Al-Qaeda follows Milliband's logic well....sum wrote:
.
“Miliband was not off-message, he toed the U.K. line on Kashmir”
Hasan Suroor
This contradicts India’s view that Foreign Secretary made the remarks off his own bat
LONDON: The British Foreign Office on Thursday said Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s remarks on Kashmir, which infuriated the Indian government, were “fully consistent” with Britain’s stated view that any conflict likely to be exploited by terrorists to “kill and maim” innocent people must be resolved quickly.
Sources told The Hindu that Mr. Miliband had not been “off-message,” nor did he deviate from the government line while calling upon India to resolve the Kashmir dispute urgently in order to blunt the edge of Pakistan-based terrorists.
This contradicts the perception in New Delhi that Mr. Miliband made the remarks off his own bat. When the External Affairs Ministry first protested, its spokesman Vishnu Prakash said Mr. Miliband’s views were “clearly his own and are evolving.”
“Mr. Miliband is entitled to his views, which are clearly his own and are evolving. We do not need unsolicited advice on the internal issues of India like Jammu and Kashmir,” Mr. Prakash said.
But the British Foreign Office sources are keen to emphasise that Mr. Miliband was simply articulating the British government’s official line.
“No, the Foreign Secretary was not off-message at all. It has always been our view that where there is conflict that could play into the hands of terrorists it is important to resolve it in order to deny them a pretext to perpetrate any atrocity. It is in this context that he emphasised the importance of resolving the Kashmir issue,” one official said.
The sources also expressed surprise at New Delhi’s strong reaction, claiming that India was aware of the British position as it had come up “frequently” in discussions with the Indian government.
“Mr. Miliband’s remarks have been misinterpreted and blown out of all proportions,” they said.
They argued that his comments must be seen in the context of the Laskhar-e-Taiba’s “narrative” that its violent activities were part of its “struggle” to “liberate” Kashmir.
“What he meant was that once you resolve Kashmir, the LeT would be deprived of that narrative. But so long as the Kashmir issue remains it would continue to provide ammunition to terrorists,” one source familiar with India-Pakistan relations said.
Mr. Miliband sparked a diplomatic row when, writing in The Guardian on the eve of his recent visit to India, he called for New Delhi to settle the Kashmir issue as a way of dealing with cross-border terrorism.
“Although I understand the current difficulties, resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders,” he wrote.
Natasha Khan, a Foreign Office spokesperson, said normalisation of India-Pakistan relations was “vital to regional security” and the British government continued to urge both countries to seek a “lasting resolution of the issue of Kashmir which takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.”
However, it was not for the U.K. government to prescribe a solution and it was for the parties directly involved to decide how best to resolve it, she added.
Meanwhile, there was concern that the row sparked by Mr. Miliband’s remarks and the way he conducted himself during his visit might have “damaged” India-U.K. relations.
William Hague, shadow foreign secretary, said: “Good relations with India are very important to Britain and must be handled with care and consistency. If David Miliband’s comments caused a diplomatic storm in Delhi, then those relations will have been damaged by his visit.”
The Foreign Office said India and the U.K. enjoyed a “very strong strategic partnership” which covered a very broad agenda.
“We are confident that the common interests we share and our strong relationship will continue,” it said.
This was yesterday... When Her Majesty's Slaves in the Govt.. absolved the Brits. Call it a diplomatic "foot in the mouth" moment, if you will... after the above news.
New Delhi: India on Wednesday said it had made it clear to Britain through diplomatic channels that it did not share its Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s views linking resolution of the Kashmir issue with terrorism.
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said that India treated the matter as a closed chapter.
“In our normal diplomatic channel, what is proper and just we have done it and now it is a closed chapter,” he told reporters when asked whether Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had written to his British counterpart Gordon Brown over Mr. Miliband’s observations.
However, sources in the Prime Minister’s Office said “no letter has been written.” Mr. Mukherjee said Mr. Miliband, during his visit to India, had shared his perception about the situation with Mr. Mukherjee and the Indian delegation.
“I told him and all the interlocutors that this is your perception and we do not share it,” Mr. Mukherjee said, adding that there was no question of giving anyone a cold shoulder.
In an article in a British newspaper, Mr. Miliband had written that resolution of the Kashmir issue would deny extremists in the region one of the main reasons for taking up arms, prompting the External Affairs Ministry to point out that it did not need any “unsolicited advice” on Kashmir. — PTI
Lead the way and show us how it's done by handing over whole of Palestine, including Israel, to the Arabs.“No, the Foreign Secretary was not off-message at all. It has always been our view that where there is conflict that could play into the hands of terrorists it is important to resolve it in order to deny them a pretext to perpetrate any atrocity.
“No, the Foreign Secretary was not off-message at all. It has always been our view that where there is conflict that could play into the hands of terrorists it is important to resolve it in order to deny them a pretext to perpetrate any atrocity.
This is called living in denial. After all, this is what has been happening across the border. And if Brits are not too "important", where was necessity and the rush to get the "file closed"? to please whome.. Shilpa Shetty ?.Anabhaya wrote:Pranabda has diplomatically said that the file is closed, mind your own business. Which I believe is good enough. No need to make too much noise about it. Why give the Brits so much importance eh?
Unfortunately, one of the narratives of the LeT also happens to be the following:“What he (Miliband) meant was that once you resolve Kashmir, the LeT would be deprived of that narrative. But so long as the Kashmir issue remains it would continue to provide ammunition to terrorists,”
I'm sure that the British foreign office will be able to tell us how to deprive the terrorists of the "Killing Hindus" part of the narrative.Killing Hindus part of 'jehad': LeT chief
NEW DELHI APRIL 13. The chief of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hafiz Saeed, has said that killing Hindus was a part of their `jehad' (armed crusade) against India.
