Book Review : The Indian Doctrine

[con]

The views that are contained in the book were taken primarily from Indian sources that included the opinions of politicians, diplomats, military officers, journalists and former intelligence operatives of India. These were akin to confessions of India’s nefarious activities in regard to its neighbours.

So if all these people are telling the truth then who is doing this

But when an alternative viewpoint is presented it is trashed without debate. This is a sad reminder of the power of the Indian propaganda machine.

What is the Indian Proganda Machine then? Mr Munshi are we both quoting from the same Proganda Machine?
Since you say the views are "primarily" derived from India sources.. did they inform that India supports Moaists in Nepal?

The book contains thousands of references and documented materials and should be sufficient proof to go on until each and every instance can be refuted.

From the Indian Proganda Machine?

The ability to defend ones territory is a prerequisite of statehood. By India guaranteeing Nepal’s security (in order to safeguard its own) it undermines Nepal’s sovereignty. Nepal does not view China as a threat and so should acquire weapons on the open market without interference from India.

"India guaranteeing Nepal’s security".... you said India was destabilizing Nepal by supporting the Maoist. Mr Munshi please decide. India can either provide security or destabilize. cant do both!

Nepal's security is guaranted by India(according to you),gets arms from India,US,UK. What else does it require? Even if Nepal arm the whole of it's population by getting arms from all over the world,can it defend itself from Chinese or an Indian attack? Just a India wish that Nepal does not buy Chinese influence in return for Indian Security guarantee is Imperialism?

The cause or reason for the insurgency in Sri Lanka no longer seems to exist for the Karuna group and so they now oppose the LTTE.

Well then why we keep hearing about SLA offensive? If there is no more issues why cant the Srilankan government just declare Tamilians as equal citizens with equal voting rights?

No but what difference does this make?

May be that it shows SL's president obession to try find a military solution to the problem.

When the ball bearing containers show Indian markings this is indicative that they were manufactured in India. When the JMB and Harkatul Jihad al Islami (HuJi) were carrying out attacks on civilians and public institutions the explosives recovered from their hideouts bore Indian ordinance markings and such types of explosives are not manufactured in Bangladesh. This seems to indicate Indian collusion at some level.

I put the same question across. How difficult is for couple of people to set up a infra for ball bearing if they believe in LTTE's cause? Is ball bearings much a techno marvel that Indian government institution need to be involved? The tamil groups within the Indian borders are a known supporter of LTTE. Hell a top politician of a major party in TamilNadu was jailed just for just saying a speech in support of LTTE.
Aghan war with the Russians were fought with AK-47s. Manufactured only in Russia. Russian conspiracy in killing it's own solider?

If you still insist India supports LTTE,then I would quote Gen. Musharaff,whom you would definitely agree with me is the most righteous man ever to walk on the planet, "These things are done by the rogue elements within the establishment."

Since you a great fan of B Raman .let me post a article displaying his sympathy for the LTTE.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/27raman.htm

Please note the date. June last year. A very important point.

By the way you still havent answered by questions regarding the radar. Were they too Uncomfortable ?

And India supporting Muslim extremist groups? You were of the view that this is all Hindu Imperialist Plans. How come Muslims are involved?

When the Americans claimed the existence of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan before the invasion they produced satellite imagery and photographs to back up their allegations. Why cannot India do the same for the alleged ULFA camps in Bangladesh? Maybe it is because they do not exist.

Provide satellite images to whom? Aghanistan? You expected Taliban to deny it and prove that camps dont exist?
How do you know India hasnt provided the images? I ask again are you involved in inter-government meetings,where these proofs would be shown? How difficult is for the Bangladesi government to dismiss them saying they are Bangladesh army camps?

He did not admit it either. He was merely stating that the Bangladesh government would look into the matter. This is an appropriate diplomatic response to the recent aggressive and hostile statements made by Indian politicians that India should invade Bangladesh and destroy these fictitious camps.

I agreed he has not admitted it either.But then how come he hasn't denied it either,which the previous governments have been confidently denying?
Wait for couple pf years... may be he might offically admit!

The last time Indian troops set foot inside Bangladesh (which was almost 6 years ago) it had its foot cut off. The diplomatic method I think is a better solution overall.

A clash between border guards is a sign of Bangladesh's prowess over India?

Let me remind you a little history of your country.
The air of freedom which you enjoy,Mr Munshi is a gift of the same Imperialist India. It is the same RAW which was responsible for the birth of a country called Bangladesh,else you people would still be under the Pakistani Army's boots.

The bravado claim of cutting the Indian foot,let me remind you that it is the same foot that kicked a army much superior to Bangladeshi Army in just 14 days.
Technically India could have claimed Bangladesh as it's territory as it was captured by the Indian forces in a war. But then it let a nation born.

I wont be surprised if you personally regret getting independence from Pakistan.

I am sure that the RAW operatives inside Bangladesh would be able to identify them and pass on the information to the law enforcement agencies in Bangladesh with proof of location and photographs. That this type of evidence has never been produced seems to suggest that ULFA presence in Bangladesh is a fabrication and an excuse to pressure Bangladesh on other issues.

Since you conclude this by reading Bangladeshi newspaper,I say it reading Indian newspapers. Time will tell which is proganda and which is the truth.

When the Bangladesh gov keeps denying presence of ULFA,you expect then to act on info by RAW. Your gov ain't so nice to do that!

Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary are at the centre of Europe and share borders with each other and several other countries but I do not see them having disputes with their neighbours as India has with all its neighbours.

I can quote lot of irrelevant nations having border problems on the parts on the globe. The question is about why Bangladesh apparently does not have trouble with non-bordered countries. When borders dont even meet ,how would nations like Sri Lanka have security issues with Bangladesh?

These were isolated incidents that occurred almost seven years ago without any long term effects. That you should bring up these irrelevant issues shows the paucity and weakness of your argument. These incidents with Burma were very minor and insignificant but India’s borders are bloody in comparison.

This is meant to prove to you about your claims that Bangladesh has border problems only due to India. Your other border is not silent either.

By the way this incident is old and insignificant,while for India some hyperbolic Nehru-Indira plans is still relevant?

Bangladesh does sell goods and produce to other countries in the world. Indian goods can enter Bangladesh markets with only limited hindrances allowing Indian businessmen to make a profit here. Why should Bangladeshi businessmen not be accorded the same facilities and opportunity to make money in India. This I think shows a miserly and a begger thy neighbour attitude on the part of India. Bangladesh has every right to be resentful about Indian trade practices.



I did not say solely the products produced by Bangladesh but by goods exported by all countries in South Asia other than India. The consequence for South Asia India’s duplicity was explained in the following report in The Daily Star -

Saarc business leaders see India a roadblock

February 22, 2007


Leading stakeholders in the Saarc region's trade viewed the Indian attitude as a major roadblock to boosting intra-regional trade.

"Their (India's) mindset is to derive maximum benefit for them and corner others in the region through protecting their market by uniquely imposing NTBs (non-tariff barriers)," said a leading businessman from Sri Lanka, requesting anonymity.

He voiced his frustration about the region's business prospect to the news agency on the sideline of the two-day Saarc Business Leaders Conclave that concluded here Sunday.

