called "Freedom Fighters":what:

If RAW done it is called "Terrorism":what:

If i am the PM of INDIA i say to my counter part in one line

"STOP TERROR OR STOP TALKING TO US":coffee:

If i heart any one im sorry:undecided:
 
On Friday, the Bangladesh Prime Minister Ms Hasina Wajed went on record as saying that she would not allow the soil of her country to be used for terrorism inside India. This statement followed a complaint from the Indian side that Pakistan was interfering in Assam and the north-eastern states of India while using Bangladesh as a corridor. A lot of literature about this “covert” war indicates that Pakistan is keeping the pot of insurgency boiling in India only through injection of money. If this is true then India could be doing a similar tit-for-tat kind of operation in FATA, deniably and without non-state actors. It is to remove this kind of bilateral mischief too that Indo-Pak talks are needed.

Seriously; on one hand we have zardari going around the world asking for money and on the other hand you are accusing us of injecting money into the insurgencies you are facing? Ridiculous paranoia at best...
 
asking for money for reconstruction of the does not tantalizing amount to not injecting money for insurgency.. as my esteemed friend must clearly know...
thats has been quite a history of the subcontinent.
 
Back
Top Bottom