Bharat Rakshak

Its not a simple question, has to do with the bigger picture and should ideally be debated on a different dedicated thread.

Here's one possibility which peaceniks are probably looking at -

Agreement on Siachen within five years (actual act taking place over a decade).
Agreement on Kashmir within ten years (partial autonomy - free movement of people and goods, accompanying fanfare)
FTA and Open borders within fifteen years
Common currency union within twenty years (including Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka)
EU type common parliament within twenty five years (incl. some degree of military union)

Naive? Maybe. Time will tell. If not, compromising on sovereignty is certainly not an option, but at the same time having troops in a certain uninhabited region indefinitely doesn't help establish sovereignty.

This part I didn't understand, I mean aren't the points of Rohit Vats like 'Gyong La' occupied by porkis after agreement between both armies to withdraw if spread and advertised around going to help build case for not withdrawing? How would they help 'anti-withdrawl' group and their handlers? (I'm not disagreeing, just want to understand).

I would beg to differ with this view. Unless Pakistani society undergoes fundamental changes these are pipe dreams no matter how much the leftists and their Western mentors push it. The antagonism between the Indic system and the Islamist system is fundamental. It is likely having a common parliament and common currency of USSR and USA. I don't think withdrawing from Siachen based on wishful thinking is a good idea.

>> For every nutty Zaid Hamid you have a Nadeem Paracha and for every Hamid Gul you have a Najam Sethi.

So Nadeem Paracha and Najam Sethi are examples of good Pakis in your world? That explains your understanding of Pakistan.

One of the things I often had to impress upon my friends when I was abroad was that there are very few stereotypes one can make about India or Indians. There is no Indian accent and there is no pan-Indian language. Yet its our Indian identity that has thrives in this myriad of cultures. Like India, Pakistan is not a monolithic state. Unlike India, there are three factors that distinctly unite it - religious nationalism, occasional military rule and an opposition to a threat from India.

The country swayed from moderate liberalism (under Ayub) to severe conservatism (under Zia) and is slowly but surely drifting away from religious nationalism. Not least because dozens are dying every week bringing the violence away from their TV screens and into their living rooms. For every nutty Zaid Hamid you have a Nadeem Paracha and for every Hamid Gul you have a Najam Sethi. Worried about Islamic fundamentalism, well they can keep trying to poison the waters of the ocean. Its not Indian tanks or fighter aircraft or nuclear weapons that drives their religious fundamentalists mad. Of course not, they're all means to martyrdom. What really gets their blood boiling is Bollywood, Star TV, Roadies, Kaun Banega Crorepati, Ekta Kapoor, IPL cricket and other 'corrupting influences'. JNU types infuriate you? Get a quota for Pakistanis in its admission ASAP. Is POK anti-India? Wait till the local economy depends on Indian tourists. Sindhis collaborating with Punjabis to oppose Indian inroads? Wait till its domestic trade with Gujarat outgrows that with Punjab. Open the floodgates and see which way the river flows.

Well this is mostly off-topic, but if you're interested we could discuss it on a more appropriate thread.

I have not watched the videos you posted (I will watch them later). But I have not seen any mainstream Paki reporter who favors normal* relationship with India.

:-o I believe we've come to a fundamental disagreement. If physically holding on to Siachen is a stepping stone to capturing or gaining POK by other means, sure your argument is valid. Which brings us to the larger question - do you think we will someday in the future capture POK? The nationalist NDA govt with all the provocation in the world instructed the IA not violate the LoC in 1999 (let alone start an offensive in Gilgit-Baltistan). The 'treacherous' UPA certainly will do nothing of the sort. So what course of events play out with India gaining POK as a result, but without experimenting with nuclear red lines?

What 'changing' arguments have been placed? The govt is simply carrying on with what has always been its position i.e. authentication of the AGPL and a withdrawal thereafter.

That's someone else's argument, not mine. I don't believe the IA's opinion is sacrosanct even in matters of national security. This is as much a foreign policy decision and the IA may well be less involved in the bigger picture.

A few more questions. What was India's claimed line or the "cartographic expression" line north of NJ9842, pre 1984?

Thence, the boundary line, running generally southward and then eastward, strictly follows the Karakoram range main watershed which separates the Tarim river drainage system from the Indus river drainage system, passing through the east Mustagh pass (Mustagh pass), the top of the Chogri peak (K-2), the top of the broad peak, the top of the Gasherbrum mountain 8068, the Indirakoli pass (names on the Chinese maps only) and the top of the Teram Kankri peak, and reaches its southeastern extremity at the Karakoram pass

In 1957 Pakistan permitted a British expedition under Eric Shipton to approach the Siachen through the Bilafond La, and recce Saltoro Kangri.[9] Five years later a Japanese-Pakistani expedition put two Japanese and a Pakistani Army climber on top of Saltoro Kangri.[10] These were early moves in this particular game of oropolitics.

The United States Defense Mapping Agency (now National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) began in about 1967 to show, with no legal or historical justification or any boundary documentation, an international boundary on their Tactical Pilotage Charts available to the public and pilots as proceeding from NJ9842 east-northeast to the Karakoram Pass at 5,534 m (18,136 ft) on the China border.[11] Numerous governmental and private cartographers and atlas producers followed suit. This resulted in the US cartographically "awarding" the entire 5,000 square kilometers (1,900 sq mi) of the Siachen-Saltoro area to Pakistan.

An air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is an area of airspace defined by a nation within which "the ready identification, the location, and the control of aircraft are required in the interest of national security".[1] Typically, an aircraft entering an ADIZ is required to radio its planned course, destination, and any additional details about its trip through the ADIZ to a higher authority, typically an air traffic controller.

Are there ANY validating references to the fairly new statement by Lt. General Prakash Katoch (retd), that Pakistan violated an agreement on Gyong La in 1987? This is a pass that always was in Pakistani control as 19 Kumaon Column, could not reach there in time on foot, due to an avalanche?

I handed over command of the 10 Corps to Lieutenant-General Zahid Ali Akbar Khan on 31st March 1984 after completing my tenure of four years. I gave him a detailed briefing about this operational plan and particularly stressed the importance of Intelligence keeping a watch on Indian moves beyond Leh. However, I learned later that when our troops approached the Baltoro Ridge passes during the third week of May 1984, the Indians were already in occupation of Gyong Pass in the south, strategically important because it could interfere with the enemy's line of logistic support. As it was impossible to dislodge the Indians, we had no option but to occupy the next highest feature opposite them. This was a great setback for Pakistan, although all plans, including the timing of troop movement, had been laid down at the highest level. We had obviously failed to appreciate the timing of the Indian move and our intelligence agencies had failed to detect the movement of a brigade-size force in this area. It was learnt that the Indians had moved up their troops from Leh in the second half of April 1984.

Rohitvats: Thanks for the reply, but my questions were different.

1. What was the Indian view of the line north of NJ9842, do we have a cartographic expression of the same pre-1984?<SNIP>

The delineation of this segment of the CFL was, however, unambiguous: NJ 9842, “thence north to the glaciers”. If everyone of 30 or more earlier directional commands were meticulously followed in tracing the CFL, there was no reason whatsoever for any departure from this norm in the case of the very last command. “Thence North” could only mean due north to wherever the boundary of J&K State lay. The very next section crucially directed that the line be drawn “so as to eliminate any no man’s land”. Therefore, the Line could in no way be left hanging in the air. Certain sectors along the CFL were also to be demilitarised but if deployed, troops would remain “500 yards from the ceasefire line.…”

Earlier in 1956-58, during the UN-designated International Geophysical Year, an Indian scientific team led by the Geological Survey explored the upper Nubra and Shyok Valleys, mapped and measured the Siachen and other glaciers and publicly recorded its findings

OT
Your optimism is appreciated. However, the reality is very different. We are ideologically antagonistic just like Communism and Capitalism. It doesn't mean that all Russians or all Americans are bad. Pakistan was created on the bedrock of ethnic cleansing and genocide. And there is yet no evidence that it has as a "society" moved away from these tendencies. Unless we see that change (I see that change in some Bdeshis which is why I am more optimistic about Bdesh) it is largely wishful thinking by "JNU types".

General Musharraf can rein in the jehadis in Kashmir if the situation so warrants. That is the message he is sending to New Delhi. And that will be his strong card at the Agra Summit. Is New Delhi going to stop playing bloody games?

India is forestalling hopes by referring to Kashmir as ang (or part of its body). Pakistan can respond by terming Kashmir its shahrag (jugular vein). But the truth is that both have to show flexibility on Kashmir. India’s view of Pakistan may be that of a deadbeat state now desperate to sign on the dotted line. But Pakistan has the bomb and General Musharraf can bleed India in Kashmir for some time to come. New Delhi should also realize that Agra is not Simla and General Musharraf is not negotiating the release of 90,000 POWs. But if “deadbeat Pakistan” actually goes under as some Indians would like, India and Pakistan will be at the receiving end of jehad like never before. Therefore neither can afford to stick to the status quo.

On Sunday, Indian media began reporting that the only attacker captured alive, a Versace-T-shirted 21-year-old by the name of Ajmal Amir Kamal, was Pakistani, and that he had identified all his fellow militants as being trained by the banned Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba. Pakistanis are suspicious of these claims. "There is simply not enough evidence at this point to blame Pakistan," says Najam Sethi, editor of the English political weekly, the Friday Times. "No statement made under duress can be counted as 100% fact, and you can imagine the conditions under which this confession was made."

However, Sethi adds, "the Pakistan connection certainly can't be ruled out. These attackers were not hijackers negotiating with hostages. They knew they were on a suicide mission, and you can certainly find a lot of suicide bombers in the tribal areas." At the same time, the attackers clearly had a local connection, he argues, because out-of-towners could have had the intimate knowledge of the layout of Mumbai and of the targets to have caused so much carnage.

Amir Rana, an expert on Pakistani terrorist groups with the Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies, says he has heard some troubling reports, but says that no accusations should be leveled before a thorough investigation is completed. He cites several recent terrorist attacks in India that were initially blamed on Pakistan, only to have investigations later reveal that the perpetrators were aggrieved Indian Muslims, and in at least one case, Hindu extremists. Early accusations such as these, he worries, may only impede the close cooperation between the two countries necessary to resolve the issue.

"What we may actually be seeing here is an incident of transnational terrorism," he says. "The ideology is shared across borders, from Pakistan to India to Bangladesh." Terrorists these days are just as likely to meet in Dubai to discuss logistics, or in Katmandu to plan strategies. Training can take place not only in the ungoverned tribal areas of Pakistan, but also in Bangladesh, which also faces a mounting challenge from Islamic extremism. Weapons, distributed by a network of arms dealers that supply Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, Indian separatists groups and even Nepal's Maoists, are in easy reach. Neither the weapons, nor the tactics, of the Mumbai attackers point to any one country, says Rana. "For these kinds of attacks there is no need for training camps. There were no heavy weapons or guerilla tactics. The kind of training they needed could have been done in a single room."

Both Rana and Sethi agree that the Indian accusations are more likely to be driven less by evidence than by political imperatives. India is to hold elections in the coming months, and the ruling Congress party has taken a beating over the attacks — rival parties are saying the government was poorly prepared and had not cracked down hard enough on previous terrorist activities. "Elections are coming," says Rana, "So there are internal pressures to blame someone, and to show that it is not the government's fault. Pakistan is the obvious scapegoat."

The scapegoating of Pakistan may backfire, Sethi fears. Up until now, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has taken a keen interest in normalizing relations between the two countries, at great risk to his own standing. India and Pakistan are closer now to an enduring peace than at any point in their 61-year history together. "If anything happens, if India moves troops to the border, or threatens an attack, it could destabilize his government and derail everything," says Sethi.

Still, he hopes that calmer heads prevail, and that the Indian government response is little more than posturing, unlike in 2001 when a December attack on the Indian parliament was attributed to Pakistan, and the two nuclear-armed countries nearly went to war. India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has threatened to send Indian troops to the border with Pakistan if solid evidence emerges of Pakistani involvement. In that case, Pakistan would be required to move its own troops from the border with Afghanistan, where they are making headway in the fight against al-Qaeda and Taliban-linked militants, to the Indian frontier. "That would play into the hands of these terrorists," says Sethi. "If Pakistan and India start fighting, then the whole focus on the war on terror would be lost, and those militant groups would succeed. That would be tragic."

Asim Javeid, a 23-year-old student in Rawalpindi, agrees. "The Mumbai attack shows that terrorism is a common threat to both India and Pakistan. Unless both countries join hands and take measures to combat terrorism, we will not be able to defeat this curse."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... z1u2LrNKJk

Foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has asked the Indian government to send a delegation to Pakistan to map out the next steps. This is a good and constructive idea. Given the growing mood of defiance in Pakistan, it is not advisable to keep this critical process on “hold” or “pause”. What is needed is immediate re-engagement, not gradual distancing or even “halt’. India must think in terms of self-interest and not honour or pride. The Indian government acted maturely by not reacting militarily to the Mumbai provocation and precipitating an un-winnable war. Now it must go the extra mile to kick-start and fast-forward the peace process that had stalled during the last year of President Musharraf’s rule. Neither Pakistan nor India can afford to fall prey to the designs of state and non-state actors in both countries who want to plunge the region into anarchy and chaos.

Today while its true of course that a sizable section of the media and intelligentsia is advocating peace with India with varying levels of passion, more important is the political leadership especially those with grassroots support.

But for now, it is Pakistan’s fragile democracy that faces the most immediate threat. Mr Saeed’s growing profile reflects a drift to conservatism in a country of 180m people where the red-hot rhetoric of religious extremism has cowed moderate voices into silence.

This is Najam Sethi in 2001

Hafiz Saeed is moving around freely, mocking and showing his utter contempt and hatred for India and the US, and his Pakistan Defence Council is openly declaring war on India and the US.

Hafiz Saeed, lets be clear, is just a pawn of the ISI, the Pakistan Army, and General Kayani. Lets also be clear, in Pakistan, the army calls the shots, not the civilians. The courts in Pakistan let Hafiz Saeed walk free, and there is NOTHING that the "media and intelligentsia [that] is advocating peace with India with varying levels of passion" can do about it.

True. And Afzal Guru, Kasab are still alive as are those responsible for the anti-Sikh riots and Gujarat riots. Mafioso and thugs contest and win state and national elections. What makes you think the justice system is any less broken on that side?

>> You've missed the point altogether.

hardly. It just shows that they are doing taqqiya. If the situation changes, they will show their true colors. In any case, see his comments after 26/11.

Thanks for bringing in Gujarat riots. How can you be fair and balanced unless you do a giant ==.

And yes, Hafiz Sayeed and Kasab are both alive. Equating these two situations is another Lahori Logic gem which can be surpassed by very few luminaries.

>> he thought there no or insufficient evidence at that point.

He did not know about the taped phone conversation between Pakis and terrorists which were being played everywhere?

>> and accepted that there was Pakistani role in the Mumbai attacks -

And did he demand that Hafiz Sayyed should be punished for it? Link?

True. And Afzal Guru, Kasab are still alive as are those responsible for the anti-Sikh riots and Gujarat riots. Mafioso and thugs contest and win state and national elections. What makes you think the justice system is any less broken on that side?

Those who are watching pak for more than a decade will vividly remember how during kargil these liberals were initially truimphant, and when reality started biting then first became confused and eventually frustrated, and then finally resumed their normal pakistan system thrashing.

He didn't express any personal opinion but said that Pakistani govt's response should be to prosecute those involved. Excerpt in one of the four videos initially posted.

I'm not a liberal. Far from it....

^^Haha nice way to puncture the JNU wallahs' bubble. Viv S, all you have managed to prove is that even their most liberal journalists (by your definition) are nothing more than double-talkers at best.

He did not know about the taped phone conversation between Pakis and terrorists which were being played everywhere?

Was it being played everywhere? I didn't hear them until quite a bit later.

A clear Pakistani hand is evident from the interrogation of an arrested terrorist and from the intercepts of the terrorists holed up in Taj Hotel speaking to their handlers in Karachi.

You did not know? You should pay more attention to the news. It was certainly known to . (It was known to the media on Nov 28).

And Najam Sethi could not find "enough" evidence on Nov 30, 2008.