"Yes, there are some loose ends," Foreign Trade Minister of Sri Lanka Professor GL Peiris said, pointing out that the major problems of the India-Sri Lanka FTA is the non-tariff barriers.

He, however, mentioned that the FTA, of course, benefited Sri Lanka as its exports increased by around 300 percent since the signing of the bilateral FTA.

"We've implemented FTA more successfully with Pakistan than India," said another businessman from Sri Lanka Samantha Kumarasinghe, who have a business establishment in Bangladesh.

The chairman and managing director of Multichemi Bangladesh (Pvt) Limited narrated his business experiences both in Bangladesh without having FTA and in India having FTA.

"We've got much better opportunity in Bangladesh than India," he said, adding that Bangladesh is an excellent place for doing business.

"Their (India's) attitude is not favourable for others till today. If the situation is changed, it's OK," Kumarasinghe said.

He added that India should remove the NTBs soon to show a genuine gesture for boosting regional trade as the Indian Minister of State for Commerce Jai Ram Ramesh told the conclave.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/02/22/d70222050360.htm

I dont get it. If there are issues why sell to India and why buy from India. Why doesn't these countries also put up deliberate tariffs? Why allow the evil Indian businessmen to make money? India isnt't the only country who are protective of their local industry. You must be vey well aware of the "anti-dumping cases" of Europe and America.
When these countries can produce better and cheaply than India,why not sell it to other markets? Why not compete with China. Sell to China when it provides a fair environment. Who is stopping ? Imperialist India?

This silly complaint is all you think is required to prove that Indian economy can be brought down? I would expect more.

 

[Adux]

Con,

You have all the patience in the world,in handling conspiracy theory specialist

 

[kidwaibhai]

dude cmon we are just debating saying that this guy is a concpiracy theory advocate. i think that this is a little unfiar.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

So if all these people are telling the truth then who is doing this

If it really has to be condensed into one single identifiable group then it can only be described as the Indian establishment. This term covers pretty much all those who would be involved in carrying out India’s agenda in South Asia.

What is the Indian Propaganda Machine then? Mr. Munshi are we both quoting from the same Propaganda Machine?

The Indian propaganda machine appears to be run by RAW and involves the entire media and press of India. This is not to suggest that everyone working in these sectors is in the pay of RAW but only those that matter and decide the actual content of information. To take an excerpt from my book The India Doctrine –

“To substantiate this point and extend the analogy to journalism and contemporary reportage one may usefully refer to an embarrassing revelation in August 2005 where the New Age daily reported that Indian journalists had been paid ‘handsome money’ to write articles against Bangladesh and two other neighbouring countries. The report continues,

‘Arun Rajnath, New Delhi correspondent of the Washington-based online newspaper South Asian Tribune, said he was offered Rs 10,000 per month to write a story against Bangladesh, Pakistan or Nepal. Rajnath’s revelation was published in a special report of the newspaper headlined ‘Indian Officials Harassing South Asia Tribune New Delhi Correspondent’ on July 27. The report, which had detailed description of the Indian intelligence agencies’ clout on Indian journalists, captures glimpses of the harassment towards journalists who refuse to comply with official directives. After refusing to be on the payroll of an intelligence agency, Rajnath, who writes on the Indian army and Kashmir, was refused accreditation by the external affairs ministry, and he became the target of frequent intimidating phone calls from the intelligence men. The correspondent claimed that many top Indian journalists covering news relating external affairs, home, and defence were on the payroll of the security agencies or the ministries concerned, and regularly receive ‘handsome compensation packages’. Commenting on the report, a Bangladeshi intelligence expert said they have reports that not only Indian journalists, but also a number of Bangladeshi writers are on the payroll of Indian sources. Mentioning a lack of resources and motivation on the part of Bangladesh’s intelligence agencies, he said, ‘Very little can be done in the existing situation.’” (The India Doctrine pp. 63 – 64)

Propaganda issues take up a large proportion of the book but this is a useful example of RAW’s technique.

Since you say the views are "primarily" derived from India sources did they inform that India supports Maoists in Nepal?

Why on earth would Indian intelligence want to disclose its own secrets to the outside world? Your question makes no sense. The purpose of propaganda is to undermine your enemy or opponent while projecting a favourable impression of your own position. To disclose India’s links to Nepal’s Maoists would be literally shooting oneself in the foot.

"India guaranteeing Nepal’s security".... you said India was destabilizing Nepal by supporting the Maoist. Mr. Munshi please decide. India can either provide security or destabilize. Can’t do both!

Only when Nepal’s kings decided that his country did not need or want India’s security guarantee did the Indian government turn against Nepal and start to destabilize the country. It was the king’s attempt to procure weapons from Israel and China that negated the security guarantee and only then did India adopt the policy of destabilization.

Even if Nepal arms the whole of it's population by getting arms from all over the world can it defend itself from Chinese or an Indian attack?

A highly motivated population and fighting force can repel a larger power with the requisite outside support as we saw in Vietnam and Afghanistan (after the Soviet invasion). More recently you may recall that a mere 5000 fighters of Hezbollah (financed by Iran and Syria) pushed back and inflicted heavy damage on the Israeli Defence Forces. A Nepalese army supplied by China could quite easily embarrass the Indian Army in any invasion and even take the fight into India if necessary. The Indian military suffered this humiliation in Sri Lanka during the 1980’s.

Just an Indian wish that Nepal does not buy Chinese influence in return for Indian Security guarantee is Imperialism?

Yes. A sovereign and independent country must determine its own foreign policy and not co-opt its own interests in favour of another country.

Well then why we keep hearing about SLA offensive? If there is no more issues why can’t the Sri Lankan government just declare Tamilians as equal citizens with equal voting rights?

I have never heard the Tamil population of Sri Lanka referred to as Tamilians. Are you making these words up as you go along? The issue in Sri Lanka is only partly to do with equality but has more to do with autonomy demands. It is unlikely that the Sri Lankan government would accede to the latter demands. India itself has not accepted the more justified and credible demands for autonomy/independence made by the Kashmiris, Seven Sister States and Tamil Nadu. It seems extremely hypocritical for India to require Sri Lanka to accept such unjustified demands made by the LTTE when the Tamils are relative newcomers to the island state compared to the majority Sinhalese.

May be that it shows SL's president obsession to try find a military solution to the problem.

That is entirely within the discretion of the Sri Lankan government. Whether such a policy will create difficulties for India in Tamil Nadu state should only be a marginal matter unless it directly impinges on the conflict itself but such a balance has to be calculated with political circles inside Sri Lanka and not be dictated from New Delhi.

I put the same question across. How difficult is for couple of people to set up an infra for ball bearing if they believe in LTTE's cause? Is ball bearings much a techno marvel that Indian government institution need to be involved?

When the containers of the ball bearings have Indian markings then it is clear that it was manufactured in India. I am not sure why it is difficult for you to grasp such a simple idea.

The Tamil groups within the Indian borders are a known supporter of LTTE. Hell a top politician of a major party in Tamil Nadu was jailed just for just saying a speech in support of LTTE.

