Pak LOC Attacks

7/27/2019 Pak LOC Attacks

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pak-loc-attacks 1/41

Pak LoC attacks: Is the time for diplomacy over?



Table of contents

The Poonch provocation

Army says jawans were on routine patrol when Pakistani troops attacked 04

From Modi to Omar Abdullah: Who said what on Pak LoC violation 05

UPA has failed to secure Indian borders: Narendra Modi 06

The warning signs

Exclusive: Dirty war on LoC preceded deadly Poonch ambush 08

Exclusive: Details of LoC killings that came before Poonch ambush 11

Despite Nawaz Sharif’s promise, Pakistan army is funding anti-India jihad 13 Why J&K attacks show India needs a strong Afghanistan policy 16

Aftermath of an attack

Ground report: Poonch residents fear war after Pak violates ceasere 19

Why India simply has to strategically shelve Pakistan 21

Poonch killings: How US is pulling the strings of India-Pak relations 23

India, Pak can’t treat each other as untouchables: Khurshid 25

The battle over AK Antony’s statement

LoC killings: Will BJP make PM pay for Antony statement? 28

Cong defends Antony, says he did not give clean chit to Pak army 30

Antony’s statement on LoC killing not changed at our behest: PMO 31

LoC killings: BJP has its way, Antony will make new statement 32

Full text: How AK Antony slammed Pak hand in LoC killings 34

Talking to Pakistan is not equal to a clean chit: Mani Shankar Aiyar 35

The Pak response

Full text: Pakistan Foreign Ministry says its army didn’t kill 5 Indian soldiers 38

Pak media slams Indian ‘rhetoric and vitriol’ after LoC attack 39

http://www.firstpost.com/



The Poonch provocation




Army says jawans were on routine patrol when Pakistani troops attacked

The ofcer said all the jawans have died of

gunshot wounds and there was no beheading

or mutilation of bodies.

PTI, Aug 6, 2013

The Indian Army has said that six soldiers

were on a routine patrol when they wereattacked resulting in the death of 5 of

them, and left one of them injured.

The injured soldier has been admitted to a hos-pital.

“A party of six jawans was on routine patrolling between fencing and the post, when Pakistantroops attacked them by opening ring nearSarla battalion post area along LoC in Poonchdistrict during pre-dawn time,” he said, addingthat the Pakistan Army had violated the cease-re agreement.

The deceased jawans belonged to 21 Bihar Regi-ment post at Sarla forward area along the LoCin Chakan-Da-Bagh sector of Poonch.

The ofcer said the patrol had lost contact withthe Army unit around 0115 hours, close to thetime of the attack.

“We sent a patrol to the area around 0530 hours

today and found ve jawans dead with gunshot wounds. One was injured and he is in uttershock,” he said.

The bodies have been brought back to unit area,he said.

Asked whether Pakistan’s Border Action Team(BAT) was involved in the attack, he said it

was carried out by the troops of 2 PoK Brigade,

which is deployed in that sector.

The ofcer said all the jawans have died of gunshot wounds and there was no beheading ormutilation of bodies.




From Modi to Omar Abdullah: Who said what on Pak LoC violation

Five Indian soldiers have been killed along the Line of

Control in Kashmir, in another violation of theceasere by Pakistan troops

FP Staff Aug 6, 2013

Five Indian soldiers have been killed alongthe Line of Control in Kashmir, in anoth-er violation of the ceasere by Pakistan

troops. The attack on the Saral post in Chakkanda Bagh, Poonch sector of Jammu and Kashmir,

was carried out by a group of Lashkar-e-Toibaterrorists with the help of Pakistani soldiers,sources told CNN-IBN.

After uproar in Rajya Sabha over killing of sol-diers in J&K, the house has been adjourned.

Here are some of the reactions of the ministers:

Omar Abdullah, J&K CM: These incidents don’thelp efforts to normalise or even improve re-

lations with Pakistan. Was briefed early thismorning about news that 5 of our soldiers had

been killed on the LOC. My heartfelt condolenc-es to their next of kin.

Ravi Shankar Prasad, BJP spokesperson: How many more brave Indian soldiers need to besacriced for Indian government to becomestern?

Jaswant Singh, BJP leader: This is not a ter-ror attack, its an incident on the LoC. Needmore info as to why so many incidents? Suchincidents do not contribute to strengthening of relationship between the two countries.

Narendra Modi, Gujarat CM: From China’s in-trusions to Pakistan’s ambushes- UPA Govern-ment has been absolutely lax in securing Indian

borders. When will Centre wake up?

Sanjay Raut, Shiv Sena leader: Till we (India)don’t enter Pakistan and kill 50 of them for 5 of ours, they will not learn a lesson.

RPN Singh, Minister of State, Home Affairs: Ex-tremely unfortunate incident. If Pakistan wantsto have better relations with India this isn’t the

way. I cannot comment on this because I don’thave full information on this defence ministry and foreign ministry will be equipped to givestatement on this.

Farooq Abdullah, Former J&K chief minister:These things affect normalisation of relation-ship between Pakistan and India. Friendshipcannot be one way.

Rajiv Shukla, MoS, Parliamentary Affairs andPlanning: This is very unfortunate. Defenceminister is aware of the matter and he will de-nitely act according to the provisions.

Meanwhile, Pakistani security ofcials deniedany involvement in the deaths of Indian soldierson the disputed and heavily militarised borderin Kashmir. ”There was no indiscriminate ringfrom our side,” one security ofcial told Reu-ters.

Another ofcial, who also spoke on conditionof anonymity because he was not authorised to

speak to reporters, denied there had been an ex-change of re on the border between the nuclearpowers. “There was no such incident whatsoev-er,” he said. “There was no ring on the border.”




UPA has failed to secure Indian borders: Narendra Modi

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday

called the killing of ve Indian soldiers by Pakistani troops a “dastardly ambush” while Jammu and

Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said the

killings won’t “help efforts to normalise or

even improve relations” with Islamabad.

IANS, Aug 6, 2013

New Delhi: Gujarat Chief Minister

Narendra Modi on Tuesday called thekilling of ve Indian soldiers by Paki-stani troops a “dastardly ambush” while Jammuand Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullahsaid the killings won’t “help efforts to normaliseor even improve relations” with Islamabad.

Both were quick to take the micro-bloggingTwitter route to condemn the violation of cease-re Monday night by Pakistan in the Poonchdistrict of Jammu and Kashmir.

Soon after the news of the killing broke Tues-

day, Modi tweeted: “Dastardly ambush by

Pakistan last night in the Chakan da Bagh areaof Poonch leading to death of 5 Indian Soldiersis unacceptable.”

He also expressed heartfelt condolences to thefamilies of the brave soldiers who laid downtheir lives in Poonch.

Modi said in another tweet: “From China’sintrusions to Pakistan’s ambushes, UPA govern-ment has been absolutely lax in securing Indian

borders. When will Centre wake up?”

Omar Abdullah too tweeted: “Was briefed early this morning about news that 5 of our soldiershad been killed on the Line Of Control (LoC).My heartfelt condolences to their next of kin.These incidents don’t help efforts to normaliseor even improve relations with Pak and call intoquestion the Pak govt’s recent overtures.”

Five Indian Army soldiers were killed by Pa-kistani troops who crossed the Line of Control(LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch district.Pakistan has been violating the bilateral cease-re between India and Pakistan that came intoforce in 2003.




The warning signs




Exclusive: Dirty war on LoC preceded deadly Poonch ambush

Early this month, ve men disappeared from a village

on the Pakistani side of the LoC - kidnapped,

Pakistan alleges, by an Indian special forces unit

ghting against a renewed wave of jihadist

inltration. The Poonch ambush, Indian

intelligence believes, was retaliation.

Praveen Swami Aug 6, 2013

This, and only this, do we know for a fact:early this month, Zafran Ghulam Sarwar,

Wajid Akbar, Mohammad Wajid Akbarand Mohammad Faisal left their homes on thePakistani side of the control in the Neelam val-ley, and never came back. Pakistan claims they

were innocent herb collectors, who were kid-napped by an Indian special forces engaged inan offensive counter-terrorism operation acrossthe Line of Control.

India says it has no idea what happened to themen. Not long after they disappeared, though,ve still-unidentied men were shot dead by

Indian troops in the same area, 500 metres onthe Indian side of the Line of Control. Naresh

Vij, an Indian army spokesperson, said troopshad “not recovered any bodies as they are lying

very far.”

Privately, Indian intelligence ofcials posted inthe sector speculate the men may have indeed

been targetted by special forces — but insistthey were guides for jihadist groups crossing theLine of Control, not innocent men executed by the army for no reason at all.

Like everything else to do with the secret war




Indian and Pakistani troops are locked in alongthe Line of Control, the facts are opaque. Few,charged with nationalist passions, are muchinterested in the truth, anyway.

Monday’s killing of ve troops from the 21 BiharRegiment, marks the rst signicant crisis inIndia-Pakistan relations since Prime MinisterNawaz Sharif took power earlier this year.

The ambush, highly-placed army sources havetold Firstpost, was almost certainly carried outto retaliate against a series of successful Indianoperations in the northern stretches of the Lineof Control. It targeted a routine patrol in a rela-tively peaceful area, near the Chakan-da-Baghcross-Line of Control trading post.

The sources said a sixth soldier on the patrol, who escaped the ring, is being questioned todetermine precisely what happened. Early ac-counts, though, all point to a disciplined, mili-tary-style operation.

The ambush comes, as Firstpost recently revealed, amidst the rst year that violence inJammu and Kashmir has shown an uptick sincethe near-war of 2001-2002. In the last week of

July alone, 12 jihadists were killed in northernKashmir’s Kupwara district— levels of inltra-tion not seen in years. In the last major encoun-ter, ve terrorists were killed short of Hemapost, on the Line of Control in Kupwara. TheLine of Control (LoC)in the Jammu region hasseen 42 exchanges of re this year, the sourcessaid, up from 28 in all of 2012.

This, however, we do also know: last night’s

lethal ambush in Poonch was just the latest inphase in a secret war along the Line of Controlthat have continued apace since the beheadingsof Lance-Naik Hem Raj and Lance-Naik Sud-hakar Naik in January. Friction between the twoarmies has been re-erupted periodically sinceFebruary, when Pakistan alleged that one of itssoldiers had been executed in cold blood afteraccidentally straying across the Line of Con-trol and being taken prisoner. India, however,disputed this version of events. “We detected

some suspicious movement near the LoC insideour territory and the challengers from our sidered”, said Lieutenant-Colonel Rajesh Kalia, aspokesperson for the Indian army.

Late last month, Pakistan complained that“unprovoked” Indian re had led to the death of Sepoy Asim Iqbal in the Nazia Peer sector, nearthe town of Rawlakote.

India, however, said the ring began in re-sponse to an inltration attempt.

The ghting had its genesis in events that beganin October, when Pakistan complained of new Indian border works at Charunda, in Uri. Indiaresponded that the works were purely defen-sive, intended to prevent illegal border cross-ings. The unresolved dispute led to exchangesof re, which eventually escalated into shellingand the killings of soldiers on both sides. The

beheading of Indian soldiers in January wasthe culmination of a long series of attacks and

counter-attacks— a vicious cycle driven by thePakistan army’s continued support of jihadistinltration into Kashmir.

The November 2003 ceasere, Indian diplo-matic sources say, was based on an unwritten“agreement,” which in essence stipulated thatneither side would reinforce its forticationsalong the Line of Control — a measure rstagreed to after the 1971 war. In 2006, the two

sides exchanged drafts for a formal agreement— but the talks have stalled.

Long before the dispute over border construc-tion, though, several similar cross-border clash-es had taken place. In March, 1998, an Indianspecial forces unit is alleged to have killed 22 ci-

vilians at the village of Bandala, in the Chhambsector; two villagers decapitated; the eyes of several others were allegedly gouged out by the

attackers. The Pakistani military claimed tohave recovered an Indian-made watch from thescene of the carnage, along with a hand-writtennote which asked, “How does your own bloodfeel?”

The Bandala massacre is alleged to have beencarried to avenge massacre of 29 Hindu villag-ers at Prankote, in Jammu and Kashmir, by theLashkar-e-Taiba. The Lashkar attackers slit thethroats of their victims, which included women

and infants.

Large-scale civilian killings did not take placeagain, but the Indian army continued to dish




out at least as good as it got. In May 1999,as the Kargil war broke out, Captain SaurabhKalia, along with sepoys Bhanwar Lal Bagaria,

Arjun Ram, Bhika Ram, Moola Ram and NareshSingh, were kidnapped by Pakistani troops.Post mortem revealed that the men’s bodieshad been burned with cigarette-ends and theirgenitals mutilated.

Late in January, 2000, seven Pakistani soldiers were alleged to have been captured in a raid ona post in the Nadala enclave, across the NeelamRiver. The seven soldiers were allegedly tied upand dragged across a ravine running across theLoC. The bodies were returned, according toPakistan, bearing signs of brutal torture.

There have been a string of smaller incidents

since the ceasere went into force. In June,2008, Pakistani troops attacked the Kranti

border observation post near Salhotri village inPoonch, killing 2-8 Gurkha Regiment soldiers inJawashwar Chhame.

The retaliation, when it came, was savage: Pa-kistani ofcials allege Indian troops beheaded asoldier and carried his head across on 19 June,2008, in the Bhattal sector in Poonch.

Finally on 30 August, 2011, Pakistan com-plained that three soldiers, including a JCO,

were beheaded in an Indian raid on a post in theSharda sector, across the Neelam river valley in Kel— retaliation for the decapitation of twoIndian soldiers near Karnah.

There’s unlikely to be an end to this savagery until cross-border inltration ends, and that’ssomething that seems ever more unlikely. ForPakistan’s army, facing an existential battle withthe Tehreek-e-Taliban that it is unable to win,precipitating a crisis with India is an attractiveoption. In the wake of 26/11, jihadists vowedto rally behind Pakistan if war with India brokeout; that promise has since been renewed peri-odically.

It is self-evident that preventing a rapproche-ment between jihadists and the generals is inIndia’s best interest — the reason why bothPrime Ministers Atal Behari Vajpayee and Man-mohan Singh proved willing to pay the politicalprice for a policy of strategic restraint. India’sown looming elections, though, are making suchrestraint ever more difcult for political leadersto practice.




Exclusive: Details of LoC killingsthat came before Poonch ambush

Four men Pakistan alleges were kidnapped by India

may have been killed in an encounter on June 29,

documents obtained by Firstpost show. Praveen Swami Aug 7, 2013

E ven as fresh skirmishes rage along thenorthern reaches of the Line of Control,new details are emerging on the con-

troversial killing of four Pakistani men on theLine of Control, an incident which is believedto have set off a spiral of clashes culminating inMonday’s lethal ambush of troops near Chakan-

da-Bagh in Poonch. Pakistan has alleged thatthe four men were kidnapped by Indian troopsoperating across the Line of Control.

Police documentation exclusively obtained by Firstpost suggests that Zafran Ghulam Sarwar,Shah Zaman, Muhammad Faisal and Wajid

Akbar may have been killed near Katwar Post,a forward position along the Line of Control inthe Macchel sector, along the Neelam river, lateon the night of 29 July.

Firstpost had broken news, on Tuesday, aboutconcerns that the alleged killings and skirmish-es which followed it may have triggered off a

cycle leading to the killings of ve Indian troopsin Poonch-sparking off the worst India-Pakistancrisis in months.