So, the only mistake Mill-i-Bund did was to openly state what the double-faced British used to tell us in private.“What he (Miliband) meant was that once you resolve Kashmir, the LeT would be deprived of that narrative. But so long as the Kashmir issue remains it would continue to provide ammunition to terrorists,”
All terrorism in India is a result of Hindutva, you see.House of Lords: Debate on India
In House of Lords in the United Kingdom recently had a debate that called attention to recent developments in India.
In the United Kingdom, Baroness Cox Dec. 18 called attention to recent developments in India in a debate Dec. 18 in the House of Lords.
Following the recent terrorist atrocities in Mumbai the debate focused on tensions in the subcontinent and how the Indian government can be supported in reducing the risk of terrorism. Here are some excerpts.
Excerpts from the remarks of Baroness Cox: I must naturally begin by expressing the profound sorrow that we all felt at the recent terrorist attack in Mumbai and by extending our deep sympathy to all who are still suffering in the aftermath of those terrible days. I will then raise three issues of concern in a spirit of respect for India as a long-established friend of this country and as the world’s largest democracy. It is characteristic of friendship that one can share concerns openly and constructively and it is in that spirit that I will raise (1) the outbreaks of violence against religious minorities, including the Muslims in Gujarat and the Christians recently in Orissa and Karnataka; (2) the restrictions on religious freedom posed by the imposition of anti-conversion laws in seven states; and, finally, (3) the plight of dalits.
The recurring problem of violence, perpetrated by Hindu fundamentalists against religious minorities, is a product of the ideology called Hindutva, which conceives of India as one nation, one culture, one religion. It is an ideology that denigrates religious minorities and rejects the right to change one’s religion, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and groups that espouse this ideology, including the VHP, are widely implicated in anti-minority violence. Such extremist political movements are rejected by Hindus committed to the idea of a secular India, but they pose very serious challenges.
In 2002, about 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were massacred in Gujarat. Christians have been repeatedly targeted in recent years. The attacks are especially widespread in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh states, and although a recent outbreak of violence in Karnataka was relatively rapidly contained by the authorities, impunity for these sorts of attacks is cause for concern. In Orissa state, an outbreak of violence against Christians over Christmas in 2007 prefigured an onslaught on a much larger scale this autumn.
On Aug. 23 this year, following the assassination of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati, widespread violence against Christians erupted. The atrocities were committed despite the claim by Maoists that they had carried out the killing. After the assassination, despite pleas for caution by church and secular leaders, including representatives of political parties, the VHP arranged for his body to be taken on a 200-kilometre circuit. Violence followed in the wake of this funeral procession, fanned by media disinformation and the chanting of Hindu nationalist and anti-Christian slogans, targeting Christians and church buildings. It is widely believed that the violence erupted so quickly because it was pre-planned.
In our report, we concluded that the Orissa state government had failed to provide protection for the Christian minority population, allowing widespread violations of human rights—including killings, rape, looting and the destruction and desecration of places of worship, homes and other property—and that the forced conversion of some Christians to Hinduism constitutes a serious violation of the right to religious freedom. It is noteworthy that Hinduism and the caste system have only relatively recently, in the past 50 years, been introduced into this region.
I turn briefly to widespread concern at the anti-conversion legislation now in place in seven states. This applies to those who wish to convert from Hinduism to another faith: in practice, it does not prohibit conversion to Hinduism from other faiths. The legislation requires anyone wishing to convert from Hinduism to give advance notice to the district authorities, rendering them vulnerable to pressures of many kinds. In the case of Gujarat, the person who converts another must obtain prior permission of the authorities.
These requirements obviously hinder the freedom to choose and change religion, in violation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which India is a signatory.
The final topic to which I wish to refer raises the plight of the dalits, those deemed to be outside the caste system and therefore treated as inherently untouchable. Their predicament is unenviable. Unable to take work or to come into contact with members of the caste system, many are doomed to undertake the most humiliating and unsanitary tasks, such as the 700,000 or more manual scavengers dealing with human excrement. Others are so poor that they become involved in bonded labor from which they cannot escape, so that this form of servitude is passed from one generation to the next. Dalits are susceptible to any form of exploitation and there is widespread caste-based violence against them. In an attempt to escape from their outcast status, many dalits are converting from Hinduism to another faith—Buddhism, Islam or Christianity. This disruption of the traditional caste system is causing tensions and attracting opposition, especially from proponents of the Hindutva, some of which may be reflected in violence against religious minorities.
It is impossible in one speech to begin to do justice to the vast nation of India with its indescribably rich tapestry of ethnic groups, cultures, traditions, achievements and problems. I greatly look forward to the speeches of other noble Lords who will bring information and insights from their own knowledge and experience to create a constructive and comprehensive debate worthy of the issues confronting this great nation which we are proud to call a friend.
Is David Miliband Britain’s worst-ever foreign secretary, or do you suppose his awfulness and incompetence were eclipsed by Lord Halifax? It’s a close call. In the extraordinarily tense year of 1938 Halifax was dispatched to an important meeting in Germany where, on arriving at the Berchtesgaden, he mistook a beaming Adolf Hitler for the doorman.
he made a huge PR goof up by gesturing with a banana to news men as a jokeAtish wrote:Why is he called banana boy?
http://www.truveo.com/Tories-ape-Miliba ... /306901421Atish wrote:Why is he called banana boy?
GODSE ASSASSINATED MAHATMA GANDHI ON 30 JAN 1948 BUT
WHO WERE THE CONSPIRATORS & WHY WERE THEY NOT HANGED?
THOSE WHO PARTITIONED INDIA ASSASSINATED M.K.GANDHI!
INDIA MUST FORCE BRITAIN TO REVEAL ASSASSINATION SECRETS
