What's new

FM meetings : Peace momentum stalls

The Huffington Post


India Too Complacent About Pakistan Complicity in Mumbai Attacks



Michael Hughes
Posted: July 20, 2010 02:50 PM

Scarcely a soul envisaged last week's "trust deficit" discussions between Pakistan and India producing any results worth a fig. Unfortunately, they failed to achieve even that. Outside of the obvious attempt to assuage U.S. leaders, the biggest riddle is why India would ever agree to meet with Pakistan to discuss issues of trust in the first place, when India now has definitive proof in hand that Pakistan's intelligence agency, army and navy were in league with the hateful Islamic jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks that led to the deaths of 173 people.

A bigger riddle is why U.S. head of state Hillary Clinton handed Pakistan a check for $500 million in development funds yesterday while Pakistan provides a safe haven for Taliban and al Qaeda leaders. Even more surreal is Mrs. Clinton giving Pakistan's leaders said aid and shortly after asserting in an interview that someone in the Pakistani establishment knows where Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar have taken sanctuary (by chance, is anyone else tearing their hair out?).

If anything, the precarious relationship between India and Pakistan deteriorated after the countries' two foreign ministers haggled in daylong sessions on July 15 - not over substance but over what issues they would discuss and when they would discuss them.

The day ended with an uncomfortably contentious press conference as India's cool-hand-Luke Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna deflected questions darted at him from a hostile Pakistani press corps. Mr. Krishna kept his dignity but while watching the video of the circus it at times looked like Krishna was secretly praying for anyone or anything to abort the proceedings as the madman to his left, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, defensively gyrated with eyes widening as he over enunciated every word while smacking his lips and jabbing his finger in the air emphatically several times - looking less the part of a senior diplomat at a press debriefing and more the part of an amateur thespian at Shakespeare in the park.

The tension was firmly established on the eve of the trust-a-thon when Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai was quoted in the Indian Express saying David Coleman Headley, the Chicago-based Pakistani-American who conspired with terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) to launch the Mumbai siege, disclosed that Pakistan's intelligence services controlled and coordinated the terrorist barrage from beginning to end.

It's no wonder that Mr. Qureshi seemed so awfully fidgety. Though Qureshi had plenty of time to come up with a decent response to this particular accusation, his pathetic rejoinder consisted of an ad hominem attack against Pillai, comparing him to the founder of LeT, Hafiz Saeed, who is basically the equivalent of Osama bin Laden to India.

Both the Indian and Pakistani press chastised Mr. Pillai's ill-timed public divulgence, though it doesn't diminish the veracity of his statement in any way. Nor does it detract from the confession that Headley gave to India's National Investigation Agency (NIA) during the course of a 34-hour interrogation from June 3 to June 9. Headley, who is still in FBI custody, informed Indian authorities that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was involved in planning the attacks, clearing weapons, funding the surveillance of targets in Mumbai and acquiring boats.

Yet, the world should have been spared from Mr. Qureshi's histrionics because India should have demanded no trust-building exercises would take place until this issue was completely resolved. During post-game diplomatic trash talking, Mr. Qureshi had the gall to accost India for not talking about what Pakistan wanted to talk about and he seemed genuinely irritated India dare try and stick to the pesky issue of the overwhelming evidence that Pakistan attacked them. But Qureshi's "cherry-picking" invective was the first untruth he told the media because India's foreign minister went above and beyond his technical mandate and offered to discuss all of the issues, including Kashmir, Jammu, Siachen and Sir Creek.

What Mr. Krishna was not willing to do was commit to a time-bound issue resolution roadmap, so Qureshi blasted Krishna afterwards for being "selective" during the discussions. He went so far as to insultingly suggest Krishna was not mentally prepared.

The second lie Mr. Qureshi told was a dense one - the type of fib that has zero upside and is so easily refuted it elucidates a certain underlying pathology, when he claimed Krishna was continually being interrupted with phone calls and getting orders from New Delhi. Qureshi then began to boast about his own diplomatic preparedness:



"I led Pakistan's team. I didn't need to make even a single phone call (to Pakistan leaders) during the daylong talks. If Krishna is principal for directing Indian foreign policy why were directions from Delhi being sent repeatedly?"

Mr. Krishna was also perplexed by the erratic Mr. Qureshi's accusation, saying: "I never used any telephone... It is an extraordinary statement to make that I got calls. I didn't talk to anyone." Pakistan's own former foreign minister Gauhar Ayub called Mr. Qureshi's deviant behavior childish and inappropriate. Days later, Qureshi backtracked and said he never said Krishna himself was on the phone. (How I wish I was there to ask a quick follow-up: "Mr. Qureshi sir... then how did Mr. Krishna receive the orders from New Delhi?")

During the press conference, considering Pakistan will not hand over the suspects of the Mumbai attacks (the reason why becoming clearer every minute) claiming Islamabad would bring them to justice, Mr. Krishna politely fished for an update and suggested that the biggest confidence-building measure would be the complete unraveling of the Mumbai conspiracy.

Qureshi's weak non-response was better left unsaid - a "let me get back to you on that one" would have sufficed. Instead, the Pakistani foreign minister flinched and declared there was little that could be done to speed things up and emphasized that "both India and Pakistan" had independent judiciaries and governments could not dictate to the courts. Mr. Krishna did not seem to appreciate the civics lesson.

According to insiders from India, Mr. Krishna probably appeared calmer than one would expect - although he is mild-mannered by nature - because he knew all of this was coming. Days before a senior diplomat gave Krishna a tip that the process was being driven by the Pakistani army or as CNN-IBN's Paarull Malhotra put it: "Rawalpindi was the puppeteer and Islamabad the puppet."

India must awaken to the reality that Pakistan's army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani smells blood and thinks he can knock India out of the box in Afghanistan and he certainly isn't going to wait for the trust talks to come to fruition. The U.S. desperately needs Pakistan - evidenced by the mad cash the U.S. has dished out - and Kayani knows this and is going to make sure Pakistan has a foothold in Kabul when the dust settles. It's a good wager the wise General isn't going to let a minor issue impede progress, including the fact that Pakistan's entire armed forces have been implicated in a terror plot.

If India continues down too diplomatic a road they are going to lose out in Kabul as the U.S. continues down the path of least resistance until it finds a feasible remedy. India has stated they would not participate in full blown official diplomatic discussions with Pakistan until the extremist groups in Pakistan are fully dismantled, which would entail the dismantling of the Pakistani state. Perhaps it's time for India to try and convince the U.S. a dismantling of this sort is the best remedy possible.


Michael Hughes writes similar articles as the Geopolitics Examiner and the Afghanistan Headlines Examiner for Examiner.com.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/india-too-complacent-abou_b_652224.html
 
.
If i'm not mistaken, he should stick to fiction writing.....he does a bad job of hiding his gross bias.

Maybe he forgot that hindustanys expect us to arrest and charge people despite the fact that given all the time (and interest) that has passed since mombai incident, they (the hindustanys) have failed to provide sufficient proof to justify the arrest and conviction of people like the Mr. Saeed.

Pakistan cannot act without sufficient proof. Without evidence, you have no case!


Actually, I respect our Foreign Minister for the way he handled the flip-floppery and disorganized, cluttered and confused nature of the visiting 'delegation' from the neighbour country
 
.
Mosharraf Zaidi
24/7/2010

The anger that produced Shah Mehmood Qureshi's press conference lambasting the Indian delegation led by SM Krishna, as Krishna was boarding a plane for New Delhi, comes from a very specific place. It is a place that doesn't exist in the real world anymore, but is still vividly embedded in the minds of some within the Pakistani establishment. In that old place, Pakistan was the nimble and clever fox, and India was the large, clumsy elephant. That place is 1991.

In 1991, India's GDP growth was a sorry 1.06 per cent, while Pakistan was chugging along at an impressive 5.06 per cent. This was not an anomaly, but the usual. Before 1991, Pakistan frequently outpaced India's growth — even though India's was more even, while Pakistan's seemed to be on crack, vacillating wildly. Then in 1991, a bunch of retired and on-vacation IMF and World Bank bureaucrats unofficially took over the Pakistani economy to try to tame the beast, and a sage named Manmohan Singh began to run the Indian economy. Since then, India has enjoyed a sustained era of slow, but meaningful and across-the-board reform, while Pakistan has, outside of its telecom, banking and media sectors, achieved zero reform.

Pakistanis that I spoke to who had access to the goingson during the July 15 summit between Qureshi and Krishna complain of India's monochromatic national narrative —press , government, private sector — all united. They complain that India didn't come to slow dance, but rather to tease and prod. They complain that India's attitude was dismissive, while Pakistan's was earnest. I have no difficulty believing any of these things. But the very act of complaining about these things, rather than having cogent and defensible comebacks, should be a tell-all indicator of how differently positioned India and Pakistan are for the 21st century. Qureshi's press conference is what weaker parties do when confronted with a conundrum. They wail.

One way to try to understand the growing gulf between India and Pakistan is to examine the now infamous interview of the Indian home secretary G K Pillai — which is rightly identified by many Pakistanis as having possibly contaminating the spirit of the July 15 summit. The truth is however, that the interview hardly scratches the surface of what would constitute titillating revelations. Nobody loves intelligence agencies, certainly not one from an "enemy country" .

What really catches the eye in that interview rather is the boldness of Pillai's manner, a civil servant working for India's central government, as he skewers the political and administrative failures of Indian states. A gag order reportedly placed on Pillai may assuage some of the politicians' egos in Delhi and the various state capitals that he rankles, but the home secretary's confidence is unlikely to diminish. Maybe civil servants have no place discussing public policy with the press. Maybe not. But Pillai's selfconfidence speaks to a greater issue.

The Indian Administrative Service's ability to breed such confidence is not a random accident. Good civil servants — like Shiv Shankar Menon and TN Seshan — are cultivated, not discovered. The contemporary history of the IAS in India and its colonial cousin in Pakistan, the District Management Group, is a study in contrasts. India's system of recruiting, retaining, rotating, and sustaining civil servants to serve the state has produced top-shelf talent consistently, despite being ravaged by challenges like corruption and a rigid system of home state allocation.

Despite enjoying a less complicated federal structure, Pakistan's civil servants, on the other hand, while individually brilliant, have experienced a consistent and brutal stripping away of their powers and their ability to contribute to national stability and prosperity. The decay began in 1974, when Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto sought to democratise the bureaucracy by making civil servants increasingly accountable to politicians. Those reforms effectively ended up bringing to a close the Raj legacy of administrative efficiency on this side of the Wagah border.

A 2007 study of political cycles in IAS postings by Lakshmi Iyer (Harvard) and Anandi Mani (Warwick) found that the "average probability of a transfer in a given year was 49 per cent... bureaucrats spent an average of 16 months in any given position" . While 16 months falls well short of the global three-year standard (which is also the recommended period in both India and Pakistan), it likely exceeds the average for civil servants in Pakistan. One example of how crazy transfers and postings have become is from the spring of 2009 when the government of Punjab (in Pakistan) saw a number of individual departmental heads experience as many as four postings within a shambolic five-month period (when Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif's government was summarily dismissed, and later, reconstituted).
The differences are vast. India's Pay Commission reports , in epic detail, are available free of cost to anyone (including Pakistanis). Pakistan's Pay and Pensions Committee reports are state-secrets , not available even to parliamentarians and senior bureaucrats.

The Indian delegation of officials and journalists got to know a small morsel of these kinds of details about Pakistan during the July 15 summit. That, and not Qureshi's political tamasha, is what should lie at the heart of this conversation between India and Pakistan: a continuum of humanising the other.

I'd be delighted to watch the next Pakistani delegation visit India and receive a frigid welcome by the Indian ministry for external affairs. Delighted that the next summit is used by both sides to reiterate the centrality of Kashmir versus the centrality of terrorism. Delighted if India and Pakistan continue to agree to disagree. As long as the two countries keep talking, we should all be delighted. The long road to a peaceful South Asia begins by getting to know one another, little by little. The July 15 summit achieved that, and then some.


The writer is an international development expert and writes for the News (Pakistan), and Al-Shorouk (Egypt)

Failed talks in Islamabad - India - The Times of India
 
.
Pakistanis that I spoke to who had access to the goingson during the July 15 summit between Qureshi and Krishna complain of India's monochromatic national narrative —press , government, private sector — all united.

Well we got to agree with this part.................we seldom differ on serious issues
 
.
talks will always fail if india keeps on bringing up small issues while avoiding the pressing issues.
 
.
talks will always fail if india keeps on bringing up small issues while avoiding the pressing issues.

well Pakistan needs talks badly.....................we are happy with the status

If you want result , you need to "DO MORE" and earn the talks.

I dont think you did that:devil:
 
.
well Pakistan needs talks badly.....................we are happy with the status

If you want result , you need to "DO MORE" and earn the talks.

I dont think you did that:devil:

Why does Pakistan needs to talk with India that badly ??

What has India to offer ??
 
. .
Peace.....is that not important.?

I believe we are not at war right now that we need peace talks or talks for peace.

Plus the member said Pakistan needs talks badly and India is ok with the current status.

So why can't be Pakistan ok with the current status ??

What has that India would offer that Pakistan badly needs to talk to India.

Don't com up with peace thingy, we are at peace for now, we aren't at war.
 
Last edited:
.
Why does Pakistan needs to talk with India that badly ??

What has India to offer ??

1. Water issues- India building Dams on rivers (not Pakistan). Pakistan will get affected not India. India happy with dams but not Pakistan. So Pakistan wants to talk not India.

2. Saichen Glacier- India controls the height of glacier and India captured in from Pakistan. Keeping soldiers there is very very very costly. India can afford it, but in current economic mess Pakistan cant. but he cant even withdraw troops. Pakistan wants India to get down from heights, But India dont like it. Pakistan wants to talk on this. India not interested

3. Sir chreek- India currently controls it. And this area is thought to have gas reserves. Pakistan wants to exploring rights on some part of it. India dont like that so we dont want to talk on this but Pakistan wants to talk.

4. Arm race- India is modernizing its military at high rate.Aircrafts, nuke subs, tanks etc etc. Pakistan cannot afford to match India bullet by bullet due it its small economy. So wants to talk to India about it. India dont want to stop or slow down.

5. Balochistan issues- although insurgency on small scale is going on in Balochistan from last six decades but only recently Pakistan has started accusing India for it.India denies. Pakistan wants to talk but India denies any charge.

6. Kashmir - Pakistan is very fond of raising Kashmir at world stage and with India. Pakistan complains of human rights violation in Indian Kashmir, But India says Terrorists dont have human rights. India can go with current situation for more one century. But can pakistan????
Pakistan wants to talk, India says "No thank you come again"

7. Afghanistan- Pakistan fears that India might win heart of Afghans and Afghanistan may become close friend of India which may in turn will be a nightmare for Pakistan which considers Afghanistan like its province. Pakistan want India to stop its developmental works in Afghanistan, close its hospitals etc, and go back packing their bags to New Delhi. India dont want that.

8. Terrorism- This is the only issue to which India is concerned about.
But hey...........we lived 20 years in terrorism and we time to time has breaked backs of terrorists and on occasion made Pakistan admit also.......we can live with that even if Pakistan doesnt stop[.

-------------------------

answer awaited................................who wants to Talk ???.......Who is dying for talks?????????
 
.
I believe we are not at war right now that we need peace talks or talks for peace.

The statement we r not at war doesnt mean we r at peace..we r at anything but peace.
 
Last edited:
.
7. Afghanistan- Pakistan fears that India might win heart of Afghans and Afghanistan may become close friend of India which may in turn will be a nightmare for Pakistan which considers Afghanistan like its province. Pakistan want India to stop its developmental works in Afghanistan, close its hospitals etc, and go back packing their bags to New Delhi. India dont want that.


I'm guessing you have not heard the news for this.

Take a deep breath before you click on it.

washingtonpost.com

And do cross this off your list. :cheesy:
 
.
I believe we are not at war right now that we need peace talks or talks for peace.

Plus the member said Pakistan needs talks badly and India is ok with the current status.

So why can't be Pakistan ok with the current status ??

What has that India would offer that Pakistan badly needs to talk to India.

Don't com up with peace thingy, we are at peace for now, we aren't at war.


I hope I have made my self clear.
Explained what India can offer.............now plz enlighten me What Pakistan can offer (except from stopping terrorism in India and helping afghanistan to increase its economic activities with India-but again even if India dont get route from Pakistan.............India is building a port in Iran and has build a highway connecting afghanistan to Iran........we can manage that:yahoo:)
 
.
In 1991, India's GDP growth was a sorry 1.06 per cent, while Pakistan was chugging along at an impressive 5.06 per cent. This was not an anomaly, but the usual. Before 1991, Pakistan frequently outpaced India's growth — even though India's was more even, while Pakistan's seemed to be on crack, vacillating wildly. Then in 1991, a bunch of retired and on-vacation IMF and World Bank bureaucrats unofficially took over the Pakistani economy to try to tame the beast

this is a SAD REALITY!!! and the bad part is people don't understand that infact most growth and stability has come under the ARMY RULE!!! not under democracy be it PPP or PML(N).......



besides this part the rest is all typical TOI BS!!!
 
.
I'm guessing you have not heard the news for this.

Take a deep breath before you click on it.

washingtonpost.com

And do cross this off your list. :cheesy:
:smitten::smitten::smitten:
Thanks for backing my raised point with a link.:toast_sign:

This shows that if India gets close to Afghanistan, its a nightmare to Pakistan.......................and Pakistan will do anything to stop it from happening..................and to make it somewhat easy.........they want India to pack bags and go home.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom