Indian Double Standards on Terrorism

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What will happen if Pakistan openly admits to supporting insurgency in J&K? Well, for starters, it'll make the resolution of this issue a lot easier. There will be tremendous mutual trust between the two sides that this time the opposite party really wants to resolve this issue rather than just playing games.

As soon as India drops its double standards and admits that support for ALL insurgencies is wrong, and condemns the policies of Indira Gandhi and India in 1971.

Till then, the implicit Indian position is that it sees covert and overt support for insurgencies in Pakistan as acceptable, and such an attitude cannot be the basis of removing mutual distrust.

India has, over the past 60 yrs, supported many insurgent movements. India supported the LTTE in the beginning. However, India felt that the collateral damage happening was just too great and therefore withdrew its support.

In case of Mukti Bani, the entire movement was over within an year. The loss of life was minor as compared to years of atrocities by the PA.

It's not double standards, it's different solutions for different situations.

It's upto Pakistanis to decide whether over 20 years of killings by these insurgents, is it worth their support?

The loss of life was precipitated by the Indian support for insurgents, and the atrocities by insurgents. Some of these atrocities were reported in the international press, and yet India continued to support rebels involved in those atrocities.

This is not a different solution, in essence it is the same thing - India supported insurgents/terrorists in East Pakistan because it saw a chance to damage Pakistan. Such double standards and blatant glorification of State support for terrorism, by India. must end if it wants is protestations on J&k to be considered legitimate.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am guessing, thousands of refugees, who poured in during the weeks following PA’s crackdown in Dacca and who threatened to completely ruin our border economy and demographic balance.

Ahh, so 'thousands of refugees' were enough to offset the fact that the international media had reported (late March through early April) the atrocities being committed by the rebels, and continue with the decision to support them, and in essence exacerbate the instability in East Pakistan, and cause a yet greater flood of refugees.

And since you wish to use that canard, then I would argue that the denial of self-determination to the kashmiris (self-determination in which Pakistan was to be one choice) gave Pakistan the interest and 'entitlement' to support an insurgency, in an attempt to bring back to the table the possibility of self-determination.

That ‘snide remark’ is indicative of how fatuous your argument of Pakistani’s ‘perspective’ of Indian Kashmir is.

Nothing wrong with my argument - what is fatuous is the West crying about 'oppression' when segregation and racial discrimination were widespread in their own societies.

In any case, the editorial was snide and hypocritical rhetoric irrelevant to the topic at hand.

So even UN rapperteur’s comments in black and white is not enough. OK. If you say so.

As I said, the discussion we had including the rapporteur's comments did not establish the POV I mentioned. But that thread exists still I believe and it can be revisited on that thread.

You did not just say that, did you?

You mean, the insurgents want their right to choose. So they chose Pakistan to arm them to the teeth so that they can demand from India their right to choose Pakistan.

Of course - only those that do not wish to be part of India suffer from the denial of the right to self-determination, those that wish to remain a part of India have no quarrel with the decision to occupy the State and deny its people the right of self-determination.

 

[prodevelopment]

As soon as India drops its double standards and admits that support for ALL insurgencies is wrong, and condemns the policies of Indira Gandhi and India in 1971.

Till then, the implicit Indian position is that it sees covert and overt support for insurgencies in Pakistan as acceptable, and such an attitude cannot be the basis of removing mutual distrust.

All insurgencies can never be wrong. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

What you are asking is a very naive thing.

The loss of life was precipitated by the Indian support for insurgents, and the atrocities by insurgents. Some of these atrocities were reported in the international press, and yet India continued to support rebels involved in those atrocities.

Yes, but did that 10 month, I repeat 10 month operation finally bring peace and liberation to the indigenous population?

What would have the scenario if the fighting had gone on for 20-30 years? Would India have still supported it? The pricident(sp?) of LTTE says otherwise.

This is not a different solution, in essence it is the same thing - India supported insurgents/terrorists in East Pakistan because it saw a chance to damage Pakistan. Such double standards and blatant glorification of State support for terrorism, by India. must end if it wants is protestations on J&k to be considered legitimate.

India does not give a damn about Pakistan.

Why don't you answer my question? If Pakistan felt that this insurgency is causing more harm than good to the indigenous people (Kashmiris), would they stop supporting the insurgents?

 

[foxbat]

The cause in this case would be the occupation and denial of self-determination to the Kashmirs my dear Holmes, the insurgency was in response to oppression by the Indian State on that count.

Not really sir. Now that we are going back in time lets go to the start. It all began with Pakistan sending its irregulars in the territory of Maharaja of Kashmir. The 1st act of insurgency committed by Pakistan berely 2 months after getting independence. That led to the fight that led to the UN resolution which was prevented from implementation by Pakistani actions and then declated invalid due to passage of time by India.

In East Pakistan the rebels practiced 'mass terrorism', both before and after the Military Operation, and before any 'genocide canard'. And there remains no evidence that anywhere over a couple of hundred thousand were killed by both sides in 1971, but that is a topic discussed in several other threads already.

You are wrong. No such act is reported by a neutral agency before Pakistan Army started behaving like a state sponsored terrorist organization, indulging in mass executions, rape and sex slavery. About evidence, show me some (non Pakistani) that condemns the EP rebels of terrorism.

And Indian support for the rebels in EP started long before the 'millions' canard could be applied.

The material support came in after the genocide by Pakistan started.

Again, unless you condemn India's actions in Junagadh and Hyderabad, you really have no standing to be criticizing Pakistani actions in 1948. The rest of your post is just a distortion of facts - there was no 'continuing insurgency' from 1965 to 1988 that was 'stepped up' by Pakistan. The attempt to spark an insurgency in 1965 failed, and a second attempt to spark an insurgency in 1989 succeeded, which continues to this day. But in any case, if you are condemning those incidents of supporting insurgency, then you must also condemn the Indian support of insurgency in East Pakistan.

I am simply providing the linkage back to the start of insurgency and the fact that the 1st shot was fired by Pakistan. You indulged in insurgency since 1947 and we condemned it. We did that in 1971 and you condemned it. So your logic that India can not condemn your insurgency in Kashmir unless it does the same for 1971 is absurd. The same logic was not applied when Pakistan condemned India's involvement in 1971 while it was supporting / trying to support insurgency in Kashmir since 1947 and with 1965 just 6 years back..

This double standard of supporting terrorists on one hand in East Pakistan and condemning them in J&K de-legitemizes your protestations about 1965, 1989 and anywhere else you can think of.

Its like a broken record dear.. The only terrorists in East Pakistan were the soldiers of Pakistani Army and sure as hell India did not support them.

Not at all- in 1971 the GoP had the right to deploy the military to quell a violent rebellion that had seen atrocities committed both before the military operation and days after it.

While deploying of army in response to acts of riots and looting while being excessive was not criminal, the acts of that army post deployment was nothing short of pure terrorism.

In J&K it is India that has 'oppressed' the locals, through denial of self-determination and rigged elections - to argue 'terrorism by Pakistan' is just a canard to deflect away from Indian double standards on terrorism.

No it does not because by now you are simply distorting facts and playing with fiction. and because both in 1971 and now, the terrorist is the group with the backing of Pakistan. The only difference is that in 1971, it was state actors and now they are non state actors.

Genocide has never been proven, those that accuse Pakistan do so without any credible evidence backing their claims, but again, discussed in other threads.

The whole case you are trying to build is without evidence so please dont be selective in deciding when you need evidence and when not. I do wonder though why so many Pakistani leaders have apologised to BD for the acts of Pakistan if they were all valid.

And the events this canard of 'genocide' is built upon, occurred after Indian support for EP rebels and after EP rebel atrocities had occurred, so it has no bearing on the point of Indian support for the insurgents/terrorists in EP.

Not at all again. Prior to 25th March there are scattered instances of rioting and sectarian conflicts. Then came the state sponsored terror machine with a sledgehammer and thats the time all hell broke lose. Just by making strawman arguements blaming victims instead of the terrorists, you cant prove your point. The lie you are propogating will remain a lie no matter how many times you repeat it sir..

Pakistan reacted militarily to atrocities committed, and instability caused, by East Pakistani militants. Indian support for the EP rebels and terrorists occurred long before any so called 'genocide', and therefore an alleged event that occurred after the fact (of Indian support for insurgents) cannot be used as justification for Indian State support for terrorists/insurgents.

Had India supported the insurgents in 1972, after the so called 'genocide', then your argument might have some validity.

Pakistan reacted to EP's declaration of independence and committed the genocide to quell the same declaration. That was the act of terror committed by the Pakistan Army. That started in March 1971. I really have no idea on where you got the benchmark of 1972. And again, like yourself, I am not seeking an endorsement of validity of my arguement. I know its valid.

East Pakistani militants committed atrocities in East Pakistan before and days after the Military Operations - innocent men, women and children were massacred and burnt alive - where is your condemnation for that? You conveniently ignore those acts of terrorism, or try to offer excuses for them, in order to justify Indian support for those committing those atrocities.

What moral turpitude, and Indians have the gall to suggest that it is Pakistanis with 'hate' and other nonsense in their 'DNA'. The moral bankruptcy of many Indians is clearly displayed on the pages of this thread.

Incorrect again. EP rebels reacted majorly after PA starting killing and raping them. Most recounts (non Pakistani) back the theory of Pakistani Genocide and acts of terror by Pakistani Army resulting in the massacres you are talking about. In the end it was actually the Indian Army that prevented rest of the temporary terrorists of Pakistani army from being wiped out by the people they were planning to annihilate.

 

[toxic_pus]

Ahh, so 'thousands of refugees' were enough to offset the fact that the international media had reported (late March through early April) the atrocities being committed by the rebels, and continue with the decision to support them, and in essence exacerbate the instability in East Pakistan, and cause a yet greater flood of refugees.

International media reported no such thing. Even the selective references in that White Paper don’t speak of anything more than what was natural in a politically charged situation. Besides, the ICJ report, which you keep avoiding as if it doesn’t exist, tore through that White Paper. You should read it sometime. So yes, thousands of refugees were enough, because it bore the ominous signs of refugees swelling into millions (which it did eventually). One such sign was PA's relentless ethnic cleansing of minorities.

And since you wish to use that canard, then I would argue that the denial of self-determination to the kashmiris (self-determination in which Pakistan was to be one choice) gave Pakistan the interest and 'entitlement' to support an insurgency, in an attempt to bring back to the table the possibility of self-determination.

Pakistan’s interest would have been better served if it honoured the pre-conditions to self-determination and pursue a political discourse instead of trying to force a military solution in 1965.

On one hand you claim your country’s entitlement to support terrorism, then on the other you take offense when someone points to this mindset as ‘political and cultural DNA’ of that country. Is it any wonder why Pakistan today is the ‘epicenter of terrorism’

Nothing wrong with my argument - what is fatuous is the West crying about 'oppression' when segregation and racial discrimination were widespread in their own societies.

In any case, the editorial was snide and hypocritical rhetoric irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Ignoring the ‘west-baddie, me-goodie’ rhetoric, the editorial is very much relevant to the topic. It was your claim that Pakistan’s perspective on Kashmir somehow overruled the Indian perspective. The editorial illustrates how Western media, or at least a section of it, viewed your claim of Pakistan’s perspective on Indian Kashmir, in the light of Pakistan sponsored genocide in 1971. That view is, that Pakistan has lost all ‘entitlement’ to even have a perspective on Indian Kashmir, let alone act on it. That view, needless to say, coincides with ours. Hence the quote.

As I said, the discussion we had including the rapporteur's comments did not establish the POV I mentioned. But that thread exists still I believe and it can be revisited on that thread.

By POV, you mean your desperate attempt to spin the rapporteur’s comment?

Of course - only those that do not wish to be part of India suffer from the denial of the right to self-determination, those that wish to remain a part of India have no quarrel with the decision to occupy the State and deny its people the right of self-determination.

Doesn’t that mean that the ‘self-determination’ has already been made, however, only through bullet? Wasn’t plebiscite supposed to achieve the same ‘self-determination’?

This actually leads to even bigger question. Can one claim democratic right, when one has relinquished one’s democratic responsibility? I’ll rephrase that. Why should a State be responsible to one, who has challenged the States writ? Ok I’ll rephrase that too. Can one demand his right under the writ of the state, while challenging that very same writ?

 

[toxic_pus]

Another canard is being quietly peddled. Almost all Pakistanis claim that Kashmir was in response to Junagadh and Hyderabad which is nothing but a fig leaf excuse for their irredentist misadventure in Kashmir.

In connection with Kashmir, 22 Oct, 1947, gets prominence because of its nature, ferocity and direct military support, but more importantly, because that invasion through infiltration led the Maharaja of J & K to sign the instrument of accession on 26th Oct, 1947. Truth is, Pakistani infiltration had begun almost immediately after its independence. The first batch of infiltrators was detected by Maharaja's army on 31st August, 1947 and a detailed report was filed by Major General Scott, who was the Army chief (IIRC) of Maharaja's military. The Maharaja then took it up with Pak authority on 4th Sept, 1947. This, by the way, actually cuts through Jinnah's claim of innocence. On 18th Sept, 1947 Pakistan severed railway connection with Kashmir to bully the Maharaja. On 10th Oct, 1947 PA officially attacked Pansar village within Kashmir. On 13th Oct, 1947, Pakistan cut off all supplies of necessary commodities to further cow down the Maharaja.

Junagadh, on the other hand, acceded to Pakistan on 15th Sept, 1947. It was on 25th Sept, 1947, that Provisional Government of Junagadh was formed in Bombay. The ministers of Provisional Government occupied the Junagadh House in Rajkot on 27th Sep, 1947. Finally on 25th Oct, 1947 the Nawab of Junagadh escaped to Karachi, taking with him all the jewels and leaving his state in the throes of chaos, which forced India to take control of the situation.

However on 1st Nov, 1947, Mountbatten offered Jinnah to hold plebiscite in Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad, which, Jinnah promptly rejected. Hyderabad happened even later in 1948.

It will be clear from the above dates that the conflict regarding Kashmir and Junagadh developed and reached its climax almost simultaneously. The origination of Kashmir conflict however precedes that of Junagadh by some days.

Nothing can be more anachronitic than claiming Kashmir misadventure to be a response to Junagadh. Hyderabad doesn't even come in the picture.

 

[Spitfighter]

As soon as India drops its double standards and admits that support for ALL insurgencies is wrong, and condemns the policies of Indira Gandhi and India in 1971.

Till then, the implicit Indian position is that it sees covert and overt support for insurgencies in Pakistan as acceptable, and such an attitude cannot be the basis of removing mutual distrust.


The loss of life was precipitated by the Indian support for insurgents, and the atrocities by insurgents. Some of these atrocities were reported in the international press, and yet India continued to support rebels involved in those atrocities.

This is not a different solution, in essence it is the same thing - India supported insurgents/terrorists in East Pakistan because it saw a chance to damage Pakistan. Such double standards and blatant glorification of State support for terrorism, by India. must end if it wants is protestations on J&k to be considered legitimate.

1971 was four decades ago. Seriously, what are you expecting? an official apology from the GOI? what's that going to do, magically put an end to the insurgency in Kashmir?

The fact is that regardless of whatever happened in the past, today Pakistan finds itself as the epicenter of terrorism. Terrorists emanating from Pakistani soil can potentially spark a nuclear conflagration the result of which is understood all too well on both sides.

We've had this discussion before, finger pointing and grandstanding will lead us nowhere. We should focus on the situation at hand, not what our grandfathers were up to.

I believe India's primary focus should be its economy. I long for the day when India can once again emerge as a prosperous, respectable nation. At the same time, however, we can no longer ignore repeated attacks from across the border. Whether state sanctioned or not, innocents have been murdered, the economy derailed not to mention how the entire nation has been dishonored.

India should first and foremost strengthen its internal security.

Secondly, we've made it clear that we desire peace with Pakistan. India cannot render a nuclear armed nation of 180 million people irrelevant, therefore all efforts should be geared towards normalizing our relations.

Thirdly, as important as the economy is to our future, the state's primary responsibility is ensuring the safety of its citizens. This means we must defend ourselves the next time an Indian city goes up in flames, no matter the cost. We cannot allow terrorists to believe that they are permanently shielded from our wrath simply because of a line in the sand. We cannot allow Pakistan to believe, at any level, that extremist proxies are a viable strategic asset, or that it can adopt a 'passive' approach towards India centric terrorist organizations. As jingoistic as that may sound, I simply see no other alternative. Short term stability will do us no good if the threat of terrorism persists. We need to find a solution today, if we're to carry on tomorrow.

We need to make it clear that if Pakistan wishes to maintain a harmonious and mutually beneficial relationship with us (a pre-requisite to any resolution) it can ill afford to adopt a confrontational attitude. Kashmir, in any case, cannot be resolved militarily. Harboring insurgents/extremists will only make matters worse, as Pakistan maintains only a tenuous grip on such groups at best. God forbid, should they pull off another 26/11 one can hardly blame India if it chooses to cross the border. The ball is in Pakistan's court, confront the militants or get out of the way.

A decades old conflict isn't going to be resolved in a hurry, but the terrorism and the ideology that fuels it needs to be terminated immediately. Long story short, we need a paradigm shift in Pakistan's Kashmir policy. I don't believe we could bring about the same simply by diplomatic overtures, the military option must remain open should push come to shove.

India has already indicated that its willing to work things out diplomatically, can you honestly say that has Pakistan abandoned its old policies?

 

[username]

If they are insurgents, then it is pretty obvious they are not fighting the IA because they are pro-India, and if they are not pro-India, then they are fighting the IA to end 'occupation' and therefore for 'freedom'.

You are correct, they may not be TTP militants, but Uzbeks, Chechens, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Al Qaeda etc. But all those groups are terrorists given their open claims of responsibility for attacking civilians, in many cases videos as well. So calling them terrorists or militants would be accurate, since no one aside from these groups is fighting the PA in that region.

See, I don't care about your country's internal problem (BLA). Lot of people keep saying that BLA is supported or arms supplied by India, but why don't you guys prove it ? what stops you from proving it ?
You are pointing fingers to India aleging that it sponsers terrorism in BLA so Pakistan sending terrorists to India is comparable.
First prove that BLA terrorism is sponsered by India. Nobody seems ot prove it but they simply rant and compare India and Pakistan's moral values based on simple allegation.

In case of Kashmir insurgency and terrorists, even you guys accept that they are proxies of Pakistan and you guys even go the extend of freedom fighters from your country.

Don't compare if you can't provide a proof.

 

[toxic_pus]

If they are insurgents, then it is pretty obvious they are not fighting the IA because they are pro-India, and if they are not pro-India, then they are fighting the IA to end 'occupation' and therefore for 'freedom'.

I missed this post.

The above is a convenient, simplistic and self serving definition of what 'freedom fighting' encompasses that completely ignores the fact that these pro-Pakistani terrorists terrorize the pro-Indian and pro-independence minded Kashmiris. The Valley is squeaky clean of minorities not for no reason.

 

[HAIDER]

If India implement all Shimla and UN accord on Kashmir then all tense situation will dissolve. Otherwise 7 lack Indian army can not hold hostage the whole Kashmiri nation for the rest of their life. In this type of situation violence will increase, not going to decrease. But if Indian govt has less care of human life of soldiers and civilians, then its different story. After death of over 90,000 Kashmiri, well it does prove Indian govt has no interest in Kashmiri's life. So, its an act of state sponsored terrorism where thousand of civilian lost their life.

 

[hal-fgfa]

If India implement all Shimla and UN accord on Kashmir then all tense situation will dissolve. Otherwise 7 lack Indian army can not hold hostage the whole Kashmiri nation for the rest of their life. In this type of situation violence will increase, not going to decrease. But if Indian govt has less care of human life of soldiers and civilians, then its different story. After death of over 90,000 Kashmiri, well it does prove Indian govt has no interest in Kashmiri's life. So, its an act of state sponsored terrorism where thousand of civilian lost their life.

think about pakistan first ...........how you gonna free your land from TTP and other terrorist organization...................... if pakistan dont think about lifes of their civilians living in fata and whole pakistan that its ok ...otherwise they gonna capture whole pakistan

 

[SMC]

AM seriously don't waste so much time debating this with Indians. I mean seriously who cares what they think. It's like debating with Bush whether Israel and Saddam should be looked at in similar ways and why he had a double standard on the two. They're always gonna show the double standards. It's a better idea to not waste time here. I learnt this a long time ago and save myself lots of time now.

 

[TechLahore]

I have removed several posts which come very close to making the case for terror against civilians in india. Please be warned. Any further statements will result in a ban. Patriot: if you want to make the case for what Pakistan should do viz insurgencies in India, please clearly and cleanly separate insurgencies and freedom movements from acts against civilians. Please understand that ambiguity in such cases can end up getting you banned.

 

[Spitfighter]

I have removed several posts which come very close to making the case for terror against civilians in india. Please be warned. Any further statements will result in a ban. Patriot: if you want to make the case for what Pakistan should do viz insurgencies in India, please clearly and cleanly separate insurgencies and freedom movements from acts against civilians. Please understand that ambiguity in such cases can end up getting you banned.

Tech, there was only one such post, and it wasn't 'very close' to condoning terrorism, it condoned terrorism period.

He clearly said that 'we should aim for 50 Indian heads a day', and didn't bother to make a distinction between SF and civilians simply because he couldn't care less.

There was absolutely no ambiguity in patriot's comment. none.

Here are your own words on the subject:


All,

We must clarify an issue of forum policy for everyone. Defence.pk management will not tolerate any tacit or overt statements of support for terrorist actions, individuals or organizations. We will not tolerate ANY justifications of terrorist actions, posting of any videos, pictures or other materials authored by, or with the intent of supporting, terrorist actions.

If there are any posts at all of this nature, they will be deleted and the member will be permanently banned. We can easily track individuals who try to use multiple IDs and will ban their IP(s) if necessary.

Please take immediate note of the above. We have been fairly clear about this from day one, but we believe a strong reminder is in order.

Management


All the organizations he advocated support for (LeT, CPI-Maoist etc) are banned, terrorist outfits and as such I ask you to stay true to your words, if that's really what you guys stand for.

 

[Peregrine]

Hi
it's hard to differentiate between terrorism and Freedom struggle so states use both these terms to justify their counter actions.