Should ISI be helping India?

[batmannow]

Obviously the visit is not about learning investigative techniques from the ISI chief. No one except some people here would believe that ISI is competent and efficient though It may be ruthless.

It is to present him the evidence collected that proves the links of the perpetrators to Pakistan.

Other agencies that are involved like FBI etc, had their nationals killed in the cowardly terror attacks. One doesn't know of any Pakistani nationals that were killed except may be the perpetrators themselves.

So let's stop pretending it is some kind of unspecified "help". What help could he possibly give? The only help would be to help bring the perpetrators to book.

And no one is blaming Pakistan as a country, nor its general people who are themselves victims of terror.

Why should someone feel offended if LET hand is found and the proof shared with the Pakistan government. This is what the visit is about.

To me it doesn't matter whether it is Pasha or some other senior ISI person. What matters is whether the evidence is taken seriously and follow up action taken or we would see a repetition of the past. Pasha being present would only mean Pakistan is taking the issue seriously.

Vinod2070; sir
i am 1000% sure that its not "learning investigative techniques from the ISI chief" but rightly , indian's higher ups acknowledged the vast experince of ISI and its knowledge about the terrorism!
its not winning or lossing situation, for any one! the main thing is that , we must rootout the terror, & if it can be done by coopreation between ISI & RAW , thn it should be wellcomed!
we should coopreate, on this fourm and on the ground, with whole heartdly, its the only way left, i guss?

 

[jeypore]

If the ISI does not help India, this will put more doubts towards the organization then it already exist. Overall it is time ISI does clean it closet to make it easier for the Pakistan ruling party. I believe it will help since this mumbai incedent there will other pressure from Nato, and Mr. Zadari full cooperation to help India in this incident.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If the ISI does not help India, this will put more doubts towards the organization then it already exist. Overall it is time ISI does clean it closet to make it easier for the Pakistan ruling party. I believe it will help since this mumbai incedent there will other pressure from Nato, and Mr. Zadari full cooperation to help India in this incident.

By all indications it seems Pakistan is cooperating, at this point. A high level ISI representative is being sent. If India decides to include Pakistan in the investigation, perhaps a proper team of investigators can be sent.

The decision to not send the DG ISI was a sensible one, since he could not have offered any technical assistance in terms of investigations etc. If 'sharing evidence' is the only need, any ISI officer should do.

 

[su-47]

By all indications it seems Pakistan is cooperating, at this point. A high level ISI representative is being sent. If India decides to include Pakistan in the investigation, perhaps a proper team of investigators can be sent.

The decision to not send the DG ISI was a sensible one, since he could not have offered any technical assistance in terms of investigations etc. If 'sharing evidence' is the only need, any ISI officer should do.

sending the ISI chief may not have helped in the investigation, but it would have been a great goodwill gesture.

The reason top officials are used for international meetings is as a goodwill gesture. nations find it insulting if another nation sends a junior or a low-importance member to meet with high ranking officials.

 

[EagleEyes]

sending the ISI chief may not have helped in the investigation, but it would have been a great goodwill gesture.

The reason top officials are used for international meetings is as a goodwill gesture. nations find it insulting if another nation sends a junior or a low-importance member to meet with high ranking officials.

ISI Cheif is too valuable to be sent to India. Such move will not be seen as good in Pakistan. Thats why it was denied. If India finds it as insulting then we are sorry, and thats all Pakistan can offer.

 

[Awesome]

sending the ISI chief may not have helped in the investigation, but it would have been a great goodwill gesture.

The reason top officials are used for international meetings is as a goodwill gesture. nations find it insulting if another nation sends a junior or a low-importance member to meet with high ranking officials.

India should not be seeking to pacify its ego, but rather get to the bottom of this one particular incident.

 

[third eye]

Ok, its possible that "Non state players" were / are responsible for the mayhem in Pak & mumbai.

Pak should then at least admit that the nation is not in control of those who should be holding the reigns.

At least that would be a start point to move forward. Right now its in complete denial.."I didn't do it & I am not responsible for what my child does..."

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ok, its possible that "Non state players" were / are responsible for the mayhem in Pak & mumbai.

Pak should then at least admit that the nation is not in control of those who should be holding the reigns.

At least that would be a start point to move forward. Right now its in complete denial.."I didn't do it & I am not responsible for what my child does..."

Rigth now the GoP seems to have recieved nothing except for a 'list' from the GoI.

I say the first thing that needs to happen is for some sort of evidence to be made available to Pakistan, so it can investigate and verify. Accusations of 'denial' can only come after that process is comes to an unsatisfactory conclusion.

Secondly, it is impossible for a Country as large as Pakistan and with the institutional and resource challenges it faces to have 'total control' as you seem to be suggesting. It would be impossible for any country to have that sort of control.

Why for example do drug cartels and violent gangs still exist in the US? Is the US insincere in cracking down on violent crime? What about the homegrown terrorism in India, the North East etc? Is India insincere about cracking down on those groups? Of course not.

The reality is that no state, especially large, diverse and developing ones, have the ability to exercise 'total control'. Your demand of 'Pakistan accepting it doesn't exercise control' is really a Trojan horse then in that sense. You want Pakistan to accept something that is a universal condition, to varying degrees, to somehow make it seem like Pakistan alone is incapable of 'control', and therefore possibly malign Pakistan or justify intervention.

 

[third eye]

Rigth now the GoP seems to have recieved nothing except for a 'list' from the GoI.

I say the first thing that needs to happen is for some sort of evidence to be made available to Pakistan, so it can investigate and verify. Accusations of 'denial' can only come after that process is comes to an unsatisfactory conclusion.

Secondly, it is impossible for a Country as large as Pakistan and with the institutional and resource challenges it faces to have 'total control' as you seem to be suggesting. It would be impossible for any country to have that sort of control.

Why for example do drug cartels and violent gangs still exist in the US? Is the US insincere in cracking down on violent crime? What about the homegrown terrorism in India, the North East etc? Is India insincere about cracking down on those groups? Of course not.

The reality is that no state, especially large, diverse and developing ones, have the ability to exercise 'total control'. Your demand of 'Pakistan accepting it doesn't exercise control' is really a Trojan horse then in that sense. You want Pakistan to accept something that is a universal condition, to varying degrees, to somehow make it seem like Pakistan alone is incapable of 'control', and therefore possibly malign Pakistan or justify intervention.

What evidence does Pak want when its own Pres admits that there were ( could ) be non state players ?

Yes, all nations may not have total control of all their sujects but the damage done by those not in control ( Drug cartels or probs in NE of India etc) is restricted within the borders of the nation.Terrorist groups in India damage the state they actions do not affect BD, Myanmar, Bhutan or China.If they or their actions caused grief to those outside its borders, the nation has to take ownership for it.Then & only then can it absolve itself from its responsibility and expect the world to help & take corrective action.

If it behaves like a parent who refuses to admit the wrongs of its ill manered child how will things move forward. The 1st step to solving a prob is to admit there is one.

 

[Goodperson]

Zardari Retracted on ISI chief's visit after meeting with Gen Kiyani. He has now refused to handover 20 terrorist demanded by India. Similar retraction happened with ISI put under civilian control the decision was retracted within hours.

This shows still Army holds much power.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What evidence does Pak want when its own Pres admits that there were ( could ) be non state players ?

Yes, all nations may not have total control of all their sujects but the damage done by those not in control ( Drug cartels or probs in NE of India etc) is restricted within the borders of the nation.Terrorist groups in India damage the state they actions do not affect BD, Myanmar, Bhutan or China.If they or their actions caused grief to those outside its borders, the nation has to take ownership for it.Then & only then can it absolve itself from its responsibility and expect the world to help & take corrective action.

If it behaves like a parent who refuses to admit the wrongs of its ill manered child how will things move forward. The 1st step to solving a prob is to admit there is one.

What do you mean 'what evidence do we want'? Admitting the possibility of non-state actors being involved is different from finding out who those non-state actors are, tracking them down and trying and punishing them. How is Pakistan supposed to know who these non-state actors are and put them on trial without evidence?

The 'area' of damage is limited because that is where those criminal cartels operate (some drug cartels do operate trans-nationally), whereas in the case of terrorist groups they may or may not operate in other countries as well. The point here is not what the 'area of operations' is, but that even countries as developed as the US have trouble controlling violent groups and curbing their activities, so why place unreasonable expectations on Pakistan of 'control'?

This isn't to say that Pakistan should not act against any groups it obtains evidence against, but to ask for absolute control and prevention of terrorism from groups in Pakistan is impossible.

Until India provides evidence that Pakistan can verify, there is no point admitting the guilt of anything, that is a perfectly reasonable and rational position. India has to provide evidence for the process to get started, mere accusations and 'lists' are not enough.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Zardari Retracted on ISI chief's visit after meeting with Gen Kiyani. He has now refused to handover 20 terrorist demanded by India. Similar retraction happened with ISI put under civilian control the decision was retracted within hours.

This shows still Army holds much power.

All three had different dynamics behind them, you are clubbing them together because it suits your view point of an 'army out of control'.

1. ISI DG retraction:

The idea was a bad one from the get go. We can already see that India is not interested in a 'joint investigation' given the lack of response to Pakistan's proposal. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan was in India and offered his sympathies and condolences - that was therefore a sufficiently high ranking representative of the GoP to convey our support.

There was also a strong domestic backlash from opposition politicians and the intelligentsia, made worse by the tenor of the Indian's media in its coverage of the issue, and even in the Western media. The perception was that the ISI chief was being summoned and Pakistan blamed for the terrorism - unacceptable. The GoP had to withdraw the decision or face a domestic backlash from all sections of society.

2. Handover of 20 people on the list:

Zardari never agreed to merely 'handover' anyone, so where is the retraction? AFAIK, the GoP's position from day one has been that they will cooperate with India in investigating this crime and bringing the culprits to justice - that position has not changed. We have however received nothing but demands from India so far.

3. ISI Change:

The attempt to shift the agency under the control of the Interior Ministry rather than the Prime Minister was criticized by any number of Pakistani commentators and analysts, as well as some in the opposition.

The Interior ministry already has the IB under its control, and as the name suggests, the ministry deals with 'Internal Affairs'. The ISI is primarily an external intelligence agency, that is primarily staffed by the Military. It makes no sense whatsoever to have it move under the IM.

The sort of restructuring it needs is more along the lines of what we have seen recently, of disbanding its political wing for example.

 

[was]

sending their the isi chief is sign of weakness. no way
but some members of isi should go there and try to see if there is a proof....if they have any

 

[third eye]

What do you mean 'what evidence do we want'? Admitting the possibility of non-state actors being involved is different from finding out who those non-state actors are, tracking them down and trying and punishing them. How is Pakistan supposed to know who these non-state actors are and put them on trial without evidence?

The 'area' of damage is limited because that is where those criminal cartels operate (some drug cartels do operate trans-nationally), whereas in the case of terrorist groups they may or may not operate in other countries as well. The point here is not what the 'area of operations' is, but that even countries as developed as the US have trouble controlling violent groups and curbing their activities, so why place unreasonable expectations on Pakistan of 'control'?

This isn't to say that Pakistan should not act against any groups it obtains evidence against, but to ask for absolute control and prevention of terrorism from groups in Pakistan is impossible.
Until India provides evidence that Pakistan can verify, there is no point admitting the guilt of anything, that is a perfectly reasonable and rational position. India has to provide evidence for the process to get started, mere accusations and 'lists' are not enough.

A president of a nation is expected to know what he says & not just shoot off his mouth. If he says they are operating in his boundaries, who does he expect to control them ? This is exactly why US shoots missiles into Pak with impunity, coz they are not in control of GOP & this is what the world fears most.

How is it the the fabled ISI which seems to know everything does is not able to figure out who these 'non state actors' are ? Obviously , they enjoy patronage form the ISI about which the Pak Pres can do nothing.

In fact i feel there is no need to provide evidence of any kind, their existence is being admitted by the Pak Pres himself, all the GOP has to do is to track down these ppl . The biggest "if' is that does GOP have the courage to do it ?

Obviously..No.

 

[Goodperson]

All three had different dynamics behind them, you are clubbing them together because it suits your view point of an 'army out of control'.

1. ISI DG retraction:

The idea was a bad one from the get go. We can already see that India is not interested in a 'joint investigation' given the lack of response to Pakistan's proposal. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan was in India and offered his sympathies and condolences - that was therefore a sufficiently high ranking representative of the GoP to convey our support.

There was also a strong domestic backlash from opposition politicians and the intelligentsia, made worse by the tenor of the Indian's media in its coverage of the issue, and even in the Western media. The perception was that the ISI chief was being summoned and Pakistan blamed for the terrorism - unacceptable. The GoP had to withdraw the decision or face a domestic backlash from all sections of society.

2. Handover of 20 people on the list:

Zardari never agreed to merely 'handover' anyone, so where is the retraction? AFAIK, the GoP's position from day one has been that they will cooperate with India in investigating this crime and bringing the culprits to justice - that position has not changed. We have however received nothing but demands from India so far.

3. ISI Change:

The attempt to shift the agency under the control of the Interior Ministry rather than the Prime Minister was criticized by any number of Pakistani commentators and analysts, as well as some in the opposition.

The Interior ministry already has the IB under its control, and as the name suggests, the ministry deals with 'Internal Affairs'. The ISI is primarily an external intelligence agency, that is primarily staffed by the Military. It makes no sense whatsoever to have it move under the IM.

The sort of restructuring it needs is more along the lines of what we have seen recently, of disbanding its political wing for example.

Its suits my view point ? well if you think so. It triggered from the video in TOI

1) Zardari accept the request for ISI Chief in first place he then met gen Kiyani. Pak will not hand over terror suspects: Zardari-News-The Times of India
2) Zardari was towing familiar line which was taken during Musharaf regime.
3). Why ISI was ISI brought under civil control then the decesion retracted in few hours ? (BBC NEWS | South Asia | Spy agency confusion in Pakistan)