In a First Information Report led on 30 July,Indian troops said they had killed four uni-dentied Pakistani intruders. The FIR records

the army’s statement that it recovered a AK-56assault rie, three pistols and a 12-bore shotgunfrom the group.

“You would expect terrorists to carry weaponslike the AK-56″, a senior Jammu and Kashmir-

based army ofcer said, “but I can’t understand what they’d be doing with a 12-bore gun, whichis typically used for hunting small prey”.

He also noted it was unusual for an inltratinggroup of four terrorists to possess only one as-sault rie, and no grenades or communicationequipment.




Local residents, who helped bury the bod-ies after they were handed over to local policethrough a special police ofcer attached to thearmy, said at least two of the men were wearingrubber ip-ops-again, unusual gear for men

who had inltrated mountain passes leadingthrough the rugged Neelam valley.

The FIR was signed on behalf of the 56 Rash-triya Ries by its adjutant. The Rashtriya Ries,drawn from various army formations, is gen-erally deployed on counter-insurgency dutiesinside Jammu and Kashmir. However, the 56Rashtriya Ries operates up to the fencing run-ning along the Line of Control.

It remains unclear, though, if the four men were, as Pakistan claims, innocent local resi-

dents who strayed close to the Line of Control while collecting herbs. Local residents say themen could also have been out poaching musk-deer, a common-if illegal activity. Intelligenceofcials based in Jammu and Kashmir hadearlier told Firstpost that there was reason to

believe the four men had been kidnapped in across-border operation, targettng individualshelping cross-border inltrators.

The alleged kidnapping took place in the midstof a series of sweeps targeting groups of jihad-ists who had made their way across the Lineof Control into the Hafruda forests above thenorth Kashmir town of Kupwara. In the last

week of July alone, twelve jihadists were killedin northern Kashmir’s Kupwara district–levelsof inltration not seen in years. Five terrorists

were killed short of Hema Post, on the Line of Control in Kupwara. The inltration surge, as

Firstpost recently revealed, has led to the rstuptick in violence levels through Jammu andKashmir since the near-war of 2001-2002.

New Delhi has so far offered no ofcial com-ment on the controversy, while Jammu andKashmir Director-General of Police Ashok Prasad will be probed only if the governmentorders an investigation.

Fighting between the two armies continues

along the Line of Control, with both sides trad-ing small-arms re at Kamalkot, near Uri, lastnight and this morning. Two Pakistani soldiersare reported to have been injured in the latest

exchanges.

Low-grade skirmishes have broken out regularly since January, when Pakistani troops beheadedtwo Indian soldiers, Lance-Naik Hem Raj andLance-Naik Sudhakar Naik, in an ambush.

Later, in February, Pakistan alleged that oneof its soldiers had been executed in cold bloodafter accidentally straying across the Line of Control and being taken prisoner. India, how-ever, disputed this version of events.

“We detected some suspicious movement nearthe LoC inside our territory and the challengersfrom our side red”, said Lieutenant-ColonelRajesh Kalia, a spokesperson for the Indianarmy.

Late last month, Pakistan complained that“unprovoked” Indian re had led to the death of Sepoy Asim Iqbal in the Nazia Peer sector, nearthe town of Rawlakote. India, however, said thering began in response to an inltration at-tempt.

Experts say the ghting is driven by both sides jockeying for tactical advantage along the Line

of Control-a process in turn underpinned by theneed of Indian troops to dominate possible in-ltration routes, and the Pakistan army’s effortsto deny them those vantage positions.

Last year, in October, an escalatory spiral devel-oped when Pakistan complained of new Indian

border works at Charunda, in Uri. India re-sponded that the works were purely defensive,intended to prevent illegal border crossings–

among them, one of an elderly villager who leftCharunda to be with her sons across the Line of Control. The unresolved dispute led to exchang-es of re, which eventually escalated into shell-ing and the killings of soldiers on both sides.

The November 2003 ceasere, Indian diplo-matic sources say, was based on an unwritten“agreement,” which in essence stipulated thatneither side would reinforce its forticationsalong the Line of Control –a measure rst

agreed to after the 1971 war. In 2006, the twosides exchanged drafts for a formal agreement–

but the talks have stalled.




Despite Nawaz Sharif’s promise, Pakistan army is funding anti-India jihad

The question before New Delhi now isn’t whether or

not to talk with Pakistan: talking won’t cost anything

other than a few air fares and hotel rooms, but unless

there’s a clearly thought through compellance

strategy, it won’t work either.


I

n the autumn of 2008, President Asif AliZardari unveiled a dramatic, new road-mapfor peace. “India has never been a threat

to Pakistan”, he told the Wall Street Journal.He called the Islamist insurgents in Kashmir“terrorists.” He spoke of a future where Paki-stani factories would feed India’s huge cementneeds, Pakistani ports helped decongest India’sclogged ones.

Not that many weeks later, Ajmal Kasaab andnine other Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists sailed outof one of those ports, Karachi, headed for Mum-

bai.

India’s government, mired in a fresh crisissparked off by the killings of ve soldiers in anambush along the Line of Control, ought be con-sidering this cautionary tale. Ever since PrimeMinister Nawaz Sharif took ofce, he has beenpromising to revitalise his country’s crisis-rid-den relationship with India.

Sharif told CNN-IBN’s Karan Thapar he wantedenhanced trade and energy ties, a peaceful reso-lution of the conict in Kashmir, and promisedto “make sure that the Pakistani soil is not usedfor any such [terrorist] designs against India”.

New Delhi loves the talk. In an interview to journalist Harinder Baweja, Sharif’s specialenvoy Sartaj Aziz said it had agreed to resume

talks without insisting on progress in the 26/11case, where the trial has been stalled since the

judge hearing it abandoned his court-room, cit-ing concerns for his safety.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh bet big onpeace with Pakistan and almost clinched thedeal, before it all went up in ames on 26/11. Hehopes to snatch the prize out of the embers-andis betting Sharif will help him. It’ll only work,

though, if Pakistan’s all-powerful army wantsthe same thing-and to know if it does, we needto know what its generals want.

For the last two decades, the Pakistan Army has been helpfully answering that question for us.

Every two years, its general headquarters pub-lishes a bulky collection of essays by seniorofcers, called The Green Book. From the very rst essay in the current Green Book, it becomes

clear the Pakistani ofcer class’ maniacal suspi-ciousness of India hasn’t stilled.

Brigadier Umar Farooq Durrani’s “Treatise onIndian-backed Psychological Warfare AgainstPakistan,” asserts that the Research and Analy-sis Wing “funds many Indian newspapers andeven television channels, such as Zee Television,

which is considered to be its media headquar-ters to wage psychological war.” The “creation

of [the] South Asian Free Media Association afew years back,” Brigadier Farooq claims, “wasa step in the same direction.” Even the eminentscholar Ayesha Siddiqa’s work, he insists, is “aclassical example of psychological war against




Pakistan.”

“The most subtle form” of this psychological war, the Brigadier states, “is found in movies where Muslim and Hindu friendship is screened within [sic.] the backdrop of melodrama. Indiansoaps and movies are readily welcomed in mosthouseholds in Pakistan. The effects desired to

be achieved through this is to undermine theTwo National Theory [as] being a personal ob-session of [Muhammad Ali] Jinnah.”

Had the Green Books not been ofcial publica-tions, none of this ought to have been a causeof worry. There is, after all, no shortage of delusional paranoiacs on the eastern side of theIndia-Pakistan border either, in and outside thearmed forces.

From the Pakistan Army chief himself, though, we know ideas like those of Brigadier Durraniare considered worthy of serious consideration.In his foreword to the 2010 edition, GeneralKayani asserts that the essays provide “an ef-fective forum for the leadership to reect on,identity and dene the challenges faced by thePakistan army, and share possible ways of over-coming them”.

Language of the kind that runs through the2010 Green Book pervades earlier editions too.In 2002, as Pakistan faced up to the looming

war between its armed forces and their one-time jihadist allies, the Green Book focusedon low-intensity warfare. Brigadier ShahidHashmat, typically, argued that the “threat of low-intensity conicts should be consideredas the most serious matter at [the] national

level.” Thus, he went on, “all national agenciesand resources must be directed concurrently for launching an effective and robust responseagainst this threat.”

The blame for the crisis imposed on Pakistan by religious sectarian groups and jihadists, though,is rmly placed on India. Lieutenant-ColonelInayatullah Nadeem Butt, using ideas near-identical to those in the current Green Book,asserted that “India has been aggressively in-

volved in subverting the minds of youth throughplanned propaganda and luring them towardssubversive activities.”

Even as they considered how to ght religioussectarian groups and revolutionary jihadists,the ofcers who contributed to the 2002 GreenBook thus focussed on imposing punitive costson India. Brigadier Muhammad Zia, for exam-ple, noted that “India is highly volatile on itsinternal front due to numerous vulnerabilities

which, if agitated, accordingly could yield re-sults out of proportion to the efforts put in.”

In similar vein, Major Ijaz Ahmad advocated“that [the] Inter-Services Intelligence shouldlaunch low prole operations in Indian-heldKashmir and should not allow the freedommovement to die down.” “Linguistic, social, re-ligious and communal diversities in India,” theofcer continued, “should be exploited carefully and imaginatively.”

Put another way, even as they considered tac-tics to defeat insurgents in Pakistan, the ofcercorps also discussed sponsoring insurgencies inIndia, to tie down their arch-adversary. Gen-eral Pervez Musharraf, then Pakistan’s military ruler, described the 2002 Green Book, as a“valuable document for posterity.

He was more prescient than anyone might have

imagined, and than he’d likely have wished for..

For an understanding of where the India-Paki-stan relationship stands today, we need to go

back 2002—the year India and Pakistan endedthe gigantic military standoff on their borders

which began after the Jaish-e-Muhammad at-tack on Parliament House in New Delhi. Eventhough the prospect of nuclear war appeared tohave successfully deterred India from attacking,

Pakistan’s military came to the conclusion thatits country just couldn’t afford another crisis.In addition, the United States—knowing that anIndia-Pakistan crisis would complicate its ownposition in Afghanistan—came down hard onIslamabad’s patronage of jihadists.

Lieutenant-General Moinuddin Haider, Gen-eral Pervez Musharraf’s interior minister, toldthe scholar George Perkovich he had said “MrPresident, your economic plan will not work,

people will not invest, if you don’t get rid of extremists”.

Pushed by his generals, and prodded by the




United States, Musharraf authorised secretmeetings to explore how future crisis might beaverted. The two governments worked out theterms of a ceasere along the Line of Control,

bringing an end to lethal artillery exchangesthat had claimed hundreds of lives. Lieutenant-General Ehsan-ul-Haq, the then-Inter ServicesIntelligence Directorate chief, met with hisResearch and Analysis Wing counterpart, CDSahay, to discuss cross-border terrorism. RAW,on one occasion, even supplied communicationsintelligence to the ISI on a plot to target Mush-arraf, earning it a thank-you message.

Perhaps the most important axis of secret diplo-macy, though, involved the hand-picked specialenvoys of Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh,SK Lambah, and his Pakistani counterpart,

Tariq Aziz.

From unsigned notes revealed in 2009, weknow the two men agreed to a four point deal:the transformation of the Line of Control intoa border, though with adjustments to rational-ise access to both countries’ forward positions;free movement across the LOC; greater federalautonomy for both sides of Jammu and Kash-mir; and phased cutbacks of troops as jihadist

violence declined.

It wasn’t quite a done deal: though India was willing to devolve power to sub-regional and re-gional bodies across Jammu and Kashmir, Paki-stan said it needed more time to discuss devolu-tion of powers in the Northern Areas—a regionIslamabad argues shouldn’t be treated as partof the pre-1947 Princely state. Lambah wantedlimited cross-border cooperative management

of assets like watersheds, forests and glaciers; Aziz called for a more expansive “joint manage-ment” of Jammu and Kashmir. Key questions,like the sequencing of the four points, do notappear to have been discussed—and neither side

wanted to go public.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the Kashmiri secession-ist leader, was hopeful. “It is September 2007,”he said, “that India and Pakistan are looking atin terms of announcing something on Kashmir.”

They didn’t: Manmohan Singh asked for timeuntil the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections that

year to go public; then Musharraf’s political

fortunes declined. Then, Pakistan new army chief, Parvez Ashfaq Kayani, backed off, sayinghe couldn’t afford to be charged by Islamists of treachery.

Now, the wheel’s turning full circle: the UnitedStates is leaving Afghanistan, and subcontract-ing the task of keeping the peace in Afghanistanto the ISI. Pakistan’s own army is besieged—andhopes to win back some of its legitimacy amongits old Islamist clients by patronising anti-India

jihad.

The question before New Delhi now isn’t wheth-er or not to talk with Pakistan: talking won’tcost anything other than a few air fares andhotel rooms, but unless there’s a clearly thoughtthrough compellance strategy, it won’t work

either.

The generals understand that a better rela-tionship with India is in their best interests.However, they also know that peace will meanconfrontation with the very substantial Islam-ist constituency in Pakistan, and, perhapsmore important, eventually giving up their ownprivileged position in its polity. To do that needsa proper incentive structure-without with, a

simmering low-grade crisis with India suits thegenerals just ne.

For fairly obvious reasons, though, this is easiertalked about than done. India’s own optionsaren’t huge. A serious crisis with Pakistan woulddamage India’s real strategic goal, which isn’tthe Line of Control or Kashmir, but achievingas close to double digit growth as possible for aslong as possible. War would set back national

efforts to reduce the strategic gap with the realpower in Asia-China-for years. Prime Minister Vajpayee and Prime Minister Singh both under-stood this.

Put simply, the lesson from Poonch is this: aten-year peace process, centred around thestrategic happenstance of the United States’ ac-tive presence in the region, is drawing to a close.It’s time to go back to the drawing board. In thefuture, India will need to use the stick to per-

suade Pakistan’s recalcitrant generals that peaceis worth their while. It needs to wield the stick

very carefully, though, so it doesn’t come crash-ing down on its own foot.




Why J&K attacks show India needsa strong Afghanistan policy

Last night’s attack on the Indian mission in Jalalabad

wasn’t a stray incident. It reects Pakistani strategy to evict India from Afghanistan, and

escalate tensions on the Line of Control.

New Delhi needs to act-and fast.


F

or over an hour, the mangled body of one of the men who’d tried to blow upthe Indian consulate in Jalalabad lay

on the street, surrounded by a sullen crowd of local residents. Nine small children had diedin the explosion, which took place while they

were walking down the street on their way toreligious studies classes in the local mosque.“Everyone was staring”, a witness recalls, “as if they wanted to will the dead man back to life,so they could beat him to death again”. Then,a little boy in a a light-blue shalwar-kameezemerged from the crowd, and calmly walked up

to the dead body. He undid the drawstrings onhis trousers, and urinated on the corpse. Thecrowd cheered.

Three hours ight-time away from Jalalabad,United States diplomats are trying to hammerout a peace deal with Taliban negotiators at theplush Four Seasons Hotel on Doha’s upmarketCorniche. Last month, the Taliban shut downtheir new political ofce in Doha, following furi-

ous Afghan protests. But the talks have quietly continued. India’s government, following the

western lead, has been betting they’ll lead to apeace deal before the United States draws-downits forces in Afghanistan next year.

Last night’s murderous ambush in Poonch, where Pakistan army irregulars are thought tohave organised the ambush which claimed thelives of ve Indian soldiers, shows that hopeis self-delusion. The Poonch attack is amongthe rst gusts of the storm brewing across theHindu Kush to touch home.. The attack on theIndian consulate served notice to New Delhithat Afghanistan’s future is more likely to re-

semble the Jalalabad street than the DohaCorniche. For India, the choices it now makesin Afghanistan will have critical consequences,especially in Kashmir— but the government isshutting its eyes, and hoping it all turns out to

be a bad dream.

For the rst time since the near-war of 2001-2002, as Firstpost recently reported, losses of Indian security force personnel have risen rela-tive to the precious year. The underlying reasonis simple: as the United States prepares to pullout of Afghanistan, it is less less able to push

Pakistan to rein-in jihadist groups operatingagainst India. For its part, the Pakistan army has good reason to resume low-grade hostilitiesagainst India, hoping to regain some legitimacy

with elements of the jihadist movement whohave turned against it in recent years. It hopesto install a client government in Kabul, evictIndia from the picture and resume its effortsto use covert warfare as a tool to tie down itsincreasingly powerful neighbour.

In December, Lashkar-e-Taiba chief HazMuhammad Saeed told members of the seces-sionist All-Parties Hurriyat Conference that heintended to revive operations once the UnitedStates was out of Afghanistan. He publicly

warned, in February, that “just as America hadto run away, then India, you will have to leaveKashmir”.

For weeks before the Jalalabad attack, govern-ment sources have told Firstpost, there had

been multiple intelligence warnings on Indiandiplomatic facilities in Kabul, Kandhahar andJalalabad. Earlier this year, India Today‘s Sau-




rabh Shukla has reported, a high-level Indiandelegation led by Deputy National Security

Advisor Nehchal Sandhu suggested enhancedsecurity measures for new ambassador AmarSinha.

Indian and Afghan investigators believe theattack on the consulate only failed because of poor planning and reconnaissance. The threesuicide bombers, driving an explosives-ladenToyota Corolla car, were stopped at an Afghanpolice checkpoint some 30 metres from theconsulate gate. Two of the men emerged fromthe car, and began to walk towards the check-point. Even as they moved forward, though,the suicide-bomber inside the car detonated the

vehicle —setting off the suicide vest on a secondattacker. Police at the checkpoint opened re,

killing the third.

In several recent strikes, jihadist assault teamsstormed their targets taking advantage of the shock and confusion caused by the ini-tial attack— among them, the July attack on aDynCorp-run guest house which claimed thelives of Indian nationals John Martis, Sand-eep Jilaji, Naveen Kumar Gurudi and Kaushik Chakraborty. Near-identical tactics were used

to strike Central Intelligence Agency ofces andthe Presidential palace in June— even as Presi-dent Hamid Karzai was holding a press confer-ence. For reasons we don’t know yet, the Jalala-

bad attackers didn’t get it right.

Like the two past attacks on India’s embassy inKabul, there are even odds that Pakistan’s InterServices Intelligence was involved: a murder-ous attack in 2008, the New York Times’ Mark

Mazetti and Eric Schmitt reported, was directly facilitated by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intel-ligence, while Afghan authorities blamed the2010 strike on it.

In each of those past instances, India itself remained quiet, choosing not to make PrimeMinister Manmohan Singh‘s pursuit of a grandpeace bargain with Pakistan contingent on ter-rorism.

The strategy has failed— but there are thingsNew Delhi can do to exert pressure. First asFirstpost revealed recently, President Karzaihas given New Delhi a lethal-weapons shopping

list, calling in Afghanistan’s entitlements underthe Strategic Partnership Agreement the twocountries have signed. Afghanistan wants 105millimetre artillery, as well as helicopters andtransport aircraft— all second-hand equipmentIndia can supply at a relatively low cost. Indiahas so far denied the requests, fearing it willcomplicate the relationship with Pakistan andthe United States. Instead, it has granted $100million in economic aid to Afghanistan, in ad-dition to $2 billion already committed. The aidhas won friends— ordinary Afghans often tell

visitors that while Pakistan gives them suicide bombers, India is giving them hospitals. Yet, beeng up Afghanistan’s armed forces will sendPakistan an important signal of intent.

Then, India needs to make clear it won’t tolerate

a peace deal with the Taliban that undermines Afghanistan’s constitution and democracy. In2014′s presidential elections, the likely candi-dates of the major opposition blocs, the Nation-al Front and National Coalition, will likely begures friendly to India— ranging from formerforeign minister Abdullah Abdullah to Hanif

Atmar. Karzai-linked candidates are more sym-pathetic to Pakistan —but more Indian military aid will lock them into the relationship.

Finally, India can adopt a more muscular pos-ture on the Line of Control. Estimates suggestabout a third of Pakistan’s 500,000-strongarmy is committed to counter-terrorist opera-tions in its North-West. Indian troops havegiven at least as good as they’ve got on the Lineof Control, staging several eye-for-an-eye raidsacross the Line of Control to punish Pakistaniattacks. The government’s been loath, though,

to up the stakes, for fear for the ceasere fallingapart. If India reconsiders that strategy, though,it can threaten to make Pakistan more vulner-able to domestic terrorism by forcing it to pulltroops eastwards.

The one option India doesn’t have is to do noth-ing. For a decade now, India has ridden on the

back of historically-anomalous geo-strategicspringtime: the restraining presence of theUnited States, a war between Pakistan and the

jihadists it long patronised, and a favourable in-ternational climate, driven by record economicgrowth. Now, events suggest, a harsh wintercould again be descending.




Aftermath of an attack




Ground report: Poonch residents fear war after Pak violates ceasere

The killing of ve soldiers in Chakanbagh has been

seen as yet another sign of the continuous tension

between India and Pakistan, but its impact on

the people, who had enjoyed the benets of an

unwritten ceasere between the two nations,

can be seen the most.

Sameer Yasir Aug 8, 2013

Poonch: The tragic killing of ve Indianarmy soldiers won’t only affect their im-

mediate families, but will also have animpact on the thousands of residents who livein the border area along the line of control inPoonch sector.

A sudden silence has over taken the Khari vil-

lage in Poonch, Western Jammu, after the kill-ing of ve soldiers in an early morning ambush by heavily armed men from across the line of control on Tuesday.

The incident happened between Cheeta andBegum post, almost three kilometers north of Chakandabad, a famous LoC trade point be-tween India and Pakistan.

The Army spokesperson in Udhampur, Colonel

Kalia, told Firstpost that twenty heavily armedmen along with a few men in Pakistani uniformhad ambushed a patrol party of the 21 Biharregiment, in which one non commissioned of-

cer and four jawans were killed at around 2 amearly in the morning. One of the injured soldiers

was airlifted to Jammu for specialized treat-ment.

Colonel Kalia also said that the ambush mighthave been laid so that militants could inltratefrom the other side.

The villagers living along the line of control, arenow apprehensive about what the future holds.

Peer Zahir Ahmad, 55, a resident of Khari vil-lage told Firstpost that before the ceasere they had to keep migrating because of the continu-ous shelling along the LoC, and were tired of living nomadic, unsettled lives.

“With the ceasere between the two nationsin 2003 things had improved, we had evendestroyed the mud houses which were prima-rily build due to frequent ring. We have con-

structed concrete houses now. But after today’sincident no one knows what will happen. Thefuture is uncertain”, he said.

Another resident, Abudul Hamid Malik ,43,says he is even afraid of sending his childrento school as it is exposed to shelling. “After thetension erupted again on LoC, I stopped my children from going to school because I don’tknow when a shell could land up their and killthem. If the shell lands here in my home at least

I will die with my family”, he said.

Imran Ahamd lives in a small hamlet nearChakanbagh and says that after the 2003 cease-




re, the villagers alongside the line of controlhad lived in peace, as there were no ring in-cidents. “After the death of two soldiers in theMendhar sector this year, we were very afraidthat any thing could happen at any time. Andnow we might have to migrate once again toother parts of Jammu,” he told Firstpost.

The killing of ve soldiers in Chakanbagh has been seen as yet another sign of the continuoustension between India and Pakistan, and could

well be a step back in the relations between thetwo sides. But its impact on the people, who hadenjoyed the benets of an unwritten ceasereagreement between the two nations, can be seenthe most.

Syed Mulak Ali, a migrant from Mendhar where

a soldier was mutilated in January, says a lot of people who had ed the area during ghting,had returned in 2003 after de-mining opera-tions were completed by the army in Samba,Ramgargh, R S Pora and Kaluchak. But inPoonch, where the entire forward areas run-ning parallel to the LOC are heavily mined, they remained refugees for ever.

“But despite that we went back to village and

started living again. We were already apprehen-sive and scared about the developments talkingplace and the ceasere violations by Pakistanand now our fears have come true”, he said.

Army Chief General Bikram Singh is expected toarrive in the valley soon, where he will hold dis-cussions withChief Minister Omar Abdullah andGovernor NN Vohra, senior Army sources said.

“Patrolling and security have been heightenedalong the border with Pakistan after today’sattack,” a senior Army ofcer said, adding thattroops have been asked to be on high alert in

view of the apprehension of more such attacksalong the LoC.

Col Kalia told Firstpost that the ambush may have come as retaliation against the “effectivecounter inltration grid on LoC, which has en-sured 17 inltration bids foiled this year result-ing in killing of a total of 13 hardcore Pakistantrained militants.

“The numbers of such attempts have doubledthis year in comparison to the correspond-ing period of 2012. Pak Army’s desperation isalso evident in the substantial increase in the

number of Cease Fire Violations this year. Therehave been 57 Cease Fire Violations this year

which is almost 80% more than the violationslast year,” he said.

Tanveer khan a resident of Sona Gali, where Pa-kistani troops killed the two Indian soldiers sayshis worst night mare had come true. “We haveto now restrict our movement and, who knows,may be migrate from this place. It seems this

place will never be at peace.” He says.

The villagers here say that they were only ableto return to normal life in 2003, but said thatafter this incident, they were afraid that thepeace that they had only just come to know hadended.




Why India simply has to strategically shelve Pakistan

Americans will object on Pakistan’s behalf but surely

they understand India can’t keep absorbing attacks

from both sides – in Afghanistan as on its

Jalalabad consulate and along the LOC.

Seema Sirohi Aug 7, 2013

W ashington – The killing of ve Indiansoldiers by Pakistanis along the lineof control has elicited two kinds of

responses in India – one naively hopeful andthe other belligerently aggressive.

One talks of continuing the dialogue with Pa-kistan no matter what happens on the ground,the other, coming largely from the oppositionBJP and its supporters, talks of outright re-

venge. Yashwant Sinha, a BJP stalwart and aformer minister, got so carried away, he said thecurrent Indian government was “sponsoring”

Pakistan.

Neither extreme serves India’s national inter-ests. The rst imposes a high burden on electedleaders that they continue engaging Pakistan’scivilian government even though it exercises lit-tle or no power over the country’s foreign poli-

cy, the other advocates a foolhardy rush to war.Meanwhile, the Pakistan army functions in utterdisregard of its civilian leaders and activates itsproxies against India, the Indian army revisesits statements under political guidance.

A more surreal scenario would be hard to imag-ine.

What India needs is to strategically shelvePakistan and create other options and pressurepoints. An obvious one is to take a new look at Afghanistan and reconsider strengtheningthe Afghan National Army, if not by supplying

weapons then by helping in procurement.

Americans will object on Pakistan’s behalf butsurely they understand India can’t keep absorb-ing attacks from both sides – in Afghanistan as

on its Jalalabad consulate and along the LOC.These attacks will continue as will the inactionof the international community despite the “in-tercepts” and ISI’s ngerprints. Amrullah Saleh,

Afghanistan’s former intelligence chief, toldme that for Pakistan “it is vital to evict Indiaor Indian inuence and access from Pakistan’s

western borders.” Pakistan has said it privately,publicly and repeatedly. India has to up itsgame on its own.

Saleh said “India must create space for itself ininternational diplomacy vis-à-vis Afghanistan.”

While western countries have gone “out of their way to appease Pakistan and nd ways to ac-commodate their interests, India is hardly takenseriously at the international level.”

Indeed.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif may

appear sincere about improving ties with India.His overtures to Prime Minister ManmohanSingh are “serious,” according to well-informedofcials. Singh has responded positively, ap-parently agreeing to resuming dialogue without




linking it to progress on bringing the Mumbaiattackers to justice.

But ever since Sharif made his desire to improverelations with India known, he has faced anonslaught of negative press and an ISI-inspiredcampaign at home. He is being impeded atevery step – just as Asif Ali Zardari was ve

years ago. Heightened anti-India rhetoric inPakistan’s Urdu press is on the increase.

Silly claims that India conducted the Mumbaiattacks on itself are being “discussed” even on“serious” English-language channels. So power-ful is the campaign that even moderate Paki-stanis have begun retracting from advocatingpeace with India. Reports say that Ramzaanthis year brought a nasty harvest of anti-India

speeches from mosques, especially from La-hore’s Al-Aqsa mosque along with a bounty of hateful SMS messages.

For Sharif to work against this tide and deliveron any peace moves with India is unlikely in thenear term. India can hope that he outmaneuvershis military, but that would require a miracle.His decision to go after former ruler and army chief, Pervez Musharraf, the man who oustedhim, has complicated the picture with the cur-rent chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

At this time Kayani couldn’t care less aboutpeace with India – he wants to keep the pres-sure on from both ends – via Taliban proxies in

Afghanistan and via regulars on the LOC. Thatleaves very little space for peace making.




Poonch killings: How US is pullingthe strings of India-Pak relations

Is the United States is already covertly choreographing

India-Pakistan bilateral relations and preventing a are-up in the subcontinent. Indications are that Uncle

Sam may actually have started pulling the strings in

New Delhi and Islamabad much faster than Indians

and Pakistanis would have imagined.

Rajeev Sharma Aug 7, 2013

It doesn’t take rocket science to concludetwo things from the barbaric killing of veIndian soldiers in Poonch sector of Jammu

and Kashmir on 6 August. One, the India-Pa-kistan process of resumption of dialogue that

would have started in a few weeks would now remain frozen and a counter attack by the lividIndian Army cannot be ruled out. Two, it will bea matter of time before the Americans publicly make noises on the need for a cooling-off be-tween India and Pakistan while the State De-partment’s back-room boys work the phones in

New Delhi and Islamabad.

But the bigger picture here is: whether the Unit-ed States is already covertly choreographingIndia-Pakistan bilateral relations and prevent-ing a are-up in the subcontinent. Indicationsare that Uncle Sam may actually have startedpulling the strings in New Delhi and Islamabadmuch faster than Indians and Pakistanis wouldhave imagined.

India has a problem on its hands. The motherof all Condence Building Measures betweenIndia and Pakistan – the military ceasere

which came into force in 2003 – has been torninto shreds by Pakistan. The Line of Controlis fast degenerating into a Line of No Control

with the latest incident jolting the Indian politi-cal and military leaderships when the Indianarmy’s wounds were still raw since decapitationof one of its soldiers in the same sector in Janu-ary this year. To rub salt in Indian wounds, theInter Services Intelligence (ISI) had given an Rs

5 lakh reward to one Anwar Khan, a resident of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, who had beheadedLance Naik Hemraj Singh on 8 January.

An Indo-Pak cooling-off period suits the newly elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and hisgovernment more than India at this time. Indiacan make things more difcult for Pakistan even

without raising the specter of war and mobiliz-ing its strike forces along the Indo-Pak border

that the Vajpayee government had done in theaftermath of the terror attack on Indian parlia-ment in 2001.

All India has to do is to deploy more soldiers onits western borders. This will inevitably trig-ger concern in Rawalpindi and Pakistan will beforced to come up with a matching response,thinning its troops’ deployment in its western

borders with Afghanistan, setting off alarm bellsin Washington. A cash-strapped Pakistan willhave to pay through its nose for redeploymentof troops at a time when Nawaz Sharif’s two big-gest and immediate priorities are to heal up thePakistani economy and invest on a war-footing




in the power and infrastructure sectors to takehis country out of its worst energy crisis.

However, the UPA government is unlikely totake this step. The American factor is of utmostimportance here. The United States will not al-low a situation whereby Pakistan withdraws itstroops from its Afghanistan border for deploy-ment along the India-Pakistan border at a time

when the drawdown of American and NATOtroops from Afghanistan is scheduled to beginin February 2014. Needless to say, the UPA gov-ernment will not take a step which Americansdo not approve of.

In fact, one of the high points of Prime MinisterManmohan Singh’s expected bilateral visit tothe US next month from the American point of

view would be to thrash out a roadmap for deal-ing with the Af-Pak region post 2014.

One has to catch the ne nuances of DefenceMinister AK Antony’s suo moto statement in

both houses of parliament earlier today. Whilenarrating the Poonch incident, Antony said:“The ambush was carried out by approximately 20 heavily armed terrorists along with personsdressed in Pakistan Army uniforms.”

This is rather queer. Nowhere has Antony blamed the Pakistan Army for the incident! Allthat he has alluded to the identity of the perpe-trators is that these were heavily armed terror-ists who were accompanied by “persons dressedin Pakistan army uniforms”.

Now let’s have a look at an input which is evenqueerer. Barely an hour before Antony’s state-

ment in parliament, the defence ministry’sJammu-based PRO SN Acharya issued a pressstatement saying that Pakistan Border ActionTeam (BAT) had attacked Indian soldiers inPoonch.

This two-paragraph press statement is worthreproducing in full. Here it is:

“A patrol of Indian Army comprising of one NonCommissioned Ofcer and ve Other Ranks was

ambushed by a Pak Border Action Team closeto the Line of Control in Punch Sector of J&K early morning on 6 August 2013. In the ensu-

ing reght, ve Indian soldiers were martyred.The ambush was carried out by approximately 20 heavily armed terrorists along with soldiersof Pak Army.

“This action is a likely consequence of frustra-tions of the terrorists’ tanzeeems and Pak Army due to successful elimination of 19 hardcore ter-rorists in the recent months of July and Augustalong the Line of Control and in the hinterlandof J&K. The effective counter inltration gridon the Line of Control has ensured 17 inltra-tion bids foiled this year resulting in killing of atotal of 13 hardcore Pak trained terrorists. Thenumbers of such attempts have doubled this

year in comparison to the corresponding periodof 2012. Pak Army’s desperation is also evi-dent in the substantial increase in the number

of Cease Fire Violations this year. There have been 57 Cease Fire Violations this year which isalmost 80% more than the violations last year.”

Signicantly, the Indian defence ministry with-drew this statement some 90 minutes later andsubstituted it with Antony’s statement in parlia-ment!

The vital difference in the two statements is that

the defence ministry’s eventually withdrawnstatement gave some details of the ground situ-ation and was probably closer to the truth while

Antony’s statement was marked by diplomatese.Not unsurprisingly, External Affairs MinisterSalman Khurshid and the Ministry of External

Affairs have maintained a studied silence on theissue.

So how does one connect the dots? Does it mean

that Uncle Sam was already feverishly at work with the South Block mandarins and ensuredthat Antony does not come up with a hawkishstatement in parliament and squarely blamesthe Pakistan Army for the outrageous killings of Indian soldiers?

This is a nebulous area and the behind-the-scene parleys that took place in the South Block may not come to light anytime soon. Perhapsone will have to wait for help from WikiLeaks in

this regard as and when Julian Assange and histeam shed light on this episode.




India, Pak can’t treat each other as untouchables: Khurshid

We are vigilant. We are awake. We are conscious. We

are watchful,” Khurshid told CNN-IBN when asked to respond to criticism that the UPA government had

fallen asleep at the foreign policy wheel.

FP Politics Aug 7, 2013

India’s foreign minister Salman Khurshidcalled the death of the ve soldiers at theLine of Control ‘unacceptable’ and ‘ex-

tremely distressing’, and said the government

was in control of the situation but would care-fully consider a host of factors before decidingon an appropriate course of action.

“We are vigilant. We are awake. We are con-scious. We are watchful,” Khurshid told CNN-IBN when asked to respond to criticism that theUPA government had fallen asleep at the for-eign policy wheel.

The killing of Indian ve soldiers along the Lineof Control in Poonch by a group of around 20men comprising both militants and Pakistanisoldiers created an outrage yesterday, and led toangry scenes in both houses of Parliament.

Senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha had

slammed the government in the Lok Sabha say-ing it was high time the country responded back to Pakistan in the same manner, calling for adebate in Parliament on the issue.

“Is the Congress with India or with Pakistan?They should come clear on it,” he said.

Khurshid said that the rise in the number of in-

cursions along the LoC had not gone unnoticedand reiterated that the government would act inthe national interest. According to him, all thediplomatic processes that can be used in such asituation have been put in motion and Pakistanhas been made aware of India’s concerns. Thenext step, he said, was to wait for Pakistan’sresponse and then evaluate the situation at thattime.

“We have a categorical commitment from Paki-stan that they will not allow their territory to beused for attacks on India,” Khurshid said. “Weexpect them to deliver on this commitment.”

Refusing to be drawn into specics because of the current session of Parliament, the ministercompletely rejected the opposition’s stand that

AK Anthony’s statement in Parliament left Paki-stan with an escape route.

“He made what was in the circumstances themost prudent and careful and sensible state-ment based on facts that were available to himat that time,” Khurshid said. If and when new information was gathered, the situation wouldthen be re-evaluated.

He also criticised the BJP for politicising theevent by saying the UPA government was weak on national security, calling it irresponsible and

saying “there are none so blind as those who will not see”.

As for what counts as the national interest, that




would be a combination of perceptions, thegovernment’s analysis of the threats to nationalsecurity and its strategic imperatives, Khurshidsaid. And whatever steps the government takes

would be based on careful analysis and not aknee-jerk reaction.

He pointed that just because Pakistan and Indiado not agree on certain issues does not meanthat the two countries should treat each other asuntouchables. “Neighbours have to nd a way of talking to each other,” he said.

He reiterated that the government is taking thesituation seriously though it would not be decid-ing on a course of action in one night. “We can’t

just shut our eyes to it,” Khursheed said. “Wecan’t proceed as if nothing has happened. We

have taken some steps. Let’s see what the re-sponse to those are.”

Following Khursid’s comments, former Army chief General VP Malik told CNN-IBN during apanel discussion on the issue that it was unbe-lievable that Pakistan could have no knowledgeof the attack because of the proximity of the twoforces in that part of the Line of Control.

“This ambush took place in an area where thereare Pakistan and Indian troops facing eachother at a distance of 200 or 250 yards,” Malik said.

He also warned that both armies tended togive as good as they got on the Line of Control,

which could lead to a limited skirmish or alimited war (as happened in 1999), which is why the Indian government should be prepared forsuch a situation. “We need to make it clear wecan retaliate,” he said.

KC Singh, a former Indian diplomat, said acautious approach was the best approach in thesituation and that bickering in Parliament issomething that should be avoided. He said there

was no reason that discussions could not go on

between Pakistan and India on those topics in which both sides did agree, such as trade, whileleaving out contentious issues such as Kashmir.

He also pointed out that terrorism in the regionspiked when the former USSR withdrew from

Afghanistan and that the United States is with-drawing from the region is another inexionpoint.




The battle over

AK Antony’s statement




LoC killings: Will BJP make PMpay for Antony statement?

The BJP is showing no signs of taking on the UPA

government over the Defence Minister’sstatement in Parliament.

Sanjay Singh Aug 7, 2013

The political furore over Defence Minis-ter AK Antony’s statement on the killingof ve Indian soldiers along the Line of

Control is unlikely to die out any time soon withthe BJP intending to make the most of it to pin

down the government.

The government may nd it difcult to explain what prompted the top brass in the UPA gov-ernment do away with the damning indictmenton Pakistan Army, something that was initially done in a statement issued by the Press Infor-mation Bureau (Defence Wing) of the Govern-ment.

A big question is why Antony went with the now controversial statement despite being briefed

by the DGMO that the attack involved Pakistan Army personnel along with 20 heavily armedterrorists.

In its rst statement, the PIB (Defence Wing)

stated:

“A patrol of Indian Army comprising of one Non Commissioned Ofcer and ve Other

Ranks was ambushed by a Pak Border ActionTeam close to the Line of Control in Punch Sec-tor of J&K early morning on 6 August 2013. Inthe ensuing reght, ve Indian soldiers weremartyred. The ambush was carried out by ap-

proximately 20 heavily armed terrorists alongwith soldiers of Pak Army.”

This action is a likely consequence of frustra-tions of the terrorists’ tanzeeems and Pak Armydue to successful elimination of 19 hardcoreterrorists in the recent months of July and

August along the Line of Control and in thehinterland of J&K. The effective counter inl-tration grid on the Line of Control has ensured

17 inltration bids foiled this year resultingin killing of a total of 13 hardcore Pak trained terrorists. The numbers of such attempts havedoubled this year in comparison to the corre-sponding period of 2012. Pak Army’s despera-tion is also evident in the substantial increasein the number of Cease Fire Violations thisyear. There have been 57 Cease Fire Violationsthis year which is almost 80% more than theviolations last year.”

After AK Antony made his suo moto statementin both Houses of Parliament saying that theambush was carried out “by approximately 20heavily armed terrorists along with personsdressed in Pakistan Army uniforms”, the army changed its stance.

The PIB (Defence Wing) was forced to toe thepolitical leadership line on the subject. Antony effectively changed the Indian army version of

incident

The words “persons dressed in Pakistan army uniform” changed the whole connotation, sug-




gesting that the intruders were not Pakistanarmy regulars but could be terrorists or non-state actors wearing Pakistan army uniforms. A fact that was pointed out by Leader of Opposi-tion Arun Jaitley in the Rajya Sabha, but some-thing the Defence Minister refused to accept.

As a result of the minister’s statement, the PIB(Defence Wing) issued a second statement titled“REGRET & REVISED PRESS RELEASE”.

In it it stated:

1. The following Press Release supersedes theearlier Press Release ( No. PRO/Jammu/425/

Aug /2013 ) forwarded from this ofce.

2. You are requested to follow the new one.

3. Inconvenience is deeply regretted.”

It then attached a mirror of the statement made by Antony in Parliament. Incidentally, both thePIB statements were signed by SN Acharya.

Despite this correction, the BJP today moveda privilege motion against Defence Minister inLok Sabha and has sought an apology from him

“to the nation”. Though Prime Minister Man-mohan Singh and Antony were present in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively they choseto remain silent over the issue. This despite be-ing accused of the Defence Minister attemptingto shield the Pakistan army for unknown rea-sons.

There is an argument that if Antony had re-ferred to the Pakistan army in his statement

then the incident would have been construed as“intrusion of Pakistan” into Indian territory. Anadmission of this would have put ManmohanSingh and his top ministerial colleagues underpressure to deal more rmly with Pakistan.

The rst impact would be on the possible talks between the Indian Prime Minister and his Pa-kistan counterpart Minister Nawaz Sharif dur-ing their meeting in New York on the sidelinesof the UN next month. The BJP is now opposingany form of dialogue with Pakistan, least of allat the prime ministerial level. In contrast, dis-missing the incident in Poonch as an inltrationattempt by terrorists would not have that kindof impact on foreign policy or diplomatic talks.

But the advisor to the Pakistan Prime Ministeron Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz spoke of the talks

being on till last night.

An example of just how serious the next meet-ing will be is evident from the fact that NawazSharif’s special envoy Shaharyar Khan had also

met Manmohan Singh at his residence, 7 RaceCourse Road on Monday. He delivered a letterconveying Islamabad’s “sincere desire to moveforward on improving relations with India”. A Pakistan High Commission release said “theIndian prime minister warmly reciprocated thesentiments expressed in the letter”. Khan hadalso called on Salman Khurshid and NationalSecurity Adviser Shivshankar Menon and for-eign secretary Ranjan Mathai.

However, on Monday night the ve Indiansoldiers were killed and then came the DefenceMinister’s now controversial statement.

In an attempt at re ghting the Prime Ministerhas called top BJP leaders, BJP parliamentary party chairman LK Advani, party president Ra-

jnath Singh and Leaders of Opposition in bothHouses, Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley, to

explain the government’s position on talks withPakistan in aftermath of fresh incident of kill-ing of Indian jawans. But the BJP seems to havealready set its mind not to relent by moving aprivilege motion against Antony and demandingan apology.




Cong defends Antony , says he did not give clean chit to Pak army

The party also rejected BJP’s criticism of the govern-

ment over handling of Pakistan affairs, saying “war is no solution” and “dialogue and discussion” are the

only way to resolve disputes with the neigbour.

PTI, Aug 7, 2013

New Delhi: As a political storm brewedover Defence Minister A K Antony’sstatement on the killing of ve Indian

soldiers in Poonch, Congress today maintained

he did not give a clean chit to Pakistani Army inconnection with the incident.

The party also rejected BJP’s criticism of thegovernment over handling of Pakistan affairs,saying “war is no solution” and “dialogue anddiscussion” are the only way to resolve disputes

with the neigbour.

Accusing the opposition party of “politicising”the issue for electoral gains, party spokespersonP C Chacko said anybody trying to sh in trou-

bled waters will not succeed and reminded BJP what was the outcome of its peace initiatives with Pakistan during NDA rule.

Noting that it was a “wrong” interpretation tosay that the Defence Minister by his statementmeant that Pakistan army was not involvedin the attack along the LoC, Chacko said “any

attempt to twist, misinterpret or politicise theissue will be unfortunate. There is no denyingthe role of the Pakistani army.”

The Congress spokesperson added “when he(Antony) said people in Pakistani Army uni-form, did he not say Pakistani Army…Did he say no Pakistani Army? Had Antony said Pakistani

Army has no role?..There is no denying the roleof Pakistani Army”.

Rejecting the contention that the Defence Min-ister had committed a goof-up by his statementoverriding the earlier version of the Army state-ment, he said “what happened there was terror-ist plus armymen, that was his information. TheDefence Minister gets information only fromthe Armed forces.”

“There is no goof-up, no mistake, no contradic-tion. Whatever information was available with

the Defence Minister, he said according to that,”he said.

Rejecting suggestions that Antony gave a cleanchit to Pakistani Army over its role into the at-tack, Chacko had a dig at BJP saying “we know

who gave a clean chit to Pakistan” and referredto Indo-Pak talks before Kargil war during NDA rule.




Antony’s statement on LoