Implications for India

thanks a lot for yr advice!!

India knows how to protect her interests. It is yr coup CE, who said to ``corner India we are ditching Taliban`` How mature yr CE?



who`s opportunistic its Pak(land of of the ..pure) who teamed with USA to fight Soviet, now teaming up with USA to fight against terrorism. Hunting terrorists should start from yr country first, breeding ground for terrorists,

trained in yr premier MITs (madarsa institute of terrorism) to cause trouble in all possible places.

Have yr own ``identity``, u people carved out a land for yourselves, why not try to build yr nation and have yr own idenity for yourselves by doing something positive.

Poor Hindu fanatics - After embarassing themselves hoping to be taken seriously, yet again, they get to sit in the back of the bus.

And what did all of this get them? A innocent sikh was shot dead in the US as a reaction by a person as hate filled as the Hindu fanatics.

``Implications for India`` - SSS (snake) This article more about Pakistan and Analysis of and implications for Pakistan. India is reduced to proceed with caution; Hindu fanatic sagacity?

``Pakistan`s foreign policy has always been opportunistic``. Taking advantage is a particularly Indian trait. Want evidence, look to the reactions of Hindu fanatics on these boards. There concern is not the suffering of Americans, but what the hindu fanatic can gain in their struggle to continue to rob the Captive Kashmiri of their freedom.

#24 saxena

My twisted logic is that if US struck a bargain with pak over kashmir then we`d have very little negotiating room.

BTW, why did you ask me to check the color of my passport? Is this some childish way of scoring a point?

from rediff . . . this, also, now, is our fault as the yanks land to take over Dera Ismail . . .

+++

Musharraf blames India for Pakistan support to US

Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf on Sunday blamed Indian foreign policy for compelling Pakistan to co-operate with the United States of America.

`India`s complete turnaround in its foreign policy has forced Pakistan to concede all kinds of American demands,` Musharraf reportedly told a meeting of Pakistan editors.

Musharraf explained his government`s decision to support America in its campaign against the Taleban, Hamid Mir, editor of Pakistan`s Ausaf daily newspaper told rediff.com in a telephone conversation on Sunday night.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks in America, Musharraf said India had declared its support to America. If India allowed access to its territory to the Americans, the general said Israel would not have remained far behind, and that would have created a genuine security risk for Pakistan.

Musharraf told the editors India could not be allowed to take advantage of the situation and this consideration prompted Pakistan not to support the Taleban. ``India ki waje se kaam kharab ho gaya (India spoilt our case,)`` the Pakistan president said, adding, ``India ko corner karne Taleban ko ditch kiya (We have ditched the Taleban because we wanted to corner India).``

Expectedly, Musharraf told the editors that America has promised him it would not protest Pakistan`s support to the Kashmiri separatists. America, he said, would neither declare Pakistan a terrorist State nor would it call the mujahideen in Kashmir `terrorists.` The US, he added, would not raise cross-border terrorism in bilateral talks either.

Pakistan has sent Lt General Mahmud Khan, director general of the Inter Services Intelligence agency which created the Taleban, to Kabul to speak to Mullah Omar, leader of the Afghan movement. Khan, who returned from the US earlier this week, will request the Taleban to hand over Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden, the primary suspect in last Tuesday`s terrorist attacks.

The general will also explain why Pakistan is not in a position to stand by the Taleban, Mir said.

Mir, who is bin Laden`s biographer, felt the Pakistan public is ``very angry because Pakistan is siding with America.`` His newspaper, quoting Saudi intelligence, will publish a report on Monday that `Pakistan should protect its nuclear establishment lest Israel and India connive to bomb its centres of nuclear power.`

Saxena!

India ain`t that bad even in defence preparedness/strategies either. I think the following move is a hedge against any foolish western moves such as ignoring the real role of Pakis and trying interecede in kashmir on behalf of Pakis as a pay back for paki `help`. Now I only hope they bring in those billions of $$$ you talk about as foriegn investment and open up the economy completely.

India to testfire Agni-III missile in January-February 2002

SHISHIR GUPTA

New Delhi, September 13, 20:48



According to highly placed government sources, India has decided to testfire the proposed 5,000-km-range ballistic missile, Agni-III, in January-February early next year.

The immediate factor that triggered the decision, according to the sources, is the fast-evolving security scenario and the perceptible realignment of political interests in Asia.

Meanwhile, the Army will induct Agni-I, the intermediate-range (1,200-1,500 km) ballistic missile, later this year and raise at least one missile regiment. The missile has one-tonne warhead, the sources added.

My heart goes out to the Sikh man who was killed in retribution, and to the Arab-Americans who are suffering for the sins of some of their countrymen.

I heard on the radio about a man in California by the name of ``Osama`` who has been threatened and whose businesses have been boycotted just because he has the wrong name.

It`s all so sad.

``The current situation is therefore only marginally less of a tight-rope walk for India as it is to Pakistan. ``
You bet.

http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=202497221
CNN, quoting sources from Islamabad said Sunday that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf had specified to US President George Bush that the US should intercede in the Kashmir dispute. Its demands also include keeping India and Israel out of the proposed strike against Afghanistan, waiving $30 billion debt and lifting US sanctions against it.

While representatives from official India — the external affairs ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office — were not available late Sunday night for a comment on Pakistan’s reported ‘‘conditions’’ for extending assistance to the US, K Subrahmanyam, convener of the National Security Council Advisory Board, told The Times of India that there is nothing surprising about General Musharraf’s terms.

‘‘The point is, I don’t think Pakistan is in a position to dictate terms to the US,’’ he said. Musharraf’s request that the US help Pakistan on Kashmir was tantamount to saying that ‘‘even though I am responsible for fuelling terrorism, you must reward me in order to fight one part’’.

Subrahmanyam added that if the US is ‘‘serious’’ about fighting ‘‘networks of terrorism, then the Bush Administration will dismiss Pakistan’s conditions out of hand’’.

Former ambassador to Pakistan G Parthsarathy agreed with this assessment. ‘‘In the past, Pakistan has always sought similar assurances from Washington. Even when these have been given, they have remained unimplementable. India need not worry about the situation on the ground,’’ he said. ‘‘It is a serious mistake for Pakistan to place these kind of conditions when the US is going through such national trauma,’’ he added...``

Re: shammi

``I take exception to that -- India is actually QUITE BAD in managing external relationships. Our relationships with most of our neighbors (they should count more than distant countries) are a disaster -- primarily with Pakistan, China, and to a lesser extent with Nepal, Bangladesh, Burma, Sri Lanka (am I missing any more?), etc.``

I should have qualified my statement to say external relationships with ``most`` countries, especially those who can help us. Pakistan is the only country openly hostile to India. With the Chinese, it is not entirely friendly, but not overtly hostile either. With the rest, please take the curtains off your eyes and note that we don`t have hostile realtionships -- we have our ups and downs, but in general our relationships are fine, or at least as good as can be in a poor neighborhood.

``Vajpayee is the only one who has learned this lesson well and has been measured in responding to provocations (e.g. Kargil, Bangladesh border incident, Sri Lanka airport terrorist attack, Nepal riots, etc.), but that is only because he is a former foreign minister. The other leaders lacked this in their resume. There is no telling that after Vajpayee, things will not revert to their old, usual ways.``

There are more serious problems and threats we face than petty fights which almost every country has with its neighbors (Canada - US being an exception). To guard those threats, both diplomatic and military, India has relationships with countries like Russia and France, aside from developing ones with the US and Israel. For a an emerging third-world country like our`s, that`s not too bad.

It is a huge source of comfort to have maintained our relationship with Russia, which might be economically weak right now, but does hold a crucial veto vote in the UN Security Council. Someone in Delhi was smart enough to not build the relationship with the US at the expense of the one with Russia.

Re: soysauce

``India is more than ever dependent on the US. We cannot afford to alienate them.``

Who is saying India should, will, or is alienating the US? It is YOU has suggested that US will alienate India, for no rhyme or reason. This whole incident has nothing to do with India. There are enough reasons for both India and the US to not alienate each other, but if by your twisted logic it does happen, it won`t be the end of India.

Seems like Indians have to be inspired by great emotions of self love... to place so much importance on themselves... but still a great and to the point article...Liked it.

Check this out :)
http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/sep/16ny13.htm
Musharraf blames India for Pakistan support to US

Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf on Sunday blamed Indian foreign policy for compelling Pakistan to co-operate with the United States of America.

`India`s complete turnaround in its foreign policy has forced Pakistan to concede all kinds of American demands,` Musharraf reportedly told a meeting of Pakistan editors.

Musharraf explained his government`s decision to support America in its campaign against the Taleban, Hamid Mir, editor of Pakistan`s Ausaf daily newspaper told rediff.com in a telephone conversation on Sunday night.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks in America, Musharraf said India had declared its support to America. If India allowed access to its territory to the Americans, the general said Israel would not have remained far behind, and that would have created a genuine security risk for Pakistan.

Musharraf told the editors India could not be allowed to take advantage of the situation and this consideration prompted Pakistan not to support the Taleban. ``India ki waje se kaam kharab ho gaya (India spoilt our case,)`` the Pakistan president said, adding, ``India ko corner karne Taleban ko ditch kiya (We have ditched the Taleban because we wanted to corner India).``

Expectedly, Musharraf told the editors that America has promised him it would not protest Pakistan`s support to the Kashmiri separatists. America, he said, would neither declare Pakistan a terrorist State nor would it call the mujahideen in Kashmir `terrorists.` The US, he added, would not raise cross-border terrorism in bilateral talks either.

Pakistan has sent Lt General Mahmud Khan, director general of the Inter Services Intelligence agency which created the Taleban, to Kabul to speak to Mullah Omar, leader of the Afghan movement. Khan, who returned from the US earlier this week, will request the Taleban to hand over Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden, the primary suspect in last Tuesday`s terrorist attacks.

The general will also explain why Pakistan is not in a position to stand by the Taleban, Mir said.

Mir, who is bin Laden`s biographer, felt the Pakistan public is ``very angry because Pakistan is siding with America.`` His newspaper, quoting Saudi intelligence, will publish a report on Monday that `Pakistan should protect its nuclear establishment lest Israel and India connive to bomb its centres of nuclear power.`

soysauce #18
If the Taliban are replaced and training camps
in Afghanistan destroyed, and Pakistani
support for Afghan jihad in favor of Taliban
withdrawn, that means a lot of good things
have already happened. It means the
Pakistani state machinery has prevailed over
the `interested` sections of the Pakistani
military, the Pakistani religious parties and
jihadi organisations and the associated
machinery and infrastructure of jihad has
suffered a large blow wrt Afghan jihad.

This means the public propagation of Afghan
and Kashmiri jihad (on which this
infrastructure depends) will suffer too,
because at the ground level, where the rabble
rousers operate, and at the military planning
level, where its seen as necessary `strategy` ,
the operators of both cannot be delinked. This
is my opinion.

Can Musharraf really say to those committed
to jihad as personal or political or strategic
philosophy, OK ditch Afghanistan and bin
Laden, put your sights now on Kashmir. The
loads of jihadi pamphlets and ready supply of
arms, madarassas, mosques and funding
and organisational infrastructure has ensured
that the substitution cannot happen so easily
because the prime movers of jihad are too
much invested in it on both fronts.

Its more likely Musharraf will become public
enemy no.1 under watch with these folks if he
tries to keep Kashmir jihad alive but ditches
Afghan jihad. He will be accused of greater
betrayal if he ever again holds Kashmir talks
for a negotiated settlement with India. He will
be accused of being a western stooge for
even thinking of negotiating. That means, he
will have to be irrevocably committed internally
to a military solution to Kashmir if he keeps
Kashmir jihad alive at the cost of Afghan jihad.
This could get him into trouble with
international funding agencies. This is again
my opinion.

btw, you may not have noticed, the Hurriyat
has taken care to distance itself from the
attacks and condemned them. They are very
worried about the international image of their
`struggle` being associated with the WTC and
Pentagon incident. As someone said on
another board, jihad is no longer a kosher
word in international parlance.

Why couldn`t India wait to be asked? Well, one
reason is to offer alternatives to the US which
would force Musharraf to declare himself
without delay so as to not miss the bus.

soysauce,

forget about India, India is almost incidental to this conflict, you have a much bigger fight on your hands.

Re: Rsaxena

``India (is)...pretty damn good in managing external relationships. I think we must have learnt since the British. ``

I take exception to that -- India is actually QUITE BAD in managing external relationships. Our relationships with most of our neighbors (they should count more than distant countries) are a disaster -- primarily with Pakistan, China, and to a lesser extent with Nepal, Bangladesh, Burma, Sri Lanka (am I missing any more?), etc. I suggest that you dispense with your hubris, and face the facts. A lot of the reasons are rooted in the insecurity in which India came into being. The early leaders were willing to throw their weight around and react impulsively for petty reasons, not realizing that India`s weight is quite considerable in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, India has failed to act with maturity that is proportionate to its size. Vajpayee is the only one who has learned this lesson well and has been measured in responding to provocations (e.g. Kargil, Bangladesh border incident, Sri Lanka airport terrorist attack, Nepal riots, etc.), but that is only because he is a former foreign minister. The other leaders lacked this in their resume. There is no telling that after Vajpayee, things will not revert to their old, usual ways.

#16 Sadhana

If the taleban were contained or eliminated, those who were recruited for jehad against india can then go to kashmir instead of fighting against the northern alliance. With a (once again) privileged position for pak with the US, this sounds like a serious problem for india. Did i misread your point? I don`t think that it`s just the jehadi elements that are obsessed with kashmir. If the pak army, sans the jehadists, turns its attention entirely towards kashmir, we`d be in big trouble. A redeeming factor might be a regime in afghanistan that is hostile to pak in which case the tables might be turned and kashmir might recede to the background. However, US support for pak would make a big difference. On indian willingness (desire?) to share info, why couldn`t they wait for the US to request it first? Are they trying to impress the american public with their statements of loyalty? If they are, then they failed because the offer hardly got any play in american media.

#17 Saxena

India is more than ever dependent on the US. We cannot afford to alienate them.

I missed the point of this:

``Btw, check your passport again to see if it is green or blue``

Care to elaborate?

Re: soysauce

``Pakistan could bargain for the US to take an (almost) anti-india stance vis-a-vis kashmir. India has virtually no leverage``

No, don`t think so.

A) Don`t assume the US is that naive and even if it is,

B) US was anti-India for the past 30-40 years...India didn`t budge over Kashmir. Why will it do so now?

US corporations with $ billions invested in India will have something to say along with this little poor group called the Indo-Israeli lobby.

And again, India is not solely dependent on the US for international leverage. The Russians and the French have a say, particularly in the UN Security Council.

(Btw, check your passport again to see if it is green or blue.)