What's new

World should not turn soft towards Taliban: Tajikistan tells UNSC

Oh i forgot, u r the moron who thinks libya under Gaddafi was ideal democracy.

And you are the misinformed and misguided person who was talking in NATO language in desiring Assad to be regime-changed.

Yeah Tajikistan is a democracy and the president been sitting there democratically since 27 years, right?

And Erdogan has been ruling Turkey since 2003, very "democratically". Eighteen years which is not far from those 27 years. I have told you what is democracy and what is not.

USSR was beaten like a dog not very long ago, so yeah bring them.

Please see the situation of then Pakistan in my quoting of that article in my post you quoted.
 
Last edited:
.
So if Zia ul Haq was deposed by Pakistani leftists then India would support Zia's mullah-based cadre and against the leftists by getting Zia back into power because India essentially didn't want to get into USSR's Socialist alliance via the USSR gaining political and socio-economic influence in the national policy in Pakistan. Zia wasn't some great independent entity but someone propped up or to-be-propped-up by bigger powers including India. @Dalit. @Taimoor Khan, this is for you too


A lot of non sense.

Bangladesh creation was very much dependent on USSR support to India. To say India didn't want red army to cross the durand line, is simply the biggest pile of manure. Zia's Pakistan was sandwiched between two cold war allies, USSR and India, who both played key role in 71 war, together.

It's the same Gandhi who was schooled by Zia in cricket diplomacy and perhaps the only Indian leader to be threaten nuclear arramagadon on it's own soil.

Your third world country is in no position to even remotely influence anything in power corridors of Pakistan.
 
.
Your third world country is in no position to even remotely influence anything in power corridors of Pakistan.

1. Both India and Pakistan are third world. :)

2. Despite your attempts to hide away Socialist or Communist thought and activism in Pakistan, it was possible, I repeat, that Zia could have been deposed by the Socialists and the very non-Socialist Indian Establishment would have rushed to get back Zia into power. Let me tell you that as an Indian that India is quite a non-Socialist society despite the preamble of the constitution declaring it to be. As for India not having influence in Pakistani power corridors I am talking about Zia's Pakistan so I quote from that article again :
Six months later when Gandhi was planning to meet General Zia on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, the CIA analyzed that the then Indian Prime Minister, despite his strong public views on Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, was unlikely to push him hard on it. "Gandhi is unlikely to push Zia hard about the Pakistani nuclear program, although he probably will at least mention his continuing concern," noted the top secret CIA document dated October 21, 1985.

"For his part, Zia is also likely to propose ideas on ways to improve the bilateral relationship. He may suggest regular high-level diplomatic talks in addition to the formal Joint Commission sessions that focuses on trade, communications and cultural exchanges," the report said. "Zia may also solicit Gandhi's views on whether as the Pakistanis believe the Soviets are becoming serious about a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan," it said.
I am not suggesting that India could control Pakistani military and bureaucratic machinery but am talking about the confluence of Indian government and Pakistani government geopolitical interests. The article says that Rajiv Gandhi's government saw Zia government Pakistan as buffer against the USSR because the Indian government did not wish to see USSR gaining socio-economic and political influence in Pakistan and certainly not in India. RG did not want India to become Socialist and join the USSR's alliance hence his peace overtures to Zia and his merry band of mullahs. The article says the reality :
"New Delhi regards Pakistan as a strategic buffer against the USSR and would oppose Moscow's effort to dominate Pakistan. New Delhi and Moscow would find themselves supporting rival factions within Pakistan," said the report, according to which Moscow had plans to change the regime in Pakistan and extend its influence beyond Afghanistan.


It's the same Gandhi who was schooled by Zia in cricket diplomacy and perhaps the only Indian leader to be threaten nuclear arramagadon on it's own soil.

This is how Dawn describes the story :
With Indian troops amassed along the Pakistani border in early 1987, the morning of Feb 21, 1987, presented an altogether different surprise: a Pakistan Air Force jet landed at Delhi airport, with the visitor none other than Pakistan President General Ziaul Haq.

The general had flown to Delhi on the pretext of watching a test match between Pakistan and India in Jaipur, with his arrival putting Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in a spot of bother. In an article published by India Today, Behramnam, special adviser to Rajiv Gandhi, claimed that the Indian prime minister was not prepared to receive the General at the airport but had to be convinced by his associates to do so. With the match being played in Jaipur, Behramnam was deputed by Rajiv to accompany Gen Zia and tend to him.

As quoted in the India Today article, Behramnam states: “Before departure for Chennai, General Ziaul Haq, while saying goodbye to Gandhi said, ‘Mr Rajiv, you want to attack Pakistan, do it. But keep in mind that this world will forget Halaku Khan and Changez Khan and will remember only Ziaul Haq and Rajiv Gandhi, because this will not be a conventional war but a nuclear war. In this situation, Pakistan might be completely destroyed, but Muslims will still be there in the world; but with the destruction of India, Hinduism will vanish from the face of this earth.’”

Gen Zia had left Rajiv shaken.

“These were only few minutes, but Gen Zia seemed to us a very dangerous man. With a stern-face, Gen Zia’s eyes showed that he meant business. I was astonished, that after this stern warning, in a flash, Gen Zia started smiling as if nothing happened and warmly shook hands with other hosts. Except Rajiv Gandhi and myself, [nobody knew] that Gen Zia had created problems for the Indian PM by threatening him with nuclear war,” said Behramnam.

Wisdom ultimately prevailed, and the next day, Rajiv met Gen Zia for dinner. They spoke briefly but with definite intention of reducing tensions at the border. They agreed that in the first phase, both countries would withdraw 80,000 troops from each side. To discuss the mechanics of further withdrawals, an Indian team would visit Pakistan and carry talks.

Why had the general decided to deliver his viewpoint to the Indian leadership directly?

It so happened that the US had warned Pakistan in 1984 that India was planning to attack its nuclear installations in a fashion similar to how the Israelis attacked Iraq’s Osiraq facility. This information was conveyed to Gen Zia in a confidential letter written by President Ronald Reagan on Sept 12, 1984, delivered by Ambassador Hinton, US ambassador to Islamabad.

Details about this exchange were disclosed in the recently declassified US State Department documents. Both the “Talking points for use in delivering letter to General Zia” (a four-page undated secret document) and President Reagan’s letter to General Zia (a three-page secret and sensitive document) were only revealed recently; neither had been revealed or published before.

Reagan’s fear was based on a CIA analysis, which noted in July 1984 that some sections of the Indian government viewed a Pakistani nuclear threat as imminent. The CIA analysis also noted that “an Indian attack on Pakistani nuclear facilities would almost certainly prompt retaliatory strikes against Indian nuclear facilities and probably lead to a full scale war.” The US also wanted Pakistan to restrict its uranium enrichment to a maximum of five per cent, a breach of which would trigger sanctions on Pakistan.

In reply to Reagan’s letter of November 7, 1984, Gen Zia did not mention Reagan’s request to limit uranium enrichment. Instead, he flatly denied Pakistan having uranium enrichment capability. “Pakistan has no intention whatsoever to manufacture or detonate a nuclear device,” the general told the American president.

Meanwhile, off the cricket field, Gen Zia told media personnel, “Cricket for peace is my mission, and I have come with that spirit.”

By March 1987, tensions between the two countries had diminished appreciably. They reached an agreement to withdraw 150,000 troops in Kashmir followed by withdrawal of more troops from Rajashthan desert. India stuck to its decision of holding military exercises, telling Pakistan that it had nothing to worry about. India delayed the last phase of the exercise to communicate the same message.
Who is this mysterious Behramnam, special adviser to Rajiv ? All I see in Google is mostly Pakistani sources mentioning him. And in case the story is true it would have been more legit for Zia to have said that openly to Rajiv in the UN General Assembly, not in a whisper. This exchange is supposed to have taken place in 1987 but I have already told you that Rajiv, a few years prior, saw the Zia government as a buffer against USSR's increased influence in South Asia. Zia was an important man for USA, India and USSR but for different reasons.

A lot of non sense.

Bangladesh creation was very much dependent on USSR support to India. To say India didn't want red army to cross the durand line, is simply the biggest pile of manure. Zia's Pakistan was sandwiched between two cold war allies, USSR and India, who both played key role in 71 war, together.

I don't want to insult my Bangladeshi friends here like @Bilal9 bhai who may have a different POV about this than you but just to narrow it down to something between India and Pakistan, 71 was more than a decade before the event I am talking about and even in case of 71 it was USA who mediated between India and Pakistan to prevent a larger war.

Lastly, your profile picture is of a man who absolved the TTP in the attack on the PNS Mehran base in 2011. TTP claimed the attack but your man absolved it despite many Pakistani military and civilian personnel killed and injured there. Not to mention his Afghanistan misadventure. Do you really want to carry his picture ?
 
Last edited:
. . .
The Indian government is in the US camp yes but doesn't mean India has reached US level industrialization.

I am simply arguing the use of the term third world traditionally used for non aligned countries.
 
.
I am simply arguing the use of the term third world traditionally used for non aligned countries.

Google presents this meaning for "Third world" :
the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
So technically nothing to do with being non-aligned but even that term "Non-aligned" is misleading. India was always aligned with the Western bloc and Cuba was always aligned with the Eastern bloc. Further, from the wiki "Non-aligned movement" :
Origins and the Cold War

The term 'Non-Alignment' was used for the first time in 1950 at the United Nations by India and Yugoslavia, both of which refused to align themselves with either side in the Korean War.
In reality there was unfortunately an Indian military contingent operating alongside the Western bloc militaries who invaded the Korean region under the formal umbrella of the UNO.

Further, in Indonesia which was a founding NAM member under Sukarno, when the Western-bloc-aligned Suharto and his mullah militias and in the military carried out the genocide of possibly three million Communists, sympathizers and suspected sympathizers between 1965 and 66 Indonesia continued to be a NAM member.
 
.
Google presents this meaning for "Third world" :

So technically nothing to do with being non-aligned but even that term "Non-aligned" is misleading. India was always aligned with the Western bloc and Cuba was always aligned with the Eastern bloc. Further, from the wiki "Non-aligned movement" :

In reality there was unfortunately an Indian military contingent operating alongside the Western bloc militaries who invaded the Korean region under the formal umbrella of the UNO.

Further, in Indonesia which was a founding NAM member under Sukarno, when the Western-bloc-aligned Suharto and his mullah militias and in the military carried out the genocide of possibly three million Communists, sympathizers and suspected sympathizers between 1965 and 66 Indonesia continued to be a NAM member.

Wiki and Google indoctrinate not educate.
 
. . .
how many people have you met from the countries you casually comment upon?

I will rather not say but if a person hasn't met should that mean he should stop commenting on human affairs in any place other than his own country ?
 
.
I will rather not say but if a person hasn't met should that mean he should stop commenting on human affairs in any place other than his own country ?

Why would you not say? political commentary requires intimate knowledge which can only come from personal exchanges.
 
.
Why would you not say? political commentary requires intimate knowledge which can only come from personal exchanges.

There are a 1.4 billion people in India. Are all of them qualified to do political commentary about India ? Prophet Muhammad and Marx spoke for all humanity, not just for Arabia and Europe, and they did that without setting foot outside their own region.
 
.
There are a 1.4 billion people in India. Are all of them qualified to do political commentary about India ?
So you advocate taking away their rights to vote or indulge in politics? who will decide their qualification? Whatever happens in India has an impact upon their existence directly. Unless ofcourse you believe someone from Gujarat should not care what happens in Assam as its practically an another country in another timezone.
 
.
So you advocate taking away their rights to vote or indulge in politics? who will decide their qualification?

Every citizen should be political and participate in the politics in their society. They cannot be apolitical and apathetic to the goings on in their society. But voting is not real democracy. Please read this post where I described what actual democracy means.

Whatever happens in India has an impact upon their existence directly.

I agree and also the continuation of the two-party dictatorship in USA which supports the American invasions-oriented military and intelligence and the massive military-industrial complex there, ensured regime-change operations against Libya and Syria which are countries very far from USA.

Unless ofcourse you believe someone from Gujarat should not care what happens in Assam as its practically an another country in another timezone.

India has just one timezone.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom