Lankan Muslims are used by Pakistan: Allegation of Indian agencies

[That Guy]

Pointless describes a lot of things in India

Also a lot of things in Pakistan, but what can we do? In all honesty, our governments have a tendency of taking credit for things that they had little to no influence in.

Assumption on your part.
India was concerned about Pakistani intelligence and activity spread in Lanka and so they pressured the Lankan Govt to remove VoA.

The argument on the other thread was - that Lanka did on its own volition and NOT because of Indian influence. The cause being described as some Pakistani refugees in Lanka.

Now this article says the same thing - that India pressured Lanka. Obviously Lanka felt whatever India was saying had some merit and consequently removed VoA, so your opinion on whether the reason(of terrorism and Pakistani intelligence) is bullshit or meritorious is irrelevant don't you think?

Whether GoI's reasons were right or wrong were not even being debated.

Not an assumption at all, considering we've been given a clear reason by SL for this change in policy, but let's say you're right, shall we? The fact is that the reasons given by the SL government doesn't collaborate with either SL or Pakistan's narrative. I'd go so far as to say that SL's and Pakistan's narratives are more in line with each other than India's. Like sesame street says, one of these things is not like this other, and in this case, it's India's claims.

The biggest piece of evidence to this is the fact that Pakistan actually supported this step, instead of protesting it.

 

[That Guy]

Assumption on your part.
India was concerned about Pakistani intelligence and activity spread in Lanka and so they pressured the Lankan Govt to remove VoA.

The argument on the other thread was - that Lanka did of its own volition and NOT because of Indian influence. The cause being described as some Pakistani refugees in Lanka.

Now this article says the same thing - that India pressured Lanka. Obviously Lanka felt whatever India was saying had some merit and consequently removed VoA, so your opinion on whether the reason(of terrorism and Pakistani intelligence) is bullshit or meritorious is entirely irrelevant don't you think?

Whether GoI's reasons were right or wrong was not even being debated.

In any case, India is happy that VoA is rescinded and if Pakistan is also content that there is no issue, then we are arguing needlessly. I just wanted to point out the highlighted part of my post.

I'd also like to point out that it wasn't the government that this article is talking about, it was a perception by Sri Lanka's Muslim community. That's not the same thing, in fact, I'm quite shocked that you're blatantly ignoring this fact. Here is where relativism apples. The SL Muslim community perceives India's government to be promoting anti-Muslim propaganda,whether there is truth in their perception (or not) is another story altogether.

I've known you to misrepresent certain facts, but not completely ignore them outright.

 

[Contrarian]

Not an assumption at all, considering we've been given a clear reason by SL for this change in policy, but let's say you're right, shall we? The fact is that the reasons given by the SL government doesn't collaborate with either SL or Pakistan's narrative. I'd go so far as to say that SL's and Pakistan's narratives are more in line with each other than India's. Like sesame street says, one of these things is not like this other, and in this case, it's India's claims.

In case you did not notice.This article and this organization is also Lanka based.
So there are two narratives coming out of Lanka.

The reason why the official line of Lanka falls short is that there are barely 1500 refugees in Lanka. The number of refugees is so ridiculously low that GoSL taking such a massive step seems a extremely disproportionate, especially in light of the fact Pakistan was a staunch supporter of Lanka during the civil war and also the fact that Lanka is gearing and trying to position itself as the tourism hub of South Asia. So not only does this step entail a diplomatic cost for Lanka, it also entails an economic cost.

On the other hand, once you factor in, India's pressure and reasons, it makes sound sense. The line coming from India supports this 'narrative', so do non Governmental sources from Lanka.

The biggest piece of evidence to this is the fact that Pakistan actually supported this step, instead of protesting it.

Really?
I ask for ONE statement of support from Pakistan Govt on this move.

I've known you to misrepresent certain facts, but not completely ignore them outright.

Maybe you are right here, certainly I will try and make amends.
And in that endeavor - I ask for examples to corroborate this statement.

 

[That Guy]

In case you did not notice.This article and this organization is also Lanka based.
So there are two narratives coming out of Lanka.

The reason why the official line of Lanka falls short is that there are barely 1500 refugees in Lanka. The number of refugees is so ridiculously low that GoSL taking such a massive step seems a extremely disproportionate, especially in light of the fact Pakistan was a staunch supporter of Lanka during the civil war and also the fact that Lanka is gearing and trying to position itself as the tourism hub of South Asia. So not only does this step entail a diplomatic cost for Lanka, it also entails an economic cost.

On the other hand, once you factor in, India's pressure and reasons, it makes sound sense. The line coming from India supports this 'narrative', so do non Governmental sources from Lanka.

I did notice, and it's simply reporting on the different narratives playing out, your argument of "they said so it must be true" is really disingenuous.

really, it seems like you're repeating the same argument again. Indian pressure is simply to try and lower SL's dependence on Pakistan, but that seemed to have failed, so India's narrative is nothing more than a farce.

Really?
I ask for ONE statement of support from Pakistan Govt on this move.

Here's a statement...

Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam was unsympathetic to the plight of the detained refugees in Sri Lanka, saying: “These people [asylum seekers] obtained asylum in Sri Lanka by badmouthing Pakistan. If they are in trouble, I have no idea.”

Sri Lanka cancels on-arrival visa facility for Pakistanis - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

 

[VelocuR]

S. Lanka’s Muslim council writes to India about terror strike allegation - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

The arrest of two Lankan Muslims, one in Chennai and the other in Malaysia, for preparing ground for a Colombo-based Pakistani diplomat, has led to India’s asking Lanka to evolve a border security system to filter arrivals from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

As a result of this, Lanka last month withdrew the ‘Visa on Arrival’ facility from the Pakistanis.

Indian officials had told the Lankans that the antecedents of the Ahmadis and Christians seeking refugee status were not being checked. Attention of the Lankan authorities was drawn to the fact that many of the “refugees” had begun to work in Lanka.

It was Pakistan requested Sri Lanka to withdraw asylum seekers.

 

[That Guy]

Maybe you are right here, certainly I will try and make amends.
And in that endeavor - I ask for examples to corroborate this statement.

Go back and re-read the previous few days of our little conversation. I've shown you how you've misrepresented facts in many of them. They're in your alert box, go back and read them.

 

[Contrarian]

I did notice, and it's simply reporting on the different narratives playing out, your argument of "they said so it must be true" is really disingenuous.

really, it seems like you're repeating the same argument again. Indian pressure is simply to try and lower SL's dependence on Pakistan, but that seemed to have failed, so India's narrative is nothing more than a farce.

Sri Lanka does not depend on Pakistan my friend. Please look at trade figures and trade goods to clear this.
Their civil war is also over, they are now not acquiring any major military gear.

The only Indian pressure was on Lanka to remove VoA facility given to Pakistan for our own security concerns.

Unless you expected the GoSL to come out and say that 'yes, we accept India's concerns and so remove VoA given to Pakistan', then SL's official view counts for nothing in view of the simple fact laid out in front of your eyes - SL doing ALL of this just because of 1422 people ?

If you can accept that line of argument, then you and I have wasted some time.

Here's a statement...

I really wonder how you can convert a statement by Pakistani FO spokesperson saying:

“These people [asylum seekers] obtained asylum in Sri Lanka by badmouthing Pakistan. If they are in trouble, I have no idea.”

To mean that Pakistan has supported this step. It really requires quite a jump to consider an acknowledgement that they are "badmouthing Pakistan" and ''If they are in trouble, I have no idea'' to mean that Pakistan is supporting the deportation of these Pakistani as well as revocation of VoA.

Really, hats off to you for making that conclusion friend.

As per you is this another one of those instances of misrepresenting facts?

There is zero Pakistani reaction on this - neither positive, nor negative. They have basically steered clear of this issue altogether.

It was Pakistan requested Sri Lanka to withdraw asylum seekers.

Yeah sure.

Go back and re-read the previous few days of our little conversation. I've shown you how you've misrepresented facts in many of them. They're in your alert box, go back and read them.

Oh and I forgot to add:
Please read this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceylon Today | They fled persecution to end up in misery

The Controller of Immigration and Emigration, Chulanada Silva is gung ho about the prospect of rounding up more asylum seekers. His disdain towards the vulnerable community becomes evident as he justifies the crackdown- with sweeping (and largely unsubstantiated) allegations.

" They are a harmful element to our country," "There can be terrorist elements who misuse these channels".

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

The article also adds in its own opinion - that these statements by the Controller of Immigration and Emigration of Sri Lanka are largely unsubstantiated. But there you have it.
A statement of a high official highlighting our concerns, even if they were not the reasons given officially to Pakistan and the world.

Also a corroboration of the Indian 'narrative' that VoA facility was being used by Pakistan for purposes that are bad for India's as well as Lanka's security.

 

[That Guy]

Sri Lanka does not depend on Pakistan my friend. Please look at trade figures and trade goods to clear this.
Their civil war is also over, they are now not acquiring any major military gear.

The only Indian pressure was on Lanka to remove VoA facility given to Pakistan for our own security concerns.

Unless you expected the GoSL to come out and say that 'yes, we accept India's concerns and so remove VoA given to Pakistan', then SL's official view counts for nothing in view of the simple fact laid out in front of your eyes - SL doing ALL of this just because of 1422 people ?

If you can accept that line of argument, then you and I have wasted some time.

Perhaps dependence was the wrong term to use. I actually thought long and hard about actually using it myself, the word I actually want to use to describe the relationship between Pakistan and Sri Lanka, is one that I find hard pressed to think of right now. So, admittedly, that is a poor choice of wording on my part.

I honestly doubt that India's concern had to do with terrorism, or infiltration from it's southern border. It is security related though, as it has always been whenever either Pakistan or China are concerned. SL has been for a long time, in the arms of Pakistan and China, it's only recently that SL has been making more truly independent choices, SL succumbing to Indian pressure isn't surprising, as that is the cost of trying to remain neutral between Pakistan and India (that may sound contradictory, but considering how close SL-Pakistan relations are, it show that SL doesn't want to get involved between the Pakistan-India rivalry). Now, admitted, I am going to be speculating here, so here goes; If SL did this without addressing Pakistan concerns, or taking Pakistan into confidence, I have no doubt that there would be a diplomatic cooling between the two nations.

I think, what this all boils down to is our disagreement on India's political and strategic goal. Your argument is simply that it relates to India's fear of infiltration by Pakistani agents, and my argument is that it has more to do with India's fear of being surrounded by nations that have close relations with it's rivals (namely China and Pakistan).
--------------------

I really wonder how you can convert a statement by Pakistani FO spokesperson saying:

“These people [asylum seekers] obtained asylum in Sri Lanka by badmouthing Pakistan. If they are in trouble, I have no idea.”

To mean that Pakistan has supported this step. It really requires quite a jump to consider an acknowledgement that they are "badmouthing Pakistan" and ''If they are in trouble, I have no idea'' to mean that Pakistan is supporting the deportation of these Pakistani as well as revocation of VoA.

Read between the lines here, will you? It's not just about what Pakistan is saying, it's about what Pakistan isn't saying. It's called a mutual understanding, and like I said, I pretty much think this entire thing was done by taking Pakistan into confidence.

The very fact that Pakistan has not protested this, the very fact that Pakistan has not said that it wants SL to reconsider, the fact that Pakistan has pretty much accepted that those people will be sent back to Pakistan, pretty much should tell you of what Pakistan thinks of the situation.

Really, hats off to you for making that conclusion friend.

As per you is this another one of those instances of misrepresenting facts?

There is zero Pakistani reaction on this - neither positive, nor negative. They have basically steered clear of this issue altogether.

There has been a reaction to this, look at the words being used to describe the asylum seekers? "Badmouth", that alone tells you a whole lot about what Pakistan thinks about this entire situation.

It's not per me, it's per simple logic. Geopolitics isn't as simplified as you make it out to be.

Oh and I forgot to add:
Please read this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceylon Today | They fled persecution to end up in misery

The Controller of Immigration and Emigration, Chulanada Silva is gung ho about the prospect of rounding up more asylum seekers. His disdain towards the vulnerable community becomes evident as he justifies the crackdown- with sweeping (and largely unsubstantiated) allegations.

" They are a harmful element to our country," "There can be terrorist elements who misuse these channels".

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

The article also adds in its own opinion - that these statements by the Controller of Immigration and Emigration of Sri Lanka are largely unsubstantiated. But there you have it.
A statement of a high official highlighting our concerns, even if they were not the reasons given officially to Pakistan and the world.

Also a corroboration of the Indian 'narrative' that VoA facility was being used by Pakistan for purposes that are bad for India's as well as Lanka's security.

This doesn't really change anything, as it's the opinion of one official,nothing more. The fact that the article writers go on to say that his opinion is unsubstantiated, actually further enhances my argument.

 

[shuntmaster]

Drive to Avoid Black Abayas in Sri Lanka

COLOMBO: A leading Muslim organization in Sri Lanka is conducting a campaign to persuade Muslim women to abjure the black abaya, the loose outer garment worn as a cloak to cover the body from the shoulders to the feet and wear coloured ones in order to make the Islamic sartorial custom acceptable to the Sinhalese majority in the country.

“Bring your black abayas, we will give you coloured abayas,” says an announcement from the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka (MCSL),a network of Muslim organizations.

“The back abaya and the niqab, the face covering which is less commonly worn, have been creating negative feelings among the majority Sinhalese-Buddhists. When everybody is in black, it gives the impression that we are a uniformed force. And the niqab has raised security concerns,” observed Mohammad Dahalan, Advisor to the All Ceylon Jamiyathul Ulama (ACJU).

One of the main reasons for the anti-Muslim feelings among the majority Sinhalese-Buddhists, which led to devastating riots in Aluthgama and Beruwela in June, is the cultural alienation of the Muslims from the Sinhalese. The Sinhalese feel that the Muslims have wantonly drifted from the general Lankan cultural milieu by adopting Arab culture wholesale. The increasing exclusiveness among Muslims has created fears about a secret dalliance with Islamic terrorism now sweeping the world - a concern expressed many times by Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

N M Ameen, President of MCSL said that new abyas are being made. Vice President Hilmy Ahamad said that the distribution will begin in ten days.

 

[Donatello]

Visa on arrival was taken away long time ago. Now you need the electronic verification online. This has been happening for sometime, and it still doesn't change anything.

Don't know what Indians are harping on about.

 

[Contrarian]

Perhaps dependence was the wrong term to use. I actually thought long and hard about actually using it myself, the word I actually want to use to describe the relationship between Pakistan and Sri Lanka, is one that I find hard pressed to think of right now. So, admittedly, that is a poor choice of wording on my part.

I honestly doubt that India's concern had to do with terrorism, or infiltration from it's southern border. It is security related though, as it has always been whenever either Pakistan or China are concerned. SL has been for a long time, in the arms of Pakistan and China, it's only recently that SL has been making more truly independent choices, SL succumbing to Indian pressure isn't surprising, as that is the cost of trying to remain neutral between Pakistan and India (that may sound contradictory, but considering how close SL-Pakistan relations are, it show that SL doesn't want to get involved between the Pakistan-India rivalry). Now, admitted, I am going to be speculating here, so here goes; If SL did this without addressing Pakistan concerns, or taking Pakistan into confidence, I have no doubt that there would be a diplomatic cooling between the two nations.

I think, what this all boils down to is our disagreement on India's political and strategic goal. Your argument is simply that it relates to India's fear of infiltration by Pakistani agents, and my argument is that it has more to do with India's fear of being surrounded by nations that have close relations with it's rivals (namely China and Pakistan).

I disagree here.
Your view of India remains coloured by the status and actions of how things were till the 90's. Among the many themes of that time, India's insecurity on these issues was also an issue then.
India used to have that fear for decades but for a while now, they have been reduced.
Our South Asian neighbours realized that many of India's actions were because of that fear of being encircled by India.

Geo-polity and its actions are very globalized. With/because of India's economic and political ascent in the comity of Nations since the late 90's, the tone, tenor and attitude of all our neighbours has changed towards India.

Consequently, they moved the extra mile to allay our fears and they have been much addressed.

I will give you examples(as always) to prove my point.
India had a fear that the Chinese will use Myanmar, Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan to surround us.
Now,
- As our power has grown, we have eliminated and subdued those inimical to Indian interests in foreign countries.
The absolute campaign we ran to ensure defeat of Khaleda Zia and literal persecution of Jamaate-e-Islami led to The only political party in Bangladesh that was openly hostile to India and who directly indulged in acts of aggression against Indian NE, Khaleda Zia of BNP, who today indirectly apologises for its past behaviour and asks for India to have good relations with them.
Bangladesh’s Khaleda Zia seeks to revamp India ties - Livemint

- Sri Lanka has openly declared while giving a port contract to China that no port of Sri Lanka has been or will be given to China for military deployement. They have unequivocally stated that they shall take no action that directly or indirectly impinges Indian security.

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa in an interview has said that he will not allow any country to act against the interests of India from its soil
Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa says he won't allow anti-India acts : Asia, News - India Today

-Myanmar went a step further and has asked Indian Navy to physically come and check Coco Islands - the base that everyone said had been given to Chinese intelligence.
Not just that, India and Myanmar had joint military action to take out Indian insurgents in Mayanmar(border region).
India takes up with Myanmar reports of China 'base' - NDTV

- Maldives and Mauritious are practically protectorates of India.

You might think that Pakistan supporting Lanka in its war civil war was a blow to India, but I am sure you did not know that while Lanka was busy eliminating LTTE on land, it was the Indian Navy that was out in force to identify and give the location of the floating depot's of LTTE( LTTE stocked most of its weapons and ammo over the water), and interdicting new shipments coming to them. For political reasons(Tamil Nadu) we can not support Lanka officially or take even a remotely anti-LTTE stance, but India has wanted LTTE dead for a long time.
The only thing SL did unexpected was in the last phase of their war, it committed crimes on civilian Tamil population by indiscriminate heavy shelling and firing.

India however has not feared any relations of Pakistan with other Indian neighbours(apart from Bangladesh when Zia was the PM) simply because no neighbour would go against Indian interests to side with Pakistan. Your view is coloured by the time when Pakistan was an equal geopolitical counterweight of India and always checkmated Indian advances(something I admired in Pakistan). Those days are now gone. India has changed and our concerns and interests are taken a little more seriously than before.
--------------------

Read between the lines here, will you? It's not just about what Pakistan is saying, it's about what Pakistan isn't saying. It's called a mutual understanding, and like I said, I pretty much think this entire thing was done by taking Pakistan into confidence.

The very fact that Pakistan has not protested this, the very fact that Pakistan has not said that it wants SL to reconsider, the fact that Pakistan has pretty much accepted that those people will be sent back to Pakistan, pretty much should tell you of what Pakistan thinks of the situation.


There has been a reaction to this, look at the words being used to describe the asylum seekers? "Badmouth", that alone tells you a whole lot about what Pakistan thinks about this entire situation.

It would be hard for me to prove anything here. Pakistan was not taken into confidence here. The foreign spokesperson clearly said that she had "no idea'' on actions taken by Lanka, though she did know that the refugees were "badmouthing" Pakistan. Every refugee in the world badmouths their native country. Pakistani refugees have been going to Canada, Australia, US, Europe, there is nothing new that was happening in Lanka.

Secondly I ask you again, do you think Lanka's actions were commensurate with the less-than-a-drop 1500 refugees? And if not, then what was the cause.

This doesn't really change anything, as it's the opinion of one official,nothing more. The fact that the article writers go on to say that his opinion is unsubstantiated, actually further enhances my argument.

That one official is the Controller of Immigration and Emigration, not a run-of-the-mill government babu. I would reckon that you take the opinion of such an extremely high ranking official a little more seriously.

I have given you everything - from what has been reported in India, to what has been reported in Lanka apart from the official statement of GoSL, which in any case is not expected to say to Pakistan the truth about India in this affair as well as the statements of Controller of Immigration and Emigration,, of Sri Lanka.

You are dismissing everything as circumstantial and pining your statement and assumption on Pakistan being 'taken in confidence' despite your foreign office spokesperson clearly saying that she has 'no idea' on Lanka's actions, just that she is aware that the refugees were badmouthing.

 

[That Guy]

I disagree here.
Your view of India remains coloured by the status and actions of how things were till the 90's. Among the many themes of that time, India's insecurity on these issues was also an issue then.
India used to have that fear for decades but for a while now, they have been reduced.
Our South Asian neighbours realized that many of India's actions were because of that fear of being encircled by India.

India's actions continue to reflect it's pasted mentality. India is still afraid of being surrounded, and it is only Bangladesh that India has neutralized, but even then, it's still unsure of future developments, we can see this by what it is currently doing today in the region. It is continuing to put pressure on neighboring nations to slow down the growing influence of China, and it has done moderately well in containing it, but India still has not achieved it's objectives of totally locking out China and containing Pakistan.

That's just the cold hard truth, and you can see what I have claimed by looking at India's recent activities in the region, this being a prime example. Even you can't ignore this and call it a coincidence.

Geo-polity and its actions are very globalized. With/because of India's economic and political ascent in the comity of Nations since the late 90's, the tone, tenor and attitude of all our neighbours has changed towards India.

Attitudes have changed towards India, but not the way you claim. Most of the nations aren't pro-India like you're trying to portray, and are in fact more inclined to follow China (I'm not even going to mention Pakistan here, because it's completely irrelevant to this new conversation you've started).

Consequently, they moved the extra mile to allay our fears and they have been much addressed.

Not really, by your own admission, this new action by SL isn't significant. It hasn't changed the diplomatic dynamic of SL from Pakistan to India. In fact, it has had very little impact in the relationship between all three of the concerned nations.

I will give you examples(as always) to prove my point.
India had a fear that the Chinese will use Myanmar, Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan to surround us.
Now,
- As our power has grown, we have eliminated and subdued those inimical to Indian interests in foreign countries.
The absolute campaign we ran to ensure defeat of Khaleda Zia and literal persecution of Jamaate-e-Islami led to The only political party in Bangladesh that was openly hostile to India and who directly indulged in acts of aggression against Indian NE, Khaleda Zia of BNP, today indirectly apologise for its past behaviour and asks for India to have good relations with them.
Bangladesh’s Khaleda Zia seeks to revamp India ties - Livemint

Yeah, you haven't subdued any other nation besides Bangladesh. There is no evidence to suggest that India has subdued any nation other than Bangladesh.

Claiming that JI was a serious threat to India is like saying that a mouse is a threat to a lion. The JI isn't even that relevant in Bangladesh, why would they be a threat?

As for Khalida Zia, it's quite clear that there is renewed hostility from the BNP towards India, as it blames India for supporting the Awami league and keeping Shiekh Hasina in power. So even that horse is pretty much dead.

- Sri Lanka has openly declared while giving a port contract to China that no port of Sri Lanka has been or will be given to China for military deployement. They have unequivocally stated that they shall take no action that directly or indirectly impinges Indian security.

Since when did China say that it would use the port in SL for military purposes? There is a great misunderstand in South Asia (particularly in India and Pakistan) of what being surrounded means. In today's world, you don't need military powers to isolate a nation, what you do is use economics to isolate a nation. China understands the very well, which is why it is investing heavily in nations that surround India.

-Myanmar went a step further and has asked Indian Navy to physically come and check Coco Islands - the base that everyone said had been given to Chinese intelligence.
Not just that, India and Myanmar had joint military action to take out Indian insurgents in Mayanmar(border region).
India takes up with Myanmar reports of China 'base' - NDTV

Yeah, that doesn't really change anything. If both Pakistan and India decided that they'd tackle drug smugglers together, it still wouldn't change the politics between the two nations. Your points are nothing more than anecdotes.

- Maldives and Mauritious are practically protectorates of India.

Says you, but I won't deny that India has quite a bit of influence in the nations.

You might think that Pakistan supporting Lanka in its war civil war was a blow to India, but I am sure you did not know that while Lanka was busy eliminating LTTE on land, it was the Indian Navy that was out in force to identify and give the location of the floating depot's of LTTE( LTTE stocked most of its weapons and ammo over the water), and interdicting new shipments coming to them. For political reasons(Tamil Nadu) we could not support Lanka officially or take even a remotely anti-LTTE stance, but India has wanted LTTE dead for a long time.

I never claimed Pakistani support was a blow to India, why would I? Having said that, it's no secret that both SL and Pakistan suspect India of supporting the LTTE.

India however has not feared any relations of Pakistan with other Indian neighbours(apart from Bangladesh when Zia was the PM) simply because no neighbour would go against Indian interests to side with Pakistan. Your view is coloured by the time when Pakistan was an equal geopolitical counterweight of India and always checkmated Indian advances. Those days are gone now. India have changed.

Nor should India fear any relations between Pakistan and it's Indian neighbors, which goes to show that this little incident wasn't caused by India, even if India had a small part to play in it.

My views have nothing to do with Pakistan being an equal counter balance to India, I've even told you that in our previous conversations. Pakistan simply does not have the capability to match India in the geopolitical realm right now, that's just you assuming my point again; aka a strawman argument.
--------------------

It would be hard for me to prove anything here. Pakistan was not taken into confidence here. The foreign spokesperson clearly said that she had "no idea'' on actions taken by Lanka, though she did know that the refugees were "badmouthing" Pakistan. Every refugee in the world badmouths their native country. Pakistani refugees have been going to Canada, Australia, US, Europe, there is nothing new that was happening in Lanka.

The visa restrictions was what I was talking about, I will admit that it is simply my view of the situation, as I sincerely doubt that the FO spokesperson didn't know about this, it's highly unlikely. Even you have to admit how suspicious it would be if the FO of all the government institutions didn't have any info about this.

Secondly I ask you again, do you think Lanka's actions were commensurate with the less-than-a-drop 1500 refugees? And if not, then what was the cause.

I don't claim to know anything, I'm simply telling you what we've been told, and what we can guess.

That one official is the Controller of Immigration and Emigration, not a run-of-the-mill government babu. I would reckon that you take the opinion of such an extremely high ranking official a little more seriously.

Recently, our foreign minister (Canadian) called an Islamic charity group a terrorist organization, and is being sued for slander. Politicians say stupid things all the time.

I have given you everything - from what has been reported in India, to what has been reported in Lanka apart from the official statement of GoSL, which in any case is not expected to say to Pakistan the truth about India in this affair as well as the statements of Controller of Immigration and Emigration,, of Sri Lanka.

Actually, I'd like to point out that you haven't really said anything from the GoSL's statements, just one SL official and Indian sources.

but if you want to believe this, go ahead.

You are dismissing everything as circumstantial and pining your statement and assumption on Pakistan being 'taken in confidence' despite your foreign office spokesperson clearly saying that she has 'no idea' on Lanka's actions, just that she is aware that the refugees were badmouthing.

Not really, I'm simply taking what you're saying and deconstructing it. If you have a problem with that, argue with me using logic.

I do (and have previous) admit that being taken into confidence is my own view, but you have to admit that the FO not knowing anything doesn't add up. This isn't something that the host nation can just do without informing the nation of origin.

 

[Patriots]

LOL. Funny to see you took it as your strength. Truth is other-way around. India successfully exposed Pakistan to the world again and again. Now it has come to a point, by default fingers are pointing automatically towards you for every incident that happens in the world.

O yeah then why didn't fingers raise towards Pakistan for 9/11 incident

 

[SouthDesi]

O yeah then why didn't fingers raise towards Pakistan for 9/11 incident

Are you in this world? Did you follow where the war is happening from 2001 onwards and where OBL the master of 9\11 was found?

 

[Patriots]

Are you in this world? Did you follow where the war is happening from 2001 onwards and where OBL the master of 9\11 was found?

Were war fought in Pakistan or its Afghanistan ... Pakistan was ally with allied forces after 9/11 ... And did you see deadbody of OBL.......??? Did anybody see...??????