India to decide on its role in Afghanistan: US

[deckingraj]

Why not begin by letting Pakistanis monitor some of India's economic initiatives in Afghanistan?

I know your intentions are good but my first question would be who the heck is anyone to monitor India's initiative anywhere??? It is like saying i have doubt on you so why don't you let me monitor your movements and what not...I am sure you are not going to like it...Now make it little complex by saying we both are enemies from past 60 years....Where do you see the debate going???

 

[Solomon2]

who the heck is anyone to monitor India's initiative anywhere???...we both are enemies from past 60 years.

Exactly so. So there would be no other way to interpret this as other than an expression of Indian goodwill, yes?

 

[deckingraj]

Exactly so. So there would be no other way to interpret this as other than an expression of Indian goodwill, yes?

No sir...how do you relate the two??? My goodwill doesn't mean that i allow someone to monitor my moves...Again i bring back the same example i gave...Even though you have a goodwill does that mean you will allow anyone to monitor your moves...Don't you find it insulting??? Compromising your sovereignity....Having said it i am all for peace between India-Pak between them and in Afghan theater...

 

[Bhaarat]

Doubtless if America leaves Afghanistan without sufficiently fixing matters the area will become a battleground between India and Pakistan - unless they decide to cooperate. Why not begin by letting Pakistanis monitor some of India's economic initiatives in Afghanistan?

No mate, if US leaves, then Afghanistan would be won by Pakistan and they will resettle Taliban. And taliban will host the ilk of Al queda who wish to wage a global jihad. China with its ulighur population, Iran, India, Russia, US, and EU. No one wants Afghanistan to go back to that time, that is why retreat is not an option.

 

[Bhaarat]

Exactly so. So there would be no other way to interpret this as other than an expression of Indian goodwill, yes?

There is no question of Goodwill. It is in Indian interests to see that a strong Afghanistan that can protect itself from the proxies of Pakistan is established. It is of vital importance to us, and not mere goodwill. As for monitoring. It can go two ways. India may then want to monitor Pakistan's actions in NWFP, and quetta, after all that place is where the masterminds are allegedly resting.

 

[Solomon2]

No sir...how do you relate the two??? My goodwill doesn't mean that i allow someone to monitor my moves...Having said it i am all for peace between India-Pak

Why not? Of course India is within its rights by refusing to do so. BUT if your ultimate goal is peace with your neighbors, then you have to build trust with them first. And what better way than by inviting them to peek behind the curtains now and then? If you do so of your own free will - and everyone knows that's the reason - why would it be deemed "insulting" rather than friendly and even wise?

To pull this off India probably needs intermediary diplomats to shop Pakistan a bit to make sure that at least some high-ranking government officials won't claim something like, "India capitulated because Pakistan forced them to." But I feel sure the effort should be made.

In the 60s China and the U.S. were antagonists. Yet a series of confidence-building measures, both open and secret, during the Nixon and Ford Administrations brought into being a new relationship, that of strategic competitors rather than strategic enemies. For thirty years capital and trade has been exchanged between the two nations with great mutual profit. Have you ever thought of what India and Pakistan could be missing by not seeking a similar improvement in relations?

 

[Bhaarat]

Why not? Of course India is within its rights by refusing to do so. BUT if your ultimate goal is peace with your neighbors, then you have to build trust with them first. And what better way than by inviting them to peek behind the curtains now and then? If you do so of your own free will - and everyone knows that's the reason - why would it be deemed "insulting" rather than friendly and even wise?

India's ultimate goal is not peace with a neighbors and why should it be?
Peace, of course, is desirable but not at the cost of our national interests. The quest for peace has to be mutual, if Pakistan is keen, let them come half way, we can meet them there. But asking India to unilaterally bend to the real or imagined griviences of Pakistan is not right.

To pull this off India probably needs intermediary diplomats to shop Pakistan a bit to make sure that at least some high-ranking government officials won't claim something like, "India capitulated because Pakistan forced them to." But I feel sure the effort should be made.

If GOI does it, be sure there will be noises. BTW, GOI has already accomodated Pakistan several times in the past, and every time Pakistan has used it to score some cheap brownie points. The most recent example is Sharm el Sheik.

In the 60s China and the U.S. were antagonists. Yet a series of confidence-building measures, both open and secret, during the Nixon and Ford Administrations brought into being a new relationship, that of strategic competitors rather than strategic enemies. For thirty years capital and trade has been exchanged between the two nations with great mutual profit. Have you ever thought of what India and Pakistan could be missing by not seeking a similar improvement in relations?

Absurd comparison. Did China support seccessionist movements within US? Then what would have been US' reaction? Did China support a 9/11 on US? What would US have done then?

Pakistan's nuclear umbrella gives shelter to terrorists who attack India.


Solomon, your ideas are not new. These ideas have been given to India from a long time, and whenever some naive Indian PM succumbed, India suffered. Remember, Kargil was on the backdrop of Lahore bus trip by ABV(then Indian PM).

 

[Solomon2]

Did China support seccessionist movements within US? Then what would have been US' reaction? Did China support a 9/11 on US?

I do not advocate that such things be done blindly. It should take some quiet diplomacy first, to give some assurance that there will be some sort of favorable reception in Pakistan to a bold, symbolic, move towards peace on the part of India. You'll have to find the right intermediary.

Note that with the suppression of extremists elements in Pakistan, there will be less chance of future Mumbai Massacres to derail peace efforts.

 

[Bhaarat]

I do not advocate that such things be done blindly. It should take some quiet diplomacy first, to give some assurance that there will be some sort of favorable reception in Pakistan to a bold, symbolic, move towards peace on the part of India. You'll have to find the right intermediary.

As I said, this is not a new hope, many times this was done at several levels. I suggest you do research about Gujral Doctrine. The thing is if Pakistan were a democracy, it could have worked. But with PA firmly in power, it is against the PA's interests to make peace with India.

Note that with the suppression of extremists elements in Pakistan, there will be less chance of future Mumbai Massacres to derail peace efforts.

No. You do not have the proper understanding of ground realities. Those behind Mumbai had direct support of state of Pakistan. It was not an operation of some lunatic extremists. It is a state policy. So, if Pakistan suppresses extremists working against PA, there is nothing positive for India in this because PA will not go after anti-Indian LeT like groups. So, its in India's interests that PA suffer losses while it fights the 'extremists'.

BTW, I can understand where you are coming from. But trust me, it has been tried at several times in past at several levels, but it has left only bitter results. You should appreciate that.

 

[Jumeirah]

Nothing comes for free. Be it deploying peace forces or Financial aid. War zone places have huge economic and job creation potential. Iraq was a perfect example how big american corporations won billion dollar contracts wid military in recontruction.

Afghanistan is a gold mine and India should not waste time on this oppurtunity or else someone else will eat the slce of cake.

 

[deckingraj]

Why not? Of course India is within its rights by refusing to do so. BUT if your ultimate goal is peace with your neighbors, then you have to build trust with them first. And what better way than by inviting them to peek behind the curtains now and then? If you do so of your own free will - and everyone knows that's the reason - why would it be deemed "insulting" rather than friendly and even wise?

What???? Allowing someone to come and check my movements is the way of attaining peace with someone...Since when it become a way to achieve peace by inviting someone who is accusing you being a thief to come check your movements??? Otherwise if you go by the Joint declaration of Sharmal-Sheikh you will see India stand was clear on Baloch and her role in AF..One of the reason it was allowed to be mentioned in Joint Declaration for the first time in the history of Ind-Pak relations...Now as far as the indo-pak conflict is concerned all we are asking is to stop the terrorism inflicted against us...Now instead of a any move there you are suggesting we should allow Pak to monitor our role in AF??? Sounds a but hypocritic to me....

To pull this off India probably needs intermediary diplomats to shop Pakistan a bit to make sure that at least some high-ranking government officials won't claim something like, "India capitulated because Pakistan forced them to." But I feel sure the effort should be made.

India is a democracy so you have to create public sentiments here... You can't force someone not to say something...That's what our PM has repeatedly said...i.e. We will meet you more that half way..just destroy the terror n/w...

In the 60s China and the U.S. were antagonists. Yet a series of confidence-building measures, both open and secret, during the Nixon and Ford Administrations brought into being a new relationship, that of strategic competitors rather than strategic enemies. For thirty years capital and trade has been exchanged between the two nations with great mutual profit. Have you ever thought of what India and Pakistan could be missing by not seeking a similar improvement in relations?

And who is contesting that??? May i ask when did you allow chinese govt. to monitor your moves or vice-versa for confidence building measures??? Not taking anything away from you but your chances with China and vice-versa become golden due to Sino-Russia tentions...Anyways not going into how's and when we all are for confidence-building measures but not by being termed as trouble maker and let someone investigate our moves....Geez there has to be a difference between a suspect and a soveriegn Nation..Dont you think so????

 

[Solomon2]

trust me, it has been tried at several times in past at several levels, but it has left only bitter results.

If the failure was bitter, then imo it wasn't attempted properly; the approaches must have been too direct.

 

[Solomon2]

What???? Allowing someone to come and check my movements is the way of attaining peace with someone...Since when it become a way to achieve peace by inviting someone who is accusing you being a thief to come check your movements???

Perhaps the first such action in recorded Western history was the initiative of the ancient Greeks to set up pan-Hellenic colonies and trading posts - composed of emigrants from several city-states - as a way to reduce mutual antagonisms. As for the modern-day equivalents, strategic arms treaties between the U.S. and USSR/Russia rely extensively on "national technical means" and on-site inspections of facilities by personnel from the other side.

Otherwise if you go by the Joint declaration of Sharmal-Sheikh you will see India stand was clear on Baloch and her role in AF..One of the reason it was allowed to be mentioned in Joint Declaration for the first time in the history of Ind-Pak relations...

I confess my ignorance to this subject, but I don't see why it is relevant, either.

Now as far as the indo-pak conflict is concerned all we are asking is to stop the terrorism inflicted against us...Now instead of a any move there you are suggesting we should allow Pak to monitor our role in AF??? Sounds a but hypocritic to me....We will meet you more that half way..just destroy the terror n/w...

Pakistan has nurtured "stateless" combatants for so long it is difficult for its leaders to imagine another course. I don't doubt it's risky, but Indian and Pakistani troops actually work well together in U.N. peacekeeping operations - not surprising when you consider that both armies have the same root.

India is a democracy so you have to create public sentiments here...

All part of the process.

You can't force someone not to say something...

This isn't about force.

May i ask when did you allow chinese govt. to monitor your moves or vice-versa for confidence building measures???

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in his book The White House Years, recounted the steps, (which I am recalling from memory, perhaps imperfectly.) Some of the first were naval, and easily verified; for example, the U.S., through Pakistan, notified the Chinese that they would cease stationing ships in the Taiwan Strait and instead emphasize its commitment to the defense of Taiwan by making fifteen transits of the Strait every month. That removed an irritant. The Chinese responded by releasing, or passing news of, several U.S. spies captured in China. Later on, Kissinger took pains to brief the Chinese of almost every move in arms negotiations with the USSR. The Chinese responded by cooling down their support for the Vietnamese.

Geez there has to be a difference between a suspect and a soveriegn Nation..Dont you think so????

Only that a sovereign nation can usually escape the rule of law, whereas a suspect can't.

 

[deckingraj]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts....That doesn't mean that i agree with your points...May be you are right but i really liked the way you responded with specific examples...Anyways when it comes to India-Pak its the emotions which run high...may be that's what is stopping me from looking at your suggestion with optimism....Anyways lets c what other members have to say about it...

 

[TheBraveHeart]

I am getting an inclination that we are debating even though we kind of have same opinions...So please let me know if you think otherwise...

Sorry to say but I guess we are not sailing in the same boat even if our destination is same....

I will try being more precise hereon, so that there's no misunderstanding..!!

I am saying there are no big covert/overt operations to oppose NATO and thus it cannot be compared as such with Russian era when US was involved in defeating them......I know the names however their help is not enough to defeat the NATO..The only thing that can defeat NATO is they themselves...However after Obama things have changed atleast at the diplomatic level and now with more troops hopefully it will follow up at ground level as well...Keep watching how the pressure will keep on mounting for those who are helping Taliban covertly...

Completely disagree with your analysis(may b I m wrong but ..), after almost eight years of war, NATO hasn't been able to achieve its most important objectives...so NATO has already been a failure..

1. they failed to capture any of the most prominent leaders of al-qaida or taliban...
2. they haven't been able to stabilize the country
3. the terrorists haven't dwindled in numbers but are growing each passing day, just that they don't have open havens in cities of afghan ...but their presence is felt by everyone
4. the taliban still controls/ is present/dominates in more than 60% of afghanistan and the NATO can't do anything about it, 40000 more troops won't do difference in an year or two....
5. the most significant of the failures is,the afghan public doesn't support the invasion and give a damn to NATO reconstruction, they believe NATO wants to exploit and rule them.
6. Those countries that I talk about still have covert contacts(I suggest you go through some of the editorials that appear in US, I don't have the links, but suggest you go on Warnewsupdates site) so the pressure thing doesn't exist...
In my view Obama knows the games over, and so is giving a final attempt(although a futile one), he knows the roots of terrorism have reached the crest of the earth and its just impossible to uproot them.
7. the allies haven't been able to justify the war even on home front

No body unless and until Afghan Taliban bring in some truce between Pak and TTP both can't be possible..

I bet The day US moves out, there would be a truce the next day....

Wait a minute...Are you saying Pakistan is playing its game wisely??? You can't be serious...TTP has come into equation because of their failure handling this issue properly...i am not even talking about the credibility loss that they are facing.....They are on paper in agreement with US and NATO allies to get rid of terrorists(read taliban and al-qaeda)..not very sure about the intent(know most would disagree)...What would be the situation had they choosen otherwise...International Isolation or may be US strikes(more potent than Drones)...Also thats where Obama bring in the change...All from Karry-Luger's to separate ****** policy - Hillary Clinton saying inside Pak that she can't believe the administration don't know where al-qaeda is - Pak offensive agaisnt TTP etc etc...What does that indicate?? To me it indicates there is a realization in US that they have been taken for a ride here...

I again suggest u going through warnewsupdates site where many editorials(links) can be found daily,( editorials normally reflect the general opinions of a country) ....
I know u won't believe my words but the fact is Pakistan(not the nation but its army and ISI) has played a pretty wise game...

Also my point about Isolation was if for some reason Taliban win do you think Pakistan can go against world sentiments and recognize Taliban govt??? they will deal with them covertly but not on international front...

I rest my case hear by saying, Pakistan will go to any extent to keep afghan in its control and not allow India to have any influence over it...

Anyways i think we are going Off-Topic...so i rest my case here...If you have something to add about India's military involvement please feel free to do so...I will be more than happy to reply...

Regards

Sir, nothings off topic over here, both of us trying to analyze the situation without which one should never come to a conclusion, its just a precursor...pls go through my next post on my views to Indian military involvement...