Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: The dirty b***h is backing the village idiot  (Read 3347 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

flute

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Mother India
Re: The dirty b***h is backing the village idiot
« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2010, 05:21:54 PM »

Quote
1971 war was a war of necessity. On humanitarian grounds, India had allowed fleeing Pakis to come to the eastern states but could not bear the financial burden those lakhs of refugees put. There was no international financial help coming. So Indira *hi was forced to take up the last resort measure and divide PAK so that refugees could go back.
Quote
HERE is where she lost political spine.
She could have solved Kashmir problem in Simla Agreement but she didn't.

Saying Indira lost spine is easy, only, you need to understand she was probably the only leader India ever had who had real balls -:). I can tell you with 100% surety that Pak would never ever have dared to mess with India to the extent they are doing now, if Indira was around, she would have balkanized them further by now and never would have allowed them to go nuclear ( there are multiple accounts of how Indira was days away from approving a strike on pak nuclear installations before her murder).

I think there are few reasons why we failed to press advantage beyond bangladesh

1. Main reason is that Indira toured the whole world building public opinion for India's predicament. This was probably the only instance when US public opinion was against their govt. vis-a-vis India, her media management was that good. Also, this was probably the only instance when an Indian leader used foreign media to the full extent and created a largely positive image every where she toured. She built a case around India's crisis and wanted world help and all our foreign policy was geared towards building world opinion towards bangladesh. Having put all our eggs in that basket, it would have been a serious loss of face to play aggressor else where.

2. Lack of strategic depth: POK was not as valuable then as it is today. We were not able to see the vital link it would have provided us to Arghan and middle east.

3. Innate goodness: We were still holding onto some idealistic foreign policy mindset from nehru days and we did not have that real world attitude. Nothing to do with lacking spine.

4. USSR's support was limited to bangla ops and there are accounts of how USSR's support was weakening 10 days into the war. If the war prolonged any further, UUSR in fact told us that we are on our own.

Above points are in order of importance IMO. Also points are reasons for not continuing the war beyond liberation of bnagladesh, these are not related to shimla agreement or how 90k POWs should have been used to our advantage etc.

Coming to shimla agreement and how we could have solved kashmir thru that agreement, well for me it deosn't make sense. What is there to solve kashmir except getting back our land? how can we force them to concede what they did not concede in war? how could we have solved anything when Pak is simply refusing to even acknowledge Shimla agreement today? they simply go back on it no matter what is in that agreement. Remember they are hate India brigade no reasonable folks to deal with using agreements.





Logged
Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
let my country awake.

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,983
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: The dirty b***h is backing the village idiot
« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2010, 09:30:21 PM »

Flute:

Quote
aying Indira lost spine is easy, only, you need to understand she was probably the only leader India ever had who had real balls -:). I can tell you with 100% surety that Pak would never ever have dared to mess with India to the extent they are doing now, if Indira was around, she would have balkanized them further by now and never would have allowed them to go nuclear ( there are multiple accounts of how Indira was days away from approving a strike on pak nuclear installations before her murder).

You must understand that lacking political spine does not mean a politician will not do something that is in immediate need for the nation. I mean, even Vajpayee had balls to take back Kargill. To me, having political spine mean making full use of an available opportunity to do things that are in national interest.

If Indira really had intentions of taking out PAK nuclear installations then hats off to her.


Quote
Coming to shimla agreement and how we could have solved kashmir thru that agreement, well for me it deosn't make sense. What is there to solve kashmir except getting back our land? how can we force them to concede what they did not concede in war? how could we have solved anything when Pak is simply refusing to even acknowledge Shimla agreement today? they simply go back on it no matter what is in that agreement. Remember they are hate India brigade no reasonable folks to deal with using agreements.

From Wiki page of Simla Agreement:
(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.

....

As a gesture of goodwill India decided not to try 90,368 Pakistani prisoners of war for war crimes and released them.

