Obviously open borders would imply a quid pro quo. India would facilitate removing NTB's(Non Tariff Barriers) in exchange for Pakistan doing the same. You government has vested interests and does not want more trade with India.
Open borders among various other comments that indicate a very 'love India' stance. And most analysis on NTB's indicate issues on the Indian side, not the Pakistani. The vested interests on the Pakistani side, mostly businesses that stand to lose because of skewed trade, have valid reasons for opposing open borders.
What the 'average' Pakistani does is not worth a single coin. What your government does is what matters. Expressing sympathy after decades of training and tooling terrorists to go and blow up in India does little to mitigate anger, especially when one has been caught red handed.
Strawman - provide one shred of evidence that the GoP or any of its organs trained any group to commit terrorist attacks (as defined by attacks on civilians) or specifically asked them to do so. The support was always for groups fighting Indian occupation forces in occupied J&K, Indian occupation forces that committed rape, torture and massacres of tens of thousands as attested by international human rights organizations - terrorism by any definition.
Bull-$hit. Pakistan started supporting Indian insurgent groups via then EP as well.
If Pakistan supports only the right to self determination, it should stop the logistical support to terrorists. Little wonder that almost all estimates point to a substantial non Indian terrorist population in Kashmir.
Duoble BS on your part then, in terms of support for the Baluch and East Pakistani insurgencies and by some accounts also groups in Sindh and NWFP.
Pakistan provides no logistical support to terrorists, the majority of the groups in Occupied J&K are fighting Indian occupation forces. The majority of the terrorism committed in J&K is by the Indian Army and other Indian security forces in raping and massacring innocents. (again, as I pointed out to Desiman, if you want to go this route of flaming and trolling we can match you).
Pakistan blatantly denied and umpteen Pakistani officials outrightly rejected Kasab being Pakistani-Even when proved otherwise.
Kasab was accepted as Pakistani when Pakistan finally received evidence from India after months of delays. Had India cooperated earlier instead of throwing a hissy fit and going on a Pakistan bashing spree domestically and in the internationally, the acceptance would have been sooner. The delay was the fault of the GoI in refusing to share any information or evidence at an official level with the GoP.
Yeah, i dunno about international safeguards on Pakistani reactors. Enriched Pu that Pak may get from these reactors are ofcourse of no concern.
Yet more BS. The Sino-Pak nuclear deal is on two Light Water reactors (in addition to the two already constructed at Chashma), not Heavy Water reactors which is where concerns over Plutonium as spent fuel for weapons arises. Even so, the two existing NPP's at Chashma are already under IAEA safegaurds, and both China and Pakistan have indicated that the two new NPP's will also be under IAEA safeguards.
Pakistan's Plutonium production for WMD's comes from its Khushab complex, which is in the process of being expanded with two additional reactors of reportedly greater capacity than the existing Khushab reactor, thereby more than tripling Plutonium production for weapons.
The majority of India's NPP's are Heavy Water, which produce Plutonium as a byproduct, which is why there was, among other things, greater focus on separating the civilian and military component of India's nuclear program - not to mention that India had already in the past diverted Plutonium from the CANDU reactor meant for peaceful purposes to conduct its first nuclear test.
So as you can see, this 'Plutonium for weapons from the Sino-Pak nuclear deal' is nothing but a canard. There are no weapons implications from this deal, and India's opposition to a program to increase clean energy generation in Pakistan is indicative of an irrational hostility to Pakistan that justifies Zardari's comments.
Im sorry but maligning Pakistan? You are joking. Pakistan has been exporting terror to not just India but globally. Why in gods name would India want to cooperate when even after 9/11, there were reports saying what the world already knew-Pakistan was still thinking of Taliban as a strategic asset.
I am really getting tired of your trolling. What export of terror has the Pakistani state or its institutions engaged in globally? Give me credible evidence of one single international terrorist attack that was supported by the GoP or any of its organs. Barring that I expect a retraction and I WILL BAN your trolling arse next time you flame on this forum in such a manner.
As for thinking of the Taliban as a 'strategic asset' post 911, why not? The Taliban had nothing to do with 911, nor any other terrorist attacks on the West or India. Their only crime was to refuse to hand over people residing on territory under their control without proper evidence and a trial. Multiple Taliban officials showed willingness to have OBL tried in a neutral third country, and OBL himself denied the 911 attacks till after the US invasion.
Given the US track record in abandoning the region, hedging bets was a good idea, and guess what? The US did just that, abandoned Afghanistan once more to go wage war in Iraq on the basis of lies.
It wasnt until these 'freedom fighters' of yours started blowing in your own country that you called them terrorists.
If you want India to be more cooperative, why not remove the training infrastructure, ensure that your spooks dont try and get people to blow up in India and particularly Kashmir.
In case you hadn't noticed, there was (and still continues to be relative to the nineties) a significant drop in both cross-LoC infiltration and insurgent activity in IaK over the past decade. And the freedom fighters are not 'blowing themselves up' and killing civilians either in India or in Pakistan, these people are terrorists much like the Indian security forces raping, torturing and massacring Kashmiris in IaK. Freedom fighters would be the insurgents fighting Indian security forces in Occupied J&K.
As for ensuring that terrorists don't succeed, when Pakistan can ensure that they can't succeed in Pakistan, only then can there be any assurance of preventing them from succeeding anywhere else, and that is unfortunately going to be a long term battle.
India attempted to isolate Pakistan because the terrorists were Pakistani. US has the carte blanche to bomb Pakistan, we donot, does not mean that India does not get angry when its citizens are killed due to Pakistani sponsored terrorism.
The US has the capability of obliterating the military of any nation on earth, that does not mean it does so. In the case of Pakistan it has done the opposite of what India did - engaged with Pakistan, increased cooperation with Pakistan, sent high-level officials with concerns and evidence to Pakistan, and Pakistan has cooperated. US officials also contradicted the more inflammatory media comments, about 'dead lines, threats and what not' and backed off their own rhetoric when it was deemed too inflammatory (Clinton). In essence US officials did everything possible to publicly show support for Pakistan and commend it and repose trust in it. India did the opposite, and went on a Pakistan bashing spree domestically and internationally from the get-go, despite multiple Pakistani offers of 'joint-investigation, evidence sharing, intelligence cooperation' etc. We were rebuffed at every turn, and the demands were that we 'take action' against whoever India wished to claim without India providing a shred of evidence to support its claims.
Brilliant. While on that, force your government to control your own armed forces. When the Pakistani government says one thing one day and retracts the next, When one official says one thing at the same time the other says something diametrically opposite, then its shows that they are problems.
The armed forces are under control of the GoP, I see no problems with that. And as for advice, you may want to suggest the GoI back off its hatemongering and brainwashing of the Indian public for a while to improve relations as well.
and to clarify things: The official position is that *** is also Indian territory. So accepting LoC as IB is a compromise as well for India.
Nonsense, Nehru backed out of that position way back in the fifties, and the statements of subsequent Indian leaders, including MMS ('no shifting of borders') are pretty clear on that point.
The fact is that India cannot claim all of J&K since it stands to lose the most in such a situation. Since military conflict is unlikely to result in major territorial losses on either side, the only way India can hope to make a case for 'all of J&K' is by raising the issue internationally, and that is that last thing India wants to do. Raising the issue internationally would mean the UNSC resolutions gain prominence again, not least because the means of dispute resolution they outline, plebiscite, would find little opposition from anyone. That is simply not a route India wants to take, but one that Pakistan would love for India to try.