I think you have found the answer to all your questions and it came from your own mouth and you did not even realize it. There are clearly electoral considerations for why India may want to support the LTTE (at least covertly) since if emotions become too heightened in Tamil Nadu it could have a reactive effect against the Indian government. A complete defeat of the LTTE could also have unpredictable and disastrous consequences for India. More significantly Chinese, Pakistani, Israeli, European and American involvement in Sri Lanka has drastically undermined India’s influence in that country. India is the only country that is not supplying Sri Lanka with arms to fight the LTTE although it was that insurgent group that killed the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. What does all this imply?

If you still insist India supports LTTE, then I would quote Gen. Musharaff, whom you would definitely agree with me is the most righteous man ever to walk on the planet, "These things are done by the rogue elements within the establishment."

This statement left me completely confused and makes no sense whatsoever.

Since you a great fan of B Raman .let me post a article displaying his sympathy for the LTTE.

He has written a great many things since that article as have many other ex-RAW officers. His opinions on these types of issues can be highly deceptive but he would not have become the RAW chief if it was otherwise. Deception is part of his game and we have to decipher his meanings in that context and light. The basic training manual for RAW is Kautilya’s ‘Arthashatra’ which teaches deception and guile as an art form. In other words, we should not take Raman’s comments at face value.

By the way you still haven’t answered by questions regarding the radar.

I have answered the question but it also appears that the LTTE was forewarned that the radar would be inoperative for a certain period of time. In fact, it seems that Sri Lanka wished to purchase Chinese made 3D radar but India pushed its cheaper and less effective 2D version. This is the problem that has to be faced when such decisions are taken out of the hands of local policy makers and transferred to New Delhi. It is with no surprise that Nepal sought Chinese and Israeli weapons.

And India supporting Muslim extremist groups? You were of the view that this is all Hindu Imperialist Plans. How come Muslims are involved?

I have never in this forum used the words ‘Hindu Imperialist Plan’ so why does it appear in your responses? In the same way that Israel created Hamas or the Americans the Mujahedin (to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan) India employs misguided Muslims to act on their behalf to serve a particular strategic requirement. In many cases the Muslims do not even realize they are being employed by RAW. This is the art of intelligence work and should not be such a surprise to you. RAW is prepared to employ Maoists and Muslims to carry out its dirty work but very clandestinely and covertly.

Provide satellite images to whom? Afghanistan?

No. To the worlds media so that there would be an added justification for the US invasion other than the Taliban holding on to Osama bin Laden.

How do you know India hasn’t provided the images? I ask again are you involved in inter-government meetings where these proofs would be shown?

How do you know that India has provided the images? Are you involved in inter-governmental meetings where this evidence was produced?

How difficult is for the Bangladeshi government to dismiss them saying they are Bangladesh army camps?

The difference between an army training camp and a terrorist one would be quite obvious. Your accusations are now verging on pure speculation and guess work.

I agreed he has not admitted it either. But then how come he hasn't denied it either, which the previous governments have been confidently denying?

I have explained that his comments were intended to be diplomatic and good natured in the face of hostile comments made by Indian politicians.

A clash between border guards is a sign of Bangladesh's prowess over India?

Six years ago India only lost a foot if it tries a full invasion it will loose an arm and a leg and possibly its head also. This is not an issue of prowess but reality.

The air of freedom which you enjoy, Mr. Munshi is a gift of the same Imperialist India. It is the same RAW which was responsible for the birth of a country called Bangladesh

In answer to this comment I again quote from The India Doctrine –

“In the view expressed by Indira Gandhi it may confidently be surmised that India’s role in the 1971 war was naturally an extension of its own policy considerations and ideological compulsions based on the idea of an Akhand Bharat which may be inferred from the following observation of Moudud Ahmed in his book “Bangladesh: Constitutional Quest for Autonomy”: “India’s support for Bangladesh basically emanated from its negative approach towards Pakistan. For political, historical, and economic reasons, it was India’s natural desire to see that her rival power structure in the subcontinent is weakened. It was not so much love for democracy or sense of brotherhood for the people of Bangladesh that Indira Gandhi decided to support the Bengalis in their war to achieve independence. The then Government of India acted on its own calculations in order to achieve its own national and international objectives. Once India got involved she became greatly interested in seeing the struggle the Bengalis remain in its complete control. The Indian Government wanted to ensure that following the removal of the west Pakistani authority and effective government of its own liking was established in Bangladesh.” (The India Doctrine – pp. 38-39)

Whatever gratitude Bangladesh had for India was quickly washed away by India’s arrogance and high-handedness.

Technically India could have claimed Bangladesh as it's territory as it was captured by the Indian forces in a war. But then it let a nation born.

Allow me to again quote from The India Doctrine –

“During the final phase of the conflict or at least very soon after the 1971 war (Kalidas does not specify a date) an agreement was signed between the Bangladesh government in exile by Acting President Syed Nazrul Islam (Sheikh Mujib had not been released by Pakistan by this time) and the Indian government which contained the following seven points:

1. Those who actively participated as Freedom Fighters and were recognized as such would according to ability, run the state administration of Bangladesh and the others would be removed from their employment and service.

2. The Indian and Bangladesh armies would be made into a joint or combined army whose head would be the Indian Army Chief. Only on his command could war be waged.

3. Bangladesh will not have its own military force.

4. Instead a paramilitary force would be established to take care of the internal law and order situation.

5. There will be an open market between the two countries but from time to time through mutual discussions the principles of trade would be settled.

6. The Indian Army will remain in Bangladesh for an indefinite period.

7. India and Bangladesh would have the same foreign policy based on discussions between the two countries.

After this agreement was signed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi took steps for war with Pakistan. On the 16th of December 1971 the Indian Army is said by Kalidas to have taken ‘possession’ of Bangladesh. In the surrender and sovereignty power document which was signed by General Niazi on behalf of the defeated Pakistan Army and handed over to General Aurora it was no where mentioned whether this document was then passed on to the Bangladesh government as the natural heirs to the Pakistani government in Dhaka and therefore the custodian of the country’s sovereignty unless, of course, India had other plans which seems to be the actual meaning of Kalidas’ disclosures. Kalidas seems to be implying that with the possession of this document still in Indian hands ‘legal title’ to the sovereignty of Bangladesh remains with India. Kalidas adds that up to this time neither government, separately or jointly, has ever cancelled the 7 point agreement.” (The India Doctrine – pg. 7)

Kalidas is a former RAW operative who infiltrated into East Pakistan sometime in 1952. His comments concerning the 7 point agreement would suggest that the Indian government had no intention of letting go of Bangladesh but the terms of that agreement were subsequently invalidated by the 25 year Friendship Treaty that recognized Bangladesh as a sovereign country but under certain conditions and even then the Treaty was reluctantly signed by Indira Gandhi as appears clear in The India Doctrine –

“The Treaty came about as a result of growing international disquiet at the Indian army’s continued presence in Bangladesh and who appeared to be an occupying force rather a liberating one. Their extended stay was also breeding hostility amongst Bangladeshis because the Indian army was seen taking away, ‘the arms, ammunitions, equipments, machineries and even furniture and household goods in convoy of trucks across the border.’ For Sheikh Mujib the major cause of concern was that many countries were still withholding recognition because of the Indian army’s continuing presence in Bangladesh after the end of hostilities.” (The India Doctrine – pg. 98)
These are only some of the revelations that appear in The India Doctrine. In short, India did technically try to claim Bangladesh and that it did not intend to give birth to a new nation.

I won’t be surprised if you personally regret getting independence from Pakistan.

No I am very happy that we got independence from Pakistan but as President Pervez Musharraf has apologized for the events of 1971 on at least two occasions we can put our relations with Pakistan on a different footing. A consequence of independence in 1971 is that Bangladesh can deal with India on its own terms without seeking approval from Islamabad.

When the Bangladesh govt keeps denying presence of ULFA, you expect then to act on info by RAW. Your govt isn’t so nice to do that!

So you admit that there are RAW operatives in Bangladesh then!

The question is about why Bangladesh apparently does not have trouble with non-bordered countries. When borders don’t even meet, how would nations like Sri Lanka have security issues with Bangladesh?

What are you talking about? This is the most inane comment you have made so far. The US does not share a border with Iraq or Afghanistan but is fighting a war in both. Israel does not share a border with Iran or Saudi Arabia but has less than friendly relations with both. It is not the sharing of borders that matters but the arrogance and ambitions of the country that start conflicts and disputes and in the South Asian region that is India.

By the way this incident is old and insignificant, while for India some hyperbolic Nehru-Indira plans is still relevant?

Yes the Nehru-Indira plans are still relevant for the reasons I have stated in this reply and to the other comments on this forum over the last few days.

I don’t get it. If there are issues why sell to India and why buy from India. Why doesn't these countries also put up deliberate tariffs? Why allow the evil Indian businessmen to make money?

Unfortunately we do not have a choice and must trade otherwise smuggling would rise even further. Bangladesh keeps its tariffs low to comply with free trade principles and as we do not choose our neighbours we must trade with India. Bangladesh would happily relocate far away from India if it could.

When these countries can produce better and cheaply than India, why not sell it to other markets? Why not compete with China. Sell to China when it provides a fair environment.

We do sell to other countries. I have already said this in my previous reply. China is also our biggest trading partner taking over from India.

This silly complaint is all you think is required to prove that Indian economy can be brought down? I would expect more.

I am also becoming tired of your repetitive and meaningless questions.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

I think the following news report substantiates much of my views I have sent over the last few days and especially my last post on this subject which I hope everyone will take time to read –


We Divided Pakistan - Rahul Gandhi

Breaking News Online – April 15, 2007

In a shocking development, Rahul Gandhi showed his amateurism and inexperience in Indian politics, when he proudly announced that his family divided Pakistan. Rahul's statement not only created a political storm in India, but also it gave Pakistan a shot in arms to accuse India of playing subversive activities on its soil.

Although the 1971 Bangladesh war was wide open and everyone knew who was involved, India never admitted openly that it divided Pakistan. India always maintained that it just supported the "freedom fighters".

Rahul made this unprecedented remark while campaigning in Bareilly. This is the second time he made such a controversial remark. It can be recalled that he made a similar remark on the Babri demolition a few days back. It clearly shows his arrogance and monarchic attitude, as he gives the credit for India's growth to Gandhi family, not to the Congress Party.

It is an irony that the sycophants in Congress support and defend everything Rahul and Gandhi family say and do. The whole episode again proved that Congress is unable to survive without the "Gandhi" tag.

http://breakingnewsonline.blogspot.c...ul-gandhi.html



The submission of this news item is in no way meant to suggest that I regret the independence of Bangladesh as one pro-Indian commentator seemed to suggest on this forum but the report does highlight India's attitude to its neighbours and its preparedness to interfere in their internal affairs.

These remarks of mine should be read in line with my immediate last post.

 

[Goodperson]

Rahul Gandhi is still immature, it's quite apparant that he his making statements to prop Congress in UP.

 

[con]

I think the following news report substantiates much of my views I have sent over the last few days and especially my last post on this subject which I hope everyone will take time to read –


We Divided Pakistan - Rahul Gandhi

Breaking News Online – April 15, 2007

In a shocking development, Rahul Gandhi showed his amateurism and inexperience in Indian politics, when he proudly announced that his family divided Pakistan. Rahul's statement not only created a political storm in India, but also it gave Pakistan a shot in arms to accuse India of playing subversive activities on its soil.

Although the 1971 Bangladesh war was wide open and everyone knew who was involved, India never admitted openly that it divided Pakistan. India always maintained that it just supported the "freedom fighters".

Rahul made this unprecedented remark while campaigning in Bareilly. This is the second time he made such a controversial remark. It can be recalled that he made a similar remark on the Babri demolition a few days back. It clearly shows his arrogance and monarchic attitude, as he gives the credit for India's growth to Gandhi family, not to the Congress Party.

It is an irony that the sycophants in Congress support and defend everything Rahul and Gandhi family say and do. The whole episode again proved that Congress is unable to survive without the "Gandhi" tag.

http://breakingnewsonline.blogspot.c...ul-gandhi.html

A rhetoric by a kid whom is no more than a MP in the Indian parliament,who just started living in India for the past couple of years making a kiddish statement that his grandmother is responsible for breaking of Pakistan(which by the way the whole world knows) is a proof of Indian interference in other nation's affairs?

As I have been trying to point out ..Mr Munshi you get hold of some statements of few people,twist the logic around ,expoliate it and
bravely declare that "According to my in-depth analysis India is the source of all evil ".

The submission of this news item is in no way meant to suggest that I regret the independence of Bangladesh as one pro-Indian commentator seemed to suggest on this forum b

safety clause?

 

[con]

The Indian propaganda machine appears to be run by RAW and involves the entire media and press of India. This is not to suggest that everyone working in these sectors is in the pay of RAW but only those that matter and decide the actual content of information. To take an excerpt from my book The India Doctrine –

“To substantiate this point and extend the analogy to journalism and contemporary reportage one may usefully refer to an embarrassing revelation in August 2005 where the New Age daily reported that Indian journalists had been paid ‘handsome money’ to write articles against Bangladesh and two other neighbouring countries. The report continues,

‘Arun Rajnath, New Delhi correspondent of the Washington-based online newspaper South Asian Tribune, said he was offered Rs 10,000 per month to write a story against Bangladesh, Pakistan or Nepal. Rajnath’s revelation was published in a special report of the newspaper headlined ‘Indian Officials Harassing South Asia Tribune New Delhi Correspondent’ on July 27. The report, which had detailed description of the Indian intelligence agencies’ clout on Indian journalists, captures glimpses of the harassment towards journalists who refuse to comply with official directives. After refusing to be on the payroll of an intelligence agency, Rajnath, who writes on the Indian army and Kashmir, was refused accreditation by the external affairs ministry, and he became the target of frequent intimidating phone calls from the intelligence men. The correspondent claimed that many top Indian journalists covering news relating external affairs, home, and defence were on the payroll of the security agencies or the ministries concerned, and regularly receive ‘handsome compensation packages’. Commenting on the report, a Bangladeshi intelligence expert said they have reports that not only Indian journalists, but also a number of Bangladeshi writers are on the payroll of Indian sources. Mentioning a lack of resources and motivation on the part of Bangladesh’s intelligence agencies, he said, ‘Very little can be done in the existing situation.’� (The India Doctrine pp. 63 – 64)

Propaganda issues take up a large proportion of the book but this is a useful example of RAW’s technique.

News agencies been used by intelligence agencies is nothing new,not done only by India. Us does it ,so does Bangladesh.
Even if you say most of the papers are propaganda, I am yet to see a single article by any source which says India supports Maoist or is bent on creating trouble in Bangladesh.

If you carried out "in-depth" analysis ,point me to non-Indian and non-Nepalese source which says India supports Maoist and a non Bangladeshi source which details Indian disruptive acts.

If Indian media is biased due to RAW,I hope you agree international is not RAW payroll. Since you have done extensive research,you should be easily able to point it.

Why on earth would Indian intelligence want to disclose its own secrets to the outside world? Your question makes no sense. The purpose of propaganda is to undermine your enemy or opponent while projecting a favourable impression of your own position. To disclose India’s links to Nepal’s Maoists would be literally shooting oneself in the foot.

Yes, supporting Maoists is also shooting in the foot. They are already creating trouble in India.
If RAW does not declare,India media is biased,Indian establishment is obvious biased, how do you declare this

The views that are contained in the book were taken primarily from Indian sources that included the opinions of politicians, diplomats, military officers, journalists and former intelligence operatives of India. These were akin to confessions of India’s nefarious activities in regard to its neighbours.

You have used articles from biased Nepalese writers and proudly says that you can concluded that India supports Maoists by "primarily" Indian sources.

Only when Nepal’s kings decided that his country did not need or want India’s security guarantee did the Indian government turn against Nepal and start to destabilize the country. It was the king’s attempt to procure weapons from Israel and China that negated the security guarantee and only then did India adopt the policy of destabilization.

If the King was so good in "making sure of the Nepal's security" why was he thrown out? Why would be the king be friendly with India,when India along with US and UK was against the king's autocratic rule?

Why would India spend resources on establishing Nepal,when the whole of Nepal was against the king? Do you screw up a whole nation to prove a point to a single person?

Your reason doesn't hold water.

A highly motivated population and fighting force can repel a larger power with the requisite outside support as we saw in Vietnam and Afghanistan (after the Soviet invasion). More recently you may recall that a mere 5000 fighters of Hezbollah (financed by Iran and Syria) pushed back and inflicted heavy damage on the Israeli Defence Forces. A Nepalese army supplied by China could quite easily embarrass the Indian Army in any invasion and even take the fight into India if necessary. The Indian military suffered this humiliation in Sri Lanka during the 1980’s.

Americans was not defeated military in vietnam
Russians were not defeated military in Afghanistan
Israel was not defeated military in Lebanon,nor were they pushed back.
The armies did what they were suppose to do. They were failed by the politicians. Finding political solution is not the job of defense forces.

As per the humiliation of Indian Army,may i remind you that the same army capture Jaffna in 3 weeks and handed them to SLA,which the SLA which "displays sovereignty and independence by having the option to export weapons from anywhere " IS YET TO DO.
SLA trained by the Pakistani and American is still to dislodge the LTTE.

And i will quote you ."THIS IS THE REALITY".

Yes. A sovereign and independent country must determine its own foreign policy and not co-opt its own interests in favour of another country.

Then how come you point out stationing of Chinese troops in Pakistan is correct. How do you see that Bangladesh's should align with China?

Serving Chinese interest doesnot constitute a sovereign breach?

I have never heard the Tamil population of Sri Lanka referred to as Tamilians. Are you making these words up as you go along? The issue in Sri Lanka is only partly to do with equality but has more to do with autonomy demands. It is unlikely that the Sri Lankan government would accede to the latter demands. India itself has not accepted the more justified and credible demands for autonomy/independence made by the Kashmiris, Seven Sister States and Tamil Nadu. It seems extremely hypocritical for India to require Sri Lanka to accept such unjustified demands made by the LTTE when the Tamils are relative newcomers to the island state compared to the majority Sinhalese.

Please enlighten me what are they called?
India has never called for a independent state as the solution. At the most it has called for equal rights and equal voting rights. Autonomy demands by LTTE is it's own clause. If SL government is ready to use force on the issue of equal rights,what guarentee that they will keep up their promise?
May be if you can get into the LTTE's foot you can understand why are they demanding it.

As far Tamil Nadu demanding autonomy,why should they get it? They have equal rights like any other state in India. Hell they even have cabinet minister every time the Indian gov changes.They are one the most powerful states in Indian politics. Why the hell they should get autonomy?

That is entirely within the discretion of the Sri Lankan government. Whether such a policy will create difficulties for India in Tamil Nadu state should only be a marginal matter unless it directly impinges on the conflict itself but such a balance has to be calculated with political circles inside Sri Lanka and not be dictated from New Delhi.

India does not dictate SL govern. If it asks the issue to be resolved by diagloue,is it wrong? SL is determined to solve it by force.
If they are so keen in peace,all they have to do is sit down and talk with the LTTE. If they are not ready to do it,then it is not India's problem if SL has problem in it's country.

When the containers of the ball bearings have Indian markings then it is clear that it was manufactured in India. I am not sure why it is difficult for you to grasp such a simple idea.

I never denied that it is not manufactured in India. You are twisting the statements. You were trying to prove RAW is involved,just because ball bearing is manufactured in India. tamilnadu is a hub for automobiles manufacturing.You need to have RAW's assistance to get some ball bearings,that have Made in India mark.

Millitants in Kashmir use AK's with markings from China. does it prove Chinese involvement?

You need a better case to convince me on this .

I think you have found the answer to all your questions and it came from your own mouth and you did not even realize it. There are clearly electoral considerations for why India may want to support the LTTE (at least covertly) since if emotions become too heightened in Tamil Nadu it could have a reactive effect against the Indian government. A complete defeat of the LTTE could also have unpredictable and disastrous consequences for India. More significantly Chinese, Pakistani, Israeli, European and American involvement in Sri Lanka has drastically undermined India’s influence in that country. India is the only country that is not supplying Sri Lanka with arms to fight the LTTE although it was that insurgent group that killed the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. What does all this imply?

That implies that Tamil political parties are powerful enough to stop Indian supplies to SL. It is a known fact. But they are yet to force the Indian gov to supply LTTE. LTTE is a banned terrorist org in India. Hence Tamil political parties cannot force the central gov to support LTTE.

May be if you had researched harder,you had found out that India gave around 200 milion dollars to SL in the name of aid. India may not have supplied arms,but whatever arms SL got is through Indian money.

This statement left me completely confused and makes no sense whatsoever.

Never mind. It was a gig.

He has written a great many things since that article as have many other ex-RAW officers. His opinions on these types of issues can be highly deceptive but he would not have become the RAW chief if it was otherwise. Deception is part of his game and we have to decipher his meanings in that context and light. The basic training manual for RAW is Kautilya’s ‘Arthashatra’ which teaches deception and guile as an art form. In other words, we should not take Raman’s comments at face value.

Deceptive because it is against what you want to believe.
If you dont believe him,how did you conclude that he has shown sympathy towards LTTE ,just because he said something along the lines of dumping current LTTE leader?
And people here on the forum should take "India's Doctrine" book at face value?

I have answered the question but it also appears that the LTTE was forewarned that the radar would be inoperative for a certain period of time. In fact, it seems that Sri Lanka wished to purchase Chinese made 3D radar but India pushed its cheaper and less effective 2D version. This is the problem that has to be faced when such decisions are taken out of the hands of local policy makers and transferred to New Delhi. It is with no surprise that Nepal sought Chinese and Israeli weapons.

So Indian radars were the only radars in SL? What about the radars on the international airport? Were they also down? How did they manager to travel 400 km without a stracth?

I have never in this forum used the words ‘Hindu Imperialist Plan’ so why does it appear in your responses? In the same way that Israel created Hamas or the Americans the Mujahedin (to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan) India employs misguided Muslims to act on their behalf to serve a particular strategic requirement. In many cases the Muslims do not even realize they are being employed by RAW. This is the art of intelligence work and should not be such a surprise to you. RAW is prepared to employ Maoists and Muslims to carry out its dirty work but very clandestinely and covertly.

Bangladesh employs misguided Muslims to act on their behalf to serve a particular strategic requirement. In many cases the Muslims do not even realize they are being employed by Bangladesh intelligence. This is the art of intelligence work and should not be such a surprise to you.Bangladeshi intelligence is prepared to employ Muslims to carry out its dirty work but very clandestinely and covertly.

All I did was replace India with Bangladesh and RAW with Bangladesh intelligence. It forms exactly what India keeps saying. Strange isn't it. If what India claims is propaganda,,then what you say cannot be truth either.

No. To the worlds media so that there would be an added justification for the US invasion other than the Taliban holding on to Osama bin Laden.

They did not need to give justification.Every media house knew Taliban sheltered OBL.

How do you know that India has provided the images? Are you involved in inter-governmental meetings where this evidence was produced?

I never said India produced it. My argument was based on the assumption "if India had produced..".

Let me point out that it was you who denied that India has provided satellite images. The onus is on you to prove it.

The difference between an army training camp and a terrorist one would be quite obvious. Your accusations are now verging on pure speculation and guess work.

Really? A bunch of people training with AK-47's in a firing range,wearing fatigues,within a camp deep in the jungle.. It can be a terrorist training camp or a military camp. They dont place tanks in jungle camps.
Worst if BDR was suportting them,there is nothing stopping them to declare that it is their camp.

And please dont tel me, BDR used tanks.

I have explained that his comments were intended to be diplomatic and good natured in the face of hostile comments made by Indian politicians.

Lots of Indian leaders have said bravado things abut Bangladesh for years,however I am yet to see any military action.
when previous Bangladesh leaders haven't "not denied" with so much recthoric, how come he did?

Six years ago India only lost a foot if it tries a full invasion it will loose an arm and a leg and possibly its head also. This is not an issue of prowess but reality.

It was India which captured "East Pakistan" in 14 not Mukti Bahani or any other org. As far as loosing the head is considered,India's neighour on the west has been trying to do this for years....... and is still trying and trying..

By the when was the last time Bangladeshi army fought a war? Has it ever found one?

In answer to this comment I again quote from The India Doctrine –

“In the view expressed by Indira Gandhi it may confidently be surmised that India’s role in the 1971 war was naturally an extension of its own policy considerations and ideological compulsions based on the idea of an Akhand Bharat which may be inferred from the following observation of Moudud Ahmed in his book “Bangladesh: Constitutional Quest for Autonomy�: “India’s support for Bangladesh basically emanated from its negative approach towards Pakistan. For political, historical, and economic reasons, it was India’s natural desire to see that her rival power structure in the subcontinent is weakened. It was not so much love for democracy or sense of brotherhood for the people of Bangladesh that Indira Gandhi decided to support the Bengalis in their war to achieve independence. The then Government of India acted on its own calculations in order to achieve its own national and international objectives. Once India got involved she became greatly interested in seeing the struggle the Bengalis remain in its complete control. The Indian Government wanted to ensure that following the removal of the west Pakistani authority and effective government of its own liking was established in Bangladesh.� (The India Doctrine – pp. 38-39)

Whatever gratitude Bangladesh had for India was quickly washed away by India’s arrogance and high-handedness.



Allow me to again quote from The India Doctrine –

“During the final phase of the conflict or at least very soon after the 1971 war (Kalidas does not specify a date) an agreement was signed between the Bangladesh government in exile by Acting President Syed Nazrul Islam (Sheikh Mujib had not been released by Pakistan by this time) and the Indian government which contained the following seven points:

1. Those who actively participated as Freedom Fighters and were recognized as such would according to ability, run the state administration of Bangladesh and the others would be removed from their employment and service.

2. The Indian and Bangladesh armies would be made into a joint or combined army whose head would be the Indian Army Chief. Only on his command could war be waged.

3. Bangladesh will not have its own military force.

4. Instead a paramilitary force would be established to take care of the internal law and order situation.

5. There will be an open market between the two countries but from time to time through mutual discussions the principles of trade would be settled.

6. The Indian Army will remain in Bangladesh for an indefinite period.

7. India and Bangladesh would have the same foreign policy based on discussions between the two countries.

After this agreement was signed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi took steps for war with Pakistan. On the 16th of December 1971 the Indian Army is said by Kalidas to have taken ‘possession’ of Bangladesh. In the surrender and sovereignty power document which was signed by General Niazi on behalf of the defeated Pakistan Army and handed over to General Aurora it was no where mentioned whether this document was then passed on to the Bangladesh government as the natural heirs to the Pakistani government in Dhaka and therefore the custodian of the country’s sovereignty unless, of course, India had other plans which seems to be the actual meaning of Kalidas’ disclosures. Kalidas seems to be implying that with the possession of this document still in Indian hands ‘legal title’ to the sovereignty of Bangladesh remains with India. Kalidas adds that up to this time neither government, separately or jointly, has ever cancelled the 7 point agreement.� (The India Doctrine – pg. 7)

Kalidas is a former RAW operative who infiltrated into East Pakistan sometime in 1952. His comments concerning the 7 point agreement would suggest that the Indian government had no intention of letting go of Bangladesh but the terms of that agreement were subsequently invalidated by the 25 year Friendship Treaty that recognized Bangladesh as a sovereign country but under certain conditions and even then the Treaty was reluctantly signed by Indira Gandhi as appears clear in The India Doctrine –

“The Treaty came about as a result of growing international disquiet at the Indian army’s continued presence in Bangladesh and who appeared to be an occupying force rather a liberating one. Their extended stay was also breeding hostility amongst Bangladeshis because the Indian army was seen taking away, ‘the arms, ammunitions, equipments, machineries and even furniture and household goods in convoy of trucks across the border.’ For Sheikh Mujib the major cause of concern was that many countries were still withholding recognition because of the Indian army’s continuing presence in Bangladesh after the end of hostilities.� (The India Doctrine – pg. 98)
These are only some of the revelations that appear in The India Doctrine. In short, India did technically try to claim Bangladesh and that it did not intend to give birth to a new nation.

Could you please point me to a "non-Bangladeshi source" for this treaty thing. India was ready to "negate everything" after making such grand plans?

And this comment...
"“The Treaty came about as a result of growing international disquiet at the Indian army’s continued presence in Bangladesh and who appeared to be an occupying force rather a liberating one. Their extended stay was..."
IA left Bangladesh in March 1972..
The "extended stay"... was 3 months...and there was already a "growing international disquiet".

No I am very happy that we got independence from Pakistan but as President Pervez Musharraf has apologized for the events of 1971 on at least two occasions we can put our relations with Pakistan on a different footing. A consequence of independence in 1971 is that Bangladesh can deal with India on its own terms without seeking approval from Islamabad.

A apology is enough to erase the crime of killing of so many civilians and a dispute over water sharing and India blaming presence of ULFA is "unpardonable".... strange logic Mr.Munshi.

So you admit that there are RAW operatives in Bangladesh then!

And you think I am would say "Since I havent seen RAW operatives in Bangladesh personally I deny their presence"..?

Yes the Nehru-Indira plans are still relevant for the reasons I have stated in this reply and to the other comments on this forum over the last few days.

Even for government with BJP in power?

Unfortunately we do not have a choice and must trade otherwise smuggling would rise even further. Bangladesh keeps its tariffs low to comply with free trade principles and as we do not choose our neighbours we must trade with India. Bangladesh would happily relocate far away from India if it could.

Smuggling from where? Bangladesh to India? or India to Bangladesh?
If you saying Bangladesh to India ,I doubt it,as I am yet to see what are those things from BD,that India is so dependent on.

Also since BD can produce "better and cheap" than India, wonder why there should be smuggling from India to BD?

You dont need to relocate..just dont sell to India. Is exporting to India is more worth over "preventing Indian Imperialism"?. And the question about "We cant help it" doesnot even arise as India does not prevent BD from selling somewhere else.. or does it??

 

[Adux]

Some people have all the patience even in front of utter stupidity

 

[BanglaBhoot]

I am yet to see a single article by any source which says India supports Maoist or is bent on creating trouble in Bangladesh.

If you had been paying attention to the discussion you would have seen a submission by A.K. Zaman of an article by Kajendra Thapa titled ‘India has been supporting the Nepalese terrorists’ who directly accuses RAW of collusion with RAW. My book ‘The India Doctrine’ has four Nepali writers who implicate RAW with the Maoists. I am sure if you did a Google search on RAW and Maoists you will find many articles on the issue. Your comments are based on a lack of trying and a short attention span.

Yes, supporting Maoists is also shooting in the foot. They are already creating trouble in India.

RAW is prepared to but out any group that is useful to its purpose. The Maoists of Nepal has already disassociated themselves from the wider Maoist struggle in India. CP Gajurel, the Maoist head of international relations, recently informed journalists that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) would continue to have ‘fraternal’ relations with like-minded groups in India but that relations with those parties would not be working relations, “only theoretical relations because we have the same ideology. It will not affect relations between the two states.” Similar comments have been made by Prachanda and other senior Maoists leaders indicating Indian collaboration. In fact, Dipankar Biswas, an Indian writer, has pointed out, “Ultimately, India should prepare itself and the Nepalese people to accept the country as one of its states in a federal setup. Defense, currency, communication, vital transport, federal court and external affairs shall be retained by New Delhi and all other jurisdictions shall be conferred on the state of Nepal.” This is an excellent description of the India Doctrine in practice.

If RAW does not declare, India media is biased, Indian establishment is obvious biased, how do you declare this

What? I have no idea what your question is referring to.

If the King was so good in "making sure of the Nepal's security" why was he thrown out?

RAW conspiracy similar to what happened in Sikkim. Please read Asoka Raina’s book on the subject of RAW operations during the 1960’s and 70’s.

Why would be the king be friendly with India, when India along with US and UK was against the king's autocratic rule?

Your question is self contradictory and makes no sense whatsoever. Please clarify.

Why would India spend resources on establishing Nepal, when the whole of Nepal was against the king? Do you screw up a whole nation to prove a point to a single person?

The whole of Nepal was not against the king. In a recent opinion poll two thirds of Nepalis wish to retain the monarchy. India is not out to prove points but do dominate and control.

Americans was not defeated military in Vietnam. Russians were not defeated military in Afghanistan. Israel was not defeated military in Lebanon, nor were they pushed back. The armies did what they were suppose to do. They were failed by the politicians. Finding political solution is not the job of defense forces.

I think most of the world would disagree with this statement. You are completely wrong in this assertion and your lack of support material confirms my view.

SLA trained by the Pakistani and American is still to dislodge the LTTE.

You seem very proud of LTTE’s successes. It is time you stopped being in denial and admit that India got its *** kicked in Sri Lanka during the IPKF adventure in the 1980’s.

Then how come you point out stationing of Chinese troops in Pakistan is correct. How do you see that Bangladesh's should align with China? Serving Chinese interest does not constitute a sovereign breach?

It is in the mutual interest of Pakistan and Bangladesh to build an alliance with China. This in no way compromises our sovereign rights as the decision is voluntarily and independently made without force or pressure by the Chinese.

India has never called for a independent state as the solution. At the most it has called for equal rights and equal voting rights. Autonomy demands by LTTE is it's own clause. If SL government is ready to use force on the issue of equal rights, what guarantee that they will keep up their promise? May be if you can get into the LTTE's foot you can understand why are they demanding it.

What? Your question is self contradictory and makes no sense whatsoever. Please clarify.

As far Tamil Nadu demanding autonomy, why should they get it? They have equal rights like any other state in India. Hell they even have cabinet minister every time the Indian gov changes. They are one the most powerful states in Indian politics. Why the hell they should get autonomy?

Because there is no point in remaining in the Indian Union. Independence would be economically beneficial for Tamil Nadu and they would be able to achieve their cultural aspirations separate from India. I fail to see why any state would want to remain inside India. Although Bangladesh is 25 times smaller than India its economy is only 10 times smaller and has every possibility of closing the gap within the next five years. Tamil Nadu could achieve similar prosperity separate from India as could other states.

India does not dictate SL government. If it asks the issue to be resolved by dialogue, is it wrong? SL is determined to solve it by force. If they are so keen in peace, all they have to do is sit down and talk with the LTTE. If they are not ready to do it, then it is not India's problem if SL has problem in it's country.

The Indian government should assist the Sri Lankan government as it is fighting a war on terrorism and deserves the international communities support. Why is India so keen on a negotiated settlement when the SL armed forces are doing so well on the ground? If India cannot provide an acceptable solution to the SL government then it should keep its nose out. The LTTE has less justifiable claims to independence than the freedom fighters in the Seven Sisters, Punjab and Kashmir who have historical basis for their grievances.

I never denied that it is not manufactured in India. You are twisting the statements. You were trying to prove RAW is involved, just because ball bearing is manufactured in India. Tamil Nadu is a hub for automobiles manufacturing. You need to have RAW's assistance to get some ball bearings, that have Made in India mark.

You are the one who is twisting statements. I am not suggesting that RAW manufactured the ball bearings but they are likely involved in transportation and expediting payments as well as a communication portal between Indian manufacturers, sympathizers of the LTTE in Tamil Nadu and the LTTE itself.

Millitants in Kashmir use AK's with markings from China. does it prove Chinese involvement?

Kalishnikov’s have become the weapon of choice for armed resistance groups such as in Kashmir so Chinese markings would prove nothing. Ball bearings transported across the Palk Straits is another matter altogether. One wonders why the Indian government has so far refused to undertake joint patrols of the straits with the SL navy.

That implies that Tamil political parties are powerful enough to stop Indian supplies to SL. It is a known fact. But they are yet to force the Indian gov to supply LTTE. LTTE is a banned terrorist org in India. Hence Tamil political parties cannot force the central gov to support LTTE.

Who is suggesting force? It is an Indian tactical and strategic requirement to keep the LTTE alive.

May be if you had researched harder, you had found out that India gave around 200 million dollars to SL in the name of aid. India may not have supplied arms, but whatever arms SL got is through Indian money.

India cannot afford to completely shut itself off from SL affairs so they provide aid for humanitarian efforts. This is what is called soft-power. It is through money that Indian can exert some influence over the SL government but there are now other players in the region who are also dishing out cash as well as arms.

If you don’t believe him, how did you conclude that he has shown sympathy towards LTTE, just because he said something along the lines of dumping current LTTE leader?

Dumping the LTTE leader would provide scope for India to overtly support the LTTE. This conclusion is a natural and logical deduction from B. Raman’s statement. Am I not allowed to draw inferences?

And people here on the forum should take "India's Doctrine" book at face value?

I am not saying that. Read the book and determine for yourselves whether the book has substance.

So Indian radars were the only radars in SL? What about the radars on the international airport? Were they also down? How did they manager to travel 400 km without a stretch?

According to the SL there security was infiltrated that is why they did not pick up on the attack quick enough. May be it was RAW that provided the LTTE with the information but that is speculation.

All I did was replace India with Bangladesh and RAW with Bangladesh intelligence. It forms exactly what India keeps saying. Strange isn't it. If what India claims is propaganda, then what you say cannot be truth either.

We have provided evidence where is yours?

They did not need to give justification. Every media house knew Taliban sheltered OBL.

The US still required justification for the invasion and to convince the domestic audience that war was necessary in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks.

Let me point out that it was you who denied that India has provided satellite images. The onus is on you to prove it.

Since India has made the allegation of terrorist camps inside Bangladesh borders than the burden of proof lies on India. I do not have to prove whether India has produced satellite images but for you to show me that they have to substantiate your allegations. It is commonly accepted that the burden of proof rests on the accuser not the accused.

Really? A bunch of people training with AK-47's in a firing range, wearing fatigues, within a camp deep in the jungle.. It can be a terrorist training camp or a military camp. They don’t place tanks in jungle camps. Worst if BDR was supporting them, there is nothing stopping them to declare that it is their camp.

In that case Bangladesh may accuse the BSF of providing training to terrorists active against Bangladesh. The training exercises of the Indian army and the BSF are actually a cover for terrorists operations and that we claim that India has 250 terrorist training camps inside its borders and we will not provide you with details, photography or satellite imagery but you have to find tem anyway.

Your contentions are pure speculation.

…when previous Bangladesh leaders haven't "not denied" with so much rhetoric, how come he did?

What? Your question is self contradictory and makes no sense whatsoever. Please clarify.

It was India which captured "East Pakistan" in 14 not Mukti Bahani or any other org. As far as loosing the head is considered, India's neighour on the west has been trying to do this for years....... and is still trying and trying.

Finally an admission. India captured East Pakistan and didn’t want to let go. Please read my previous comments on the subject. Bangladesh is in a more advantageous position that Pakistan because of language and cultural affinities with the Seven Sisters and West Bengal. All Bangladesh has to do is strangle at the Chicken Neck for India to suffocate. Mess with Bangladesh and all your Eastern states will explode.

By the when was the last time Bangladeshi army fought a war? Has it ever found one?

Why does India want one? India is the only country that Bangladesh can fight a war with as it is surrounded on three sides by that country. Gen. Ikram Seghal made the following astute comment –

“Sovereign Bangladesh presently has seven well trained infantry divisions, two independent infantry brigades and an armour brigade. Given that nearly 90% of its borders are shared with India (only 10% or less with Burma), one may well ask, against whom do the Bangladeshis need this firepower? Whenever a Bangladeshi gun is fired in anger, the bullet will hit an Indian.”

Could you please point me to a "non-Bangladeshi source" for this treaty thing? India was ready to "negate everything" after making such grand plans?

That was an Indian source. In the end India had no choice but to leave otherwise India would have had to face a counter-insurgency and international condemnation.

IA left Bangladesh in March 1972

They had no choice. The Indian army looting was so pervasive Sheikh Muibur Rahman would have lost internal support if India did not leave sooner than later.

A apology is enough to erase the crime of killing of so many civilians and a dispute over water sharing and India blaming presence of ULFA is "unpardonable".... strange logic Mr. Munshi.

What? Your question is self contradictory and makes no sense whatsoever. Please clarify.

Smuggling from where? Bangladesh to India? or India to Bangladesh?

India to Bangladesh.

Also since BD can produce "better and cheap" than India, wonder why there should be smuggling from India to BD?

Things that are not produced in Bangladesh and of course drugs.

You don’t need to relocate. .just dont sell to India. Is exporting to India is more worth over "preventing Indian Imperialism"? And the question about "We cant help it" does not even arise as India does not prevent BD from selling somewhere else or does it?

I already said that we have no choice otherwise smuggling would increase.

Some people have all the patience even in front of utter stupidity

I agree I have been very patient indeed.

A rhetoric by a kid whom is no more than a MP in the Indian parliament, who just started living in India for the past couple of years making a kiddish statement that his grandmother is responsible for breaking of Pakistan (which by the way the whole world knows) is a proof of Indian interference in other nation's affairs?

YES!

 

[kidwaibhai]

wow i am really learning a lot from this. i didnt know there was so much tensions between india and bangladesh.

 

[Adux]

There isnt Kidwai, Not at this level, i am going to refer Munshi to abovetopsecret.com

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Oh yes there is! Who are you kidding Adux?

 

[Adux]

Munshi,

There isnt at the level you are talking, I will be very honest you are a conpiracy theory maniac, who release various articles on the internet. Based on thier view point, and twisting facts and circumstances which are never black & white to suit your needs, i dont have the patience of CON, Therefore you can argue on your side. The moment you described Sikkim as another country, I knew your level of understanding and the whole aim of your book.

As you can understand from my sig, you will know my political view-point, So I suggest you do debate with CON, Cuz i certainly have no patience.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

It isn't so much you lack the patience to face me it is merely your inability. Your opinions fly in the face of well documented facts and you would prefer to adopt the pose of the three monkeys - see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.