What's new

India: Pakistan sees no reason to stop supporting terrorists

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justin Joseph

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
2,216
Reaction score
0
India: Pakistan sees no reason to stop supporting terrorists

By Ashley J. Tellis
Monday, 15 March 2010 20:20

As the search for stability in Afghanistan intensifies, the threat of violence and a wider conflagration is growing. In an effort to secure a dominant position in Afghanistan and blunt India’s rise, Pakistan has mobilized militants and terrorists on both sides of its borders. While the Afghan Taliban fighting US and NATO forces continue to enjoy Pakistan’s support, Islamabad has exchanged its previous policy of supporting anti-Indian insurgencies with that of supporting terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which mounted the deadly assault on Mumbai in 2008. With tension persisting between the two South Asian rivals, this tactic not only increases the prospect of major war between New Delhi and Islamabad, but, given Lashkar’s growing reach, could have global consequences.

The disruption of the India-Pakistan peace process, which has remained frozen since the Mumbai attack, is due principally to Pakistan’s unwillingness to bring to justice the Lashkar leadership, which has enjoyed the support of the country’s powerful intelligence organization – Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). After almost two decades of punting, many Pakistanis today – academics, policy analysts, and even officials – concede that fomenting insurgencies within India has been a main component of Pakistan’s national strategy. But that late admission comes long after Pakistan’s military establishment moved to replace its failed strategy of encouraging insurgencies with the more lethal device of unleashing terrorism.

Since its formation in 1947, Pakistan has sought to stir up insurgencies within India. The earliest efforts in 1947-48 centered on provoking insurrections in Jammu and Kashmir in hopes that an internal rebellion would permit the seizure of this disputed state. These efforts failed miserably: through three major conflicts with India, the people of Kashmir stayed loyal to New Delhi. After Pakistan’s defeat in the 1971 war, Islamabad attempted to stoke other secessionist movements, this time not for any territorial gains but merely to avenge its humiliation. But this effort too was beaten back by the Indian state. Finally, in 1989, when the first genuinely Kashmiri uprising against New Delhi broke out, Islamabad quickly threw its support behind the insurgents who were led by the secular Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). This revolt, however, was quickly overpowered by the Indian Army by 1993 – and the defeat forced the momentous change in Islamabad’s strategy.

Flushed with confidence flowing from the success of the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Pakistan sought to replicate in the east what it had managed in the west, namely, the defeat of a great power larger than itself. Using the same instruments as before – radical Islamist groups that had sprung up throughout Pakistan – Pakistan’s ISI pushed into Jammu and Kashmir for the first time in 1993 with combat-hardened aliens tasked to inflict large-scale murder and mayhem.

Through this act, Pakistan’s traditional strategy of fomenting insurgencies finally gave way to a new approach, namely, fomenting terrorism (an instrument that most Pakistanis still refuse to acknowledge). No longer would Pakistan rely on dissatisfied indigenous populations to advance Islamabad’s interests; rather, vicious bands of Islamic terrorists, most of whom had little or no connection to any existing grievances with India, would be unleashed indiscriminately to kill large numbers of civilians.

From 1996, these attacks were deliberately extended at ISI’s behest throughout India and of all the myriad terrorist organizations involved, none enjoyed greater state support than Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). LeT has now sprung to international attention because of the bloodbath in Mumbai in November 2008, but the group has been active in South Asia since 1987, first in Afghanistan and thereafter in India.

Of all the terrorist groups ISI has sponsored over the years, LeT has been especially favored because its dominant Punjabi composition matched the primary ethnicity of the Pakistani Army and ISI; and its puritanical Salafism undergirded its willingness to engage in risky military operations throughout India. Many in ISI are deeply sympathetic to LeT’s vision of recovering “lost Muslim lands” in Asia and Europe and resurrecting a universal Islamic Caliphate through the instrument of jihad.

Although Pakistani propaganda often asserts that LeT is a Kashmiri organization moved by the Kashmiri cause, it is nothing of the kind. The 3,000-odd foot soldiers who man its fighting ranks are drawn primarily from the Pakistani Punjab. Indian intelligence today estimates that LeT maintains some kind of presence in twenty-one countries worldwide with the intention of supporting or participating in what its leader Hafeez Saeed has called the perpetual “jihad against the infidels.” Consequently, LeT’s operations in and around India, which often receive the most attention, are only part of a large pastiche that has taken LeT operatives and soldiers as far afield as Australia, Canada, Chechnya, China, Eritrea, Kosovo, Oman, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Spain, the United Kingdom, and even the US.

Given the organization’s vast presence, its prolific capacity to raise funds worldwide, and its ability to conduct militant activities at great distances from its home base, LeT has become ISI’s preferred instrument for its ongoing covert war with India. This includes the campaign that Pakistan is currently waging against the Indian presence in Afghanistan and against US counterinsurgency efforts in that country. Active LeT operations in Pakistan’s northwestern border areas involve close collaboration with Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, and Jamiat al-Dawa al-Quran wal-Sunna. Thanks to these activities and others worldwide, Washington has now reached the conclusion that LeT represents a threat to America’s national interests second only to Al Qaeda and in fact exceeds the latter by many measures.

Based on this judgment, President Barack Obama has told Pakistan’s President Asif Zardari that targeting LeT would be one of his key conditions for a renewed US strategic partnership with Pakistan. Thus far, however, the Pakistani military, which still rules Pakistan even though it does not formally govern, has been non-responsive, preferring instead to emphasize the threat India supposedly poses to Pakistan – thereby implicitly justifying ISI’s continued reliance on terrorism – while demanding further US assistance. Such a demand is intended to inveigle the US into Pakistan’s relentless competition with India. The military’s dismissal of Obama’s injunctions regarding LeT are driven at least partly by its belief that all US warnings are little other than special pleading on the behalf of India.

Since assaulting India has become a quite satisfying end in itself, the Pakistani establishment has no incentive whatsoever to interdict this group. To the degree that ISI has attempted to control LeT, it is mainly to prevent excessive embarrassment to its sponsors or serious crises leading to war. But outside of these aims, the Pakistani military has no interest in dismantling any terrorist assets that it believes serve it well.

Military leaders in Rawalpindi have thus not only failed to understand that American concerns about LeT derive fundamentally from its own growing conviction that the group’s activities worldwide make it a direct threat to the US, but they also continue to harbor the illusion that their current strategy of unleashing terrorism will enervate India, push it out of Afghanistan, and weaken US stabilization efforts there. Such a strategy is designed to make Islamabad the kingmaker in determining Kabul’s future. This too promises to become one more in the long line of cruel illusions that has gripped Pakistan since its founding.



Global Arab Network Link:

Global Arab Network | India: Pakistan sees no reason to stop supporting terrorists | Opinion
 
.
Since when it took terror seriously... Old stuff man.


Yeah.. but it is latest article on Global Arab Network and written by foreigner so it will expose pakistan in international arena and will make public opinion.

It will help India.

Make public opinion and then pursue it with diplomatic missions and lobbying and see the results.
 
.
Only thing I can conclude is, MMS visit to KSA is giving result I guess. ;)
Oh yes...and we Indian know all mentioned things already.
 
.
yes PAKISTAN is either ISI or LeT! which if we calculate for a population of 170 million people becomes 85 million LeT & 85 million ISI agents!!!! have fun sleeping at night guys!!
 
.
yes PAKISTAN is either ISI or LeT! which if we calculate for a population of 170 million people becomes 85 million LeT & 85 million ISI agents!!!! have fun sleeping at night guys!!

No one is saying pakistani people are bad but the reality is the army/ISI/few elite landlords controls whole pakistan.

and civilized Pakistani people don't have say in system.
 
.
Strong India can deal with Pak's terror agenda: Nirupama Rao


WASHINGTON: Expectation that India has significantly changed its approach towards Pakistan and Afghanistan appears misplaced. Signaling an unrelentingly robust stance towards Pakistan unless it cracked down on sponsoring terrorism against India, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao told a Washington audience on Monday that New Delhi's restraint should not be mistaken for weakness and it has the capacity to "deal effectively with those that pursue destructive agendas against India and its people." She also declared India will not scale down its presence in Afghanistan, a Pakistani wish that is playing on American minds.

The gist of Nirupama Rao's remarks to her American audience indicated that India had briefly calibrated its approach to Pakistan and initiated talks to see if Islamabad was genuine in ending terrorism directed against India. The Pakistani response showed otherwise. "Aggressive pronouncements by persons identified by the world as terrorists continue to be made openly against India," Rao said, referring to Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafeez Saeed among others. "Today, Pakistan claims that it is in no position to give us such a guarantee that terrorism can be controlled by its authorities."

Despite the "brazen and malignant" nature of the threats India faced, Rao said, India has made several genuine efforts to restore trust and confidence. But now in the face of Pakistani intransigence, public opinion in India "can hardly be expected to support the resumption of a full-blown Composite Dialogue."

Ahead of a visit here next week by a high-level Pakistani team led by its foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Rao also told her US interlocutors that strict accountability criteria should apply to defence assistance rendered to Pakistan for operations against terrorists and insurgents on the border with Afghanistan. India’s past experience regarding such assistance, she said, "has taught us to be vigilant to the possibility of it being used for purposes that generate tension and hostile actions against India." Pakistan has sought from the Obama administration drones, fighter jets, and a civilian nuclear deal on par with the US-India agreement, and the demands are expected to be presented next week.

Rao also questioned US messaging on Afghanistan, saying it is vital for the international community to stay the course in that country and any reintegration process should include only those who abjure violence and terrorism and are willing to abide by the values of democracy, pluralism and human rights. "There is every risk, otherwise, that the Taliban could resurrect themselves as they have done in the past even when we think they have been defeated or we are rid of their hardcore elements," she warned, adding, "one cannot stress enough the need to avoid compromises or differentiation between the so-called shades of the Taliban."

While her remarks about ****** situation revealed a degree of disquiet with the Obama administration's policies in the region, Rao was largely sanguine about bilateral ties with the US despite some of the commentariat suggesting the Obama administration had taken its eyes off the US-India ball. She remained unflustered over the stalling of the nuclear liability bill in Parliament saying it would be introduced after recess, and insisted the civilian nuclear deal was otherwise on schedule.

"The foreign policy priorities of the United States and India seem to converge now as never before - and both Governments recognize the validity of their cooperation in helping to craft solutions to the foremost challenges of our times," Rao maintained despite the question marks she raised on the ****** situation and New Delhi's continued grievances against the US export control regime that is also the subject of her discussions here.
 
.
No one is saying pakistani people are bad but the reality is the army/ISI/few elite landlords controls whole pakistan.

and civilized Pakistani people don't have say in system.

So I guess the decision to interfere in Pakistan's internal matters in 71 was taken by the civilized Indian public via a poll?
Not all decisions are taken by the people of a country...sometimes a decision is taken by few and is only seen right and wrong in light of the result it achieves, this is something a student of history will observe a lot.

Now coming to the topic; Kashmir is an issue for Pakistan and wars have been fought over it, expecting Kashmir to be a non issue is not realistic.
Unless the issue is resolved India and Pakistan can never be at ease.

It is a fact and acknowledged even in India that Musharraf cracked down on LET and the cross border violations reduced dramatically, this was supposed to end the era where militancy was not being checked due to diplomatic failures over a genuine issue.
For peace and sake of common sense this was to be reciprocated by India in terms of serious talks to resolve the dispute...this has not happened till now.

In the meantime LET has regrouped and is currently fighting Pakistan Army, i do not know which LET is the author expressing his opinion about.
LET is helping Al Qaeda and attempted to instigate a war between India and Pakistan...this nearly happened.
There are many indigenous terrorist movements in India, it makes no sense for Pakistan to send in a Pakistani troop of terrorists with their papers and carry out such an attack so openly, even TTP in Pakistan is more careful in its planning.
The only explanation is that this was a deliberate ploy by the terrorists to carry out an attack seen to be a Pakistani state sponsored attack.
It cannot be work of Pakistani agencies who shall never want to open multiple fronts when dealing with terrorist networks in FATA, not to mention that killing of civilians does not create a positive sentiment for any country...such open disregard for fairly basic strategic insight is not to be expected of GOP and ISI.
The whole issue caused a severe backlash for Pakistan and this was not something unexpected, it was expected and this is what the terrorists wanted to achieve.
On top of all this India has zero evidence linking Pakistani agencies with this attack.

The sad fact is that Indian leaders are ignoring this logic and want to use these chaotic times in Pakistan to gain maximum leverage over all key issues.
Everything is now tied to dismantling terrorist networks, has India been so successful in removing the networks in its own countries that it considers this to be a pre condition in talking to Pakistan?
Is it not a convenient excuse to avoid dialogue?
Pakistan is fighting a most intense war with the terrorists and many key decisions have already been taken by our government.

Everyone knows it is not a piece of cake and a matter which shall take years to resolve completely given that situation in Pak-Afghan belt.

This opinionated article is quite off the mark.
 
.
Strong India can deal with Pak's terror agenda: Nirupama Rao


WASHINGTON: Expectation that India has significantly changed its approach towards Pakistan and Afghanistan appears misplaced. Signaling an unrelentingly robust stance towards Pakistan unless it cracked down on sponsoring terrorism against India, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao told a Washington audience on Monday that New Delhi's restraint should not be mistaken for weakness and it has the capacity to "deal effectively with those that pursue destructive agendas against India and its people." She also declared India will not scale down its presence in Afghanistan, a Pakistani wish that is playing on American minds.

The gist of Nirupama Rao's remarks to her American audience indicated that India had briefly calibrated its approach to Pakistan and initiated talks to see if Islamabad was genuine in ending terrorism directed against India. The Pakistani response showed otherwise. "Aggressive pronouncements by persons identified by the world as terrorists continue to be made openly against India," Rao said, referring to Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafeez Saeed among others. "Today, Pakistan claims that it is in no position to give us such a guarantee that terrorism can be controlled by its authorities."

Despite the "brazen and malignant" nature of the threats India faced, Rao said, India has made several genuine efforts to restore trust and confidence. But now in the face of Pakistani intransigence, public opinion in India "can hardly be expected to support the resumption of a full-blown Composite Dialogue."

Ahead of a visit here next week by a high-level Pakistani team led by its foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Rao also told her US interlocutors that strict accountability criteria should apply to defence assistance rendered to Pakistan for operations against terrorists and insurgents on the border with Afghanistan. India’s past experience regarding such assistance, she said, "has taught us to be vigilant to the possibility of it being used for purposes that generate tension and hostile actions against India." Pakistan has sought from the Obama administration drones, fighter jets, and a civilian nuclear deal on par with the US-India agreement, and the demands are expected to be presented next week.

Rao also questioned US messaging on Afghanistan, saying it is vital for the international community to stay the course in that country and any reintegration process should include only those who abjure violence and terrorism and are willing to abide by the values of democracy, pluralism and human rights. "There is every risk, otherwise, that the Taliban could resurrect themselves as they have done in the past even when we think they have been defeated or we are rid of their hardcore elements," she warned, adding, "one cannot stress enough the need to avoid compromises or differentiation between the so-called shades of the Taliban."

While her remarks about ****** situation revealed a degree of disquiet with the Obama administration's policies in the region, Rao was largely sanguine about bilateral ties with the US despite some of the commentariat suggesting the Obama administration had taken its eyes off the US-India ball. She remained unflustered over the stalling of the nuclear liability bill in Parliament saying it would be introduced after recess, and insisted the civilian nuclear deal was otherwise on schedule.

"The foreign policy priorities of the United States and India seem to converge now as never before - and both Governments recognize the validity of their cooperation in helping to craft solutions to the foremost challenges of our times," Rao maintained despite the question marks she raised on the ****** situation and New Delhi's continued grievances against the US export control regime that is also the subject of her discussions here.

What genuine efforts to restore trust and build confidence?
Be it the water issue or Kashmir, India has not built any confidence that it is willing to resolve differences.
I think the Indian government sees great profit in pushing Pakistan into a corner which it is attempting to do.

The Indian government has not shown restraint in its comments regarding Pakistan so it cannot expect the public opinion to change much as well.
I think the public in both countries wants peace.

The issue is that mostly peace means relinquishing one's advantages, no doubt India is in a very advantageous position now and sees no gain in talking to Pakistan.
However once Pakistan was also in advantageous position, now it has lost the ball...things change and that is something both parties need to realize.
It is better to stop this see saw, we all can profit greatly if we accommodate each other.
 
.
What genuine efforts to restore trust and build confidence?
Be it the water issue or Kashmir, India has not built any confidence that it is willing to resolve differences.
I think the Indian government sees great profit in pushing Pakistan into a corner which it is attempting to do.

The Indian government has not shown restraint in its comments regarding Pakistan so it cannot expect the public opinion to change much as well.
I think the public in both countries wants peace.

The issue is that mostly peace means relinquishing one's advantages, no doubt India is in a very advantageous position now and sees no gain in talking to Pakistan.
However once Pakistan was also in advantageous position, now it has lost the ball...things change and that is something both parties need to realize.
It is better to stop this see saw, we all can profit greatly if we accommodate each other.

why does the average pakistani believe or allows themselves to believe that india is scourging pakistan's water. your own water commissioner admitted that pakistan's failure to properly conserve and use water is the cause of its water shortages. if india believes in building dams to preserve its quota of water how can that affect pakistan? the matter was decided in an international forum which ruled that india was not transgressing the IWT but suggested that india reduces the height of the dam walls. will pakistanis only accept a verdict from a neutral party which condemns india or will they accept the truth?
 
.
why does the average pakistani believe or allows themselves to believe that india is scourging pakistan's water. your own water commissioner admitted that pakistan's failure to properly conserve and use water is the cause of its water shortages. if india believes in building dams to preserve its quota of water how can that affect pakistan? the matter was decided in an international forum which ruled that india was not transgressing the IWT but suggested that india reduces the height of the dam walls. will pakistanis only accept a verdict from a neutral party which condemns india or will they accept the truth?

Why does the average Indian believe that India's construction of waterways on Pakistanis rivers does not or did not cause loss of flow of water to Pakistan which translates into tremendous loss of revenue due to lower yield of crops?
Why does the average Indian believe that these waterways will not be used to store water in case of a shortage despite Pakistan's right as the downstream party?

Also the fact that it is all built in an earthquake prone area and that Pakistan is right downstream is also a serious concern...especially after the devastating earthquake in 2005-2006
 
.
India has nt breached the IWT, which has been mutually agreed upon by both parties chaired by a neutral party the World bank! So what exactly is the problem? This is not a rhetorical question, i am actually asking you guys your argument.
 
Last edited:
.
Why does the average Indian believe that India's construction of waterways on Pakistanis rivers does not or did not cause loss of flow of water to Pakistan which translates into tremendous loss of revenue due to lower yield of crops?

coz it did not cause, coz international court held that India has not violated treaty which means Pakistan is DEFINATELTY gettting its due share of water... so no reason to raise hue n cry UNNECESSARILY...

Why does the average Indian believe that these waterways will not be used to store water in case of a shortage despite Pakistan's right as the downstream party?

if there is a shortage, do u want India alone to suffer and continue to give Pakistan its full share...!!

if there is a shortage then the burden will be shared equally by both India and Pakistan...
(also always keep in mind, if ur frnd China and you together plan anything that causes water shortage in India to harm India then i cannot guarantee above...)
 
.
India has nt breached the IWT, which has been mutually agreed upon by both parties chaired by a neutral party the World bank! So what exactly is the problem?

Yes there is no concern, Pakistan is getting its due share right now...
its just hue n cry without reason....fot the sake of it just......
 
.
As far as IWT is concerned I say the Indian puiblic priority is first .peace nxt
 
.
HI,
some body is growing impatient after getting snubbed in Afghanistan not to mention desperate:rofl:
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom