Pakistan will not apologise to Bangladesh: Qureshi

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Amazing, isn't it?

Same as the Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf Kargil stories!!

 

[blain2]

Amazing, isn't it?

Same as the Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf Kargil stories!!

It surely is as we don't disown the above as old stories.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

It surely is as we don't disown the above as old stories.

Tell me the story gently as to a little child - so goes a hymn!

That's all from me, let we get a visitation from the Webmaster!

 

[blain2]

Tell me the story gently as to a little child - so goes a hymn!

That's all from me, let we get a visitation from the Webmaster!

you wont get a disagreement from me on stopping here...got to run off to do funner things.

 

[vish]

Vish,

IG announced a day after Operation Searchlight that India would completely support the "Bangladeshi struggle for independence", the GoI allowed any refugees to enter into India and set up camps for them and armed and trained the Mukti Bahini.

Your argument of "no choice" is nothing but retrospective platitudes. India had plenty of choices, but it deliberately exacerbated the situation because it wanted the excuse to invade. The refugee argument raised by you is nonsense, since the sequence of events clearly indicates that the crisis may not have gotten out of control without Indian support for the violent militants in EP, and that the preparations for war started the day after (if not before) Op. Searchlight.

This is precisely what I have said. Post Operation Searchlight, we came in big time. The refugees were always coming in... Post Operation Searchlight this policy was made official. This obviously did have an effect on the flow of refugees. But I doubt if the flow would have been limited had we not made this statement.

Further, the flow of refugees would have continued had we not gone in. You are right, we did use the refugees as an excuse, but there is a significant degree of legitimacy to that. Why should we bear your burden?

Prior to Operation Searchlight, we were not involved enough to seriously threaten you. I will concede that yes we did poke you rather much, but most of your problems were domestic. The situation was not our making. We did what any hostile nation would do; poke you. Post Operation Searchlight, things hit the fan and there was no looking back.


Blain2:

Even if the humanitarian aid did flow in, where you going to take these people (who according to you were “troublemakers&#8221 back?

 

[ddrbdgzy]

the country who should apologize are uk and india

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, "India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist".

IG's intent and motivations are made clear by that quote above.

Any links?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

the country who should apologize are uk and india

Do I take it that you are apologising for inaction?

 

[Vinod2070]

Anyway the politicians make so many statements. Not all need to be taken seriously.

I remember reading about Musharraf making a statement to the effect that Pakistan will always remain hostile to India and Kashmir is just an excuse for that. It may well be true, too.

But should India reject any and all peace proposal from Pakistan based on that statement and so many others that many Pakistanis make both politicians and others.

I have heard that Gohar guy also making some idiotic statements about talking to India when it divided into 40 pieces or something like that. The problem is when these guys can't differentiate between their dreams (wet?) and the reality.

 

[roadrunner]

I remember reading about Musharraf making a statement to the effect that Pakistan will always remain hostile to India and Kashmir is just an excuse for that. It may well be true, too.

How convenient! That just makes Pakistan look like the bad guy, which is of course why Musharraf supposedly said this Let's be clear. There is no counter argument to this. India is the bad guy in Kashmir. India is in defiance of UN resolutions, not Pakistan, India has resisted the holding of plebiscite according to UNCIP inspectors in the past, not Pakistan, and India is the only army involved in war with Kashmiris, not Pakistan.

This all indicates India is the bad guy in Kashmir, and if India withdraws from Kashmir and allows plebiscite, there would be no hostility, just some distrust between the politicians.

 

[cactuslily58]

the country who should apologize are uk and india

What was that !!

 

[Vinod2070]

How convenient! That just makes Pakistan look like the bad guy, which is of course why Musharraf supposedly said this Let's be clear. There is no counter argument to this. India is the bad guy in Kashmir. India is in defiance of UN resolutions, not Pakistan, India has resisted the holding of plebiscite according to UNCIP inspectors in the past, not Pakistan, and India is the only army involved in war with Kashmiris, not Pakistan.

This all indicates India is the bad guy in Kashmir, and if India withdraws from Kashmir and allows plebiscite, there would be no hostility, just some distrust between the politicians.

Are you denying that Musharraf made that statement?

Are you denying that such statements are common by many of your politicians and bureaucrats? By your many Jehadi leaders and religious figures, ISI guys, military guys?

Just as India is obviously the bad guy for you, you can bet the feeling is reciprocated.

For many in India, it is obvious that the WOT is not being fought in the right places. Where every terror attack in the world ends up having a footprint (again acknowledged by Musharraf), where the AQ is hiding etc. The mainstream US media (Newsweek, Economist) talks openly about which is the most dangerous place in the world. Where the terrorists will get their nuclear weapons from et al.

Kashmir, well let's not go there in this thread! sigh.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Any links?

Got it from this article/review.

http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=199360

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is precisely what I have said. Post Operation Searchlight, we came in big time. The refugees were always coming in... Post Operation Searchlight this policy was made official. This obviously did have an effect on the flow of refugees. But I doubt if the flow would have been limited had we not made this statement.

Further, the flow of refugees would have continued had we not gone in. You are right, we did use the refugees as an excuse, but there is a significant degree of legitimacy to that. Why should we bear your burden?

Prior to Operation Searchlight, we were not involved enough to seriously threaten you. I will concede that yes we did poke you rather much, but most of your problems were domestic. The situation was not our making. We did what any hostile nation would do; poke you. Post Operation Searchlight, things hit the fan and there was no looking back.

Manekshaw's comments make it clear that India was involved in inflaming the situation - so any 'refugees' were also due to India's own actions intended to do exactly that - destabilize the situation.

You argument really has no legs to stand on - when you destabilize another country, what do you think is going to happen?

India's 'choice' was to never have exploited the situation and armed violent groups, - you chose not to. Beyond that Blain and I have both pointed out that India had several choices, but instead it started preparing for war (and had it not been for Manekshaw's insistence that he was not ready, the war would have started then). Don't complain about no choice after you yourself helped create the conditions.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The short explanation is - Yes India did prepare for the war, but the situation was presented on a platter by Pakistan!

Surely, if all was well and Pakistan was one country from 1947 to 1971, India could not have changed the status in 1971 either!