India had 90,000 Pakis as POWs. Pakistan was facing immense loss of face internationally because of these POWs. Had India threatened that each of these guys will be tried for war crimes in army courts (or do anything else that it could possibly do to them), PAK would have softened it's Kashmir stance considerably IMO. I am not saying they would have capitulated on the spot. The thing is that India could have tried to leverage these 90,000 Pakis to force PAK to give up it's claim of any LOC in Kashmir. No country would want to have 90,000 of it's citizens get convicted for war crimes, after a war, and spend the duration of the punishment in that country. 90,000 is a very big number. The fact is that India never tried to take this route. Who knows what could have happened?

Now you correctly say that PAK does not respect Simla Agreement today. The reason why they don't do so is that they have POK to play with. They have a reason in POK to not respect Simla Agreement. Take away POK from them and then see what other reason they would have to openly disrespect Simla Agreement. 1971 war was about East Pakistan, not Kashmir. So there was no expectation that PAK would have conceded anything on Kashmir. However, with 90,000 POWs captured India could have made full use of this unexpected advantage and tried to forced PAK's hand in Kashmir. Sure those 90,000 POWs had nothing to do with Kashmir, but that's the beauty of politics. You use advantage achieved in one place to achieve political gains in another.
Logged

flute

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Mother India
Re: The dirty b***h is backing the village idiot
« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2010, 06:23:16 AM »

Flute:

Quote
aying Indira lost spine is easy, only, you need to understand she was probably the only leader India ever had who had real balls -:). I can tell you with 100% surety that Pak would never ever have dared to mess with India to the extent they are doing now, if Indira was around, she would have balkanized them further by now and never would have allowed them to go nuclear ( there are multiple accounts of how Indira was days away from approving a strike on pak nuclear installations before her murder).

You must understand that lacking political spine does not mean a politician will not do something that is in immediate need for the nation. I mean, even Vajpayee had balls to take back Kargill. To me, having political spine mean making full use of an available opportunity to do things that are in national interest.

If Indira really had intentions of taking out PAK nuclear installations then hats off to her.


Quote
Coming to shimla agreement and how we could have solved kashmir thru that agreement, well for me it deosn't make sense. What is there to solve kashmir except getting back our land? how can we force them to concede what they did not concede in war? how could we have solved anything when Pak is simply refusing to even acknowledge Shimla agreement today? they simply go back on it no matter what is in that agreement. Remember they are hate India brigade no reasonable folks to deal with using agreements.

From Wiki page of Simla Agreement:
(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.

....

As a gesture of goodwill India decided not to try 90,368 Pakistani prisoners of war for war crimes and released them.

India had 90,000 Pakis as POWs. Pakistan was facing immense loss of face internationally because of these POWs. Had India threatened that each of these guys will be tried for war crimes in army courts (or do anything else that it could possibly do to them), PAK would have softened it's Kashmir stance considerably IMO. I am not saying they would have capitulated on the spot. The thing is that India could have tried to leverage these 90,000 Pakis to force PAK to give up it's claim of any LOC in Kashmir. No country would want to have 90,000 of it's citizens get convicted for war crimes, after a war, and spend the duration of the punishment in that country. 90,000 is a very big number. The fact is that India never tried to take this route. Who knows what could have happened?

Now you correctly say that PAK does not respect Simla Agreement today. The reason why they don't do so is that they have POK to play with. They have a reason in POK to not respect Simla Agreement. Take away POK from them and then see what other reason they would have to openly disrespect Simla Agreement. 1971 war was about East Pakistan, not Kashmir. So there was no expectation that PAK would have conceded anything on Kashmir. However, with 90,000 POWs captured India could have made full use of this unexpected advantage and tried to forced PAK's hand in Kashmir. Sure those 90,000 POWs had nothing to do with Kashmir, but that's the beauty of politics. You use advantage achieved in one place to achieve political gains in another.
ruchir babu, IMO this whole 90k POWs thing not leveraged is just urban legend, nothing more. It is simply BS to expect a country like India to make any use of POWs against geneva conventions, we are not Pak. In fact, no civilized country can do it, we will simply slip into medeival barbaric butchery if countries start using POWs as bargaining chips. We cannot do it in modern times.
Logged
Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
let my country awake.

flute

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Mother India
Re: The dirty b***h is backing the village idiot
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2010, 07:45:57 PM »

those who are still stuck in stable pak is in india's interest please read


http://virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=441
A strong and stable Pakistan is not in India's best interests (NEW)

Posted By: Vir Sanghvi   |   Posted On: 19 Feb 2010 06:15 PM   |   Views: 1274


If you have been following the debate over the resumption of talks with Pakistan, then you will be startled by the kinds of arguments that are put forward by the proponents of dialogue. If, on the other hand, you are a hack of long standing like me, then you’ve probably heard it all before. I know I have heard versions of the same argument being recycled year after year, decade after decade.

 

   Here is a small sample of what you’re probably hearing – and a short explanation about why it makes very little sense.

 

One: A strong and stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests.

 

This argument is as old as the hills. The underlying assumption is that were Pakistan to break up, thousands of mad militants would attack India. There is a tiny grain of truth to this view so I will not dismiss it out of hand but consider the opposite view.

 

   In 1971, Pakistan broke up. Half of the country actually seceded and became Bangladesh. The immediate consequence of this weak and enfeebled Pakistan was two decades of peace. Throughout the 70s and the 80s, we had very little trouble from Islamabad. Plus, with East Pakistan gone, funding for rebels in Nagaland and Mizoram dried up. Consequently, both problems were solved and the insurgencies ended.

 

   If Pakistan were to break up, if Sindh or Baluchistan seceded, there is no way this could do India any harm. Rather Pakistan would be so obsessed with its own problems that we would have a degree of peace.

 

   Further, the real threat to India is not from freelance jihadis. They are quite happy killing other Pakistanis. The threat to us comes from organized terror planned by state and semi-state actors. Such forces are at their peak when Pakistan is strong and stable.

 

Two: We must strengthen Pakistani moderates.

 

Have you ever heard a Pakistani intellectual appear on Indian TV and say, “We must strengthen Indian secular forces because otherwise the Sangh Parivar will gain in strength?”

 

   Me neither.

 

   So why do we feel obliged to take sides in Pakistan’s internal disputes? The truth is that we have fought with Pakistan no matter which party has been in power. Benazir Bhutto began the Kashmir insurgency when she was Prime Minister. Kargil happened when Nawaz Sharif was Prime Minister. The Parliament attack took place on General Musharraf’s watch. Asif Zardari was President during 26/11.

 

   Bitter experience has demonstrated that when it comes to India, there are no moderates and extremists in Pakistan. At some stage or the other, every political party plays the anti-India card to win support.

 

Three: It is only through talks that we can find a meeting ground.

 

Anybody who has spoken to Pakistani officials will tell you that they have only two concerns. First of all, they want us to give them more river water. And secondly, they want control of Kashmir. Some Indian officials argue that even the demand for Kashmir is related to the Pakistani desire to get more river water.

 

   For talks between India and Pakistan to get anywhere, we have to be willing to make concessions on either or both of these issues. But the truth is that Indian public opinion will not allow any government to compromise on either of these issues.

 

   On river water we think that we are being more than fair to Pakistan and no farmer will agree to release more water to Pakistan. In fact, there is a growing demand within India to abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty (in which case Pakistan is finished) as a counter to terrorism.

 

"Pakistanis are fed on the belief that Muslims are mistreated in India and that we have no successful minorities."
   On Kashmir, it is clear that Indian public opinion will not agree to any kind of concession aimed at pleasing Pakistan. Nobody will agree to give up an inch of Kashmir. Equally, there is no public support for the concept of joint sovereignty or a soft border which allows terrorists to come and go at will.

 

   Given that the Indian positions are so inflexible, no talks can ever succeed. This is why all summits – whether in Lahore or in Agra – end up achieving nothing.

 

Four: We can end terrorism through dialogue.

 

We have been discussing this for over a decade now and despite many attempts at a dialogue including talk of a joint mechanism to fight terror, the situation on the ground has hardly changed.

 

   The Pakistanis claim that any evidence we provide is inadequate. When we argue to the contrary, they say that their courts are free and so the government can do nothing if the likes of Hafiz Sayeed are let off. (It is another matter that every terrorist the Americans want arrested is quickly handed over to them for extraordinary rendition.)

 

   When we respond that we are not looking for criminal convictions, that all we seek is a crackdown on terror organizations that are openly targeting India, the Pakistanis have a new explanation ready.

 

   They say: what can we do? We are suffering from the same malaise! Large parts of our territory are beyond our control. We would like to help but our government does not have the power to rein in the terrorists.

 

   Which takes us back to square one: if they are not going to act against terrorists then why are we wasting time talking to them?

 

Five: The way forward is people-to-people contacts.

 

This is the one part of the classic candles-on-the-Wagah-border formulation that I actually have no problems with. Pakistanis are fed on the belief that Muslims are mistreated in India and that we have no successful minorities.

 

   India can only gain if more Pakistanis come here and see the truth and recognize that our secular society has flourished while their Islamist society has destroyed their country. Any educated Pakistani who visits today’s India goes back impressed.

 

   Plus, there is India’s soft power. Why do all Pakistanis long to see Bollywood movies? Why do so many Pakistanis dream of making it big in the Indian entertainment business? Why is it such a big deal when no Pakistanis are picked for an Indian cricket league? Would Indian players have cared if they were not asked to play for a Pakistani league?

 

   The problem is that the Pakistani establishment recognizes the strengths of India’s open, secular society. It is quite happy sending the same 100 Punjabis over every year to talk peace at the India International Centre and at Neemrana. But it has no desire to allow Indian popular culture a free reign in Pakistan. And it sees no merit in allowing more Pakistanis a taste of the real India.

 

   So, the next time you hear these hoary old clichés being tossed around, be a little skeptical. Experience has taught us that they do not amount to very much.

Logged
Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
let my country awake.

indcric

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
Re: The dirty b***h is backing the village idiot
« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2010, 12:29:12 AM »

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2219/stories/20050923004503000.htm

This is Hindu on RAW's covert operations.

Note that this is a 2005 article. Last few paragraphs.

 Prime Minister Rajiv *hi's regime did not, however, restrict itself to sending verbal signals to Islamabad. In the mid-1980s, RAW set up two covert groups, CIT-X and CIT-J, the first targeting Pakistan in general and the second directed at Khalistani groups. Rabinder Singh, the RAW double-agent who defected to the U.S. in 2004, was among those who helped run CIT-J during its early years. Both these covert groups extensively used the services of cross-border traffickers like Sarabjit Singh to ferry weapons and funds across the border, much as their ISI counterparts were doing.

A low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore, followed. According to former RAW official and security analyst B. Raman, the Indian counter-campaign yielded results. "The role of our cover action capability in putting an end to the ISI's interference in Punjab", he wrote in 2002, "by making such interference prohibitively costly is little known and understood." While Pakistan has long complained of India-engineered terrorism on its soil, however, there is so far no coherent open-source account of either its scale or its course.

For reasons that are still unclear - some people believe Indian strategists did not wish to undermine the moral legitimacy of their complaints about Pakistani cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir - the covert offensive soon wound down. None of those in office at the time will, not surprisingly, discuss the issue on record, but Raman asserted in a 2003 article that the decision to terminate India's offensive covert capabilities directed at Pakistan was made by Prime Minister I.K. Gujral. Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao is believed to have terminated RAW's eastern operations earlier as part of his efforts to build bridges with China and Myanmar. As violence in Jammu and Kashmir escalated, successive RAW and I.B. heads attempted to gain authorisation for aggressive operations, but without success. After the 1999 war, key intelligence officers, including a former I.B. Director, attempted to persuade Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to issue the necessary authorisations. "He didn't say a word," recalls one official present at the meeting. "He didn't say no; he didn't say yes."

Given that violence in Jammu and Kashmir has de-escalated since 2002, the Indian strategic establishment's chosen weapons - military coercion and international pressure - seem to have paid off, at least in part. Intelligence officials who discussed the issue with Frontline, however, believe the debate remains alive. "You prepare capabilities to deal with what might happen," one official said, "not just what is apparent."

It is a guess at this moment whether the RAW has revived its covert operations or not. But RAW has a history of doing those.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2010, 12:40:55 AM by indcric »
Logged

flute

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Mother India
Re: The dirty b***h is backing the village idiot
« Reply #45 on: February 20, 2010, 03:00:06 AM »

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2219/stories/20050923004503000.htm

This is Hindu on RAW's covert operations.

Note that this is a 2005 article. Last few paragraphs.

 Prime Minister Rajiv *hi's regime did not, however, restrict itself to sending verbal signals to Islamabad. In the mid-1980s, RAW set up two covert groups, CIT-X and CIT-J, the first targeting Pakistan in general and the second directed at Khalistani groups. Rabinder Singh, the RAW double-agent who defected to the U.S. in 2004, was among those who helped run CIT-J during its early years. Both these covert groups extensively used the services of cross-border traffickers like Sarabjit Singh to ferry weapons and funds across the border, much as their ISI counterparts were doing.

A low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore, followed. According to former RAW official and security analyst B. Raman, the Indian counter-campaign yielded results. "The role of our cover action capability in putting an end to the ISI's interference in Punjab", he wrote in 2002, "by making such interference prohibitively costly is little known and understood." While Pakistan has long complained of India-engineered terrorism on its soil, however, there is so far no coherent open-source account of either its scale or its course.

For reasons that are still unclear - some people believe Indian strategists did not wish to undermine the moral legitimacy of their complaints about Pakistani cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir - the covert offensive soon wound down. None of those in office at the time will, not surprisingly, discuss the issue on record, but Raman asserted in a 2003 article that the decision to terminate India's offensive covert capabilities directed at Pakistan was made by Prime Minister I.K. Gujral. Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao is believed to have terminated RAW's eastern operations earlier as part of his efforts to build bridges with China and Myanmar. As violence in Jammu and Kashmir escalated, successive RAW and I.B. heads attempted to gain authorisation for aggressive operations, but without success. After the 1999 war, key intelligence officers, including a former I.B. Director, attempted to persuade Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to issue the necessary authorisations. "He didn't say a word," recalls one official present at the meeting. "He didn't say no; he didn't say yes."

Given that violence in Jammu and Kashmir has de-escalated since 2002, the Indian strategic establishment's chosen weapons - military coercion and international pressure - seem to have paid off, at least in part. Intelligence officials who discussed the issue with Frontline, however, believe the debate remains alive. "You prepare capabilities to deal with what might happen," one official said, "not just what is apparent."

It is a guess at this moment whether the RAW has revived its covert operations or not. But RAW has a history of doing those.
these are well known facts..first murarji desai ( he actually wound down a very extensive network built by RAW during Indira days which was capable of balkanising pak in NWFP) next IK Gujral hurt our external intelligence manifold. But it is foolish to assume we are doing it now based on what we did during rajiv days. There is simply no evidence for it now and there is no leadership for us now who can do it and bombing innocents is anyway uncivilized not suitable a glorious country like India. huh, RAW can surely go after terror set up.
Logged
Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
let my country awake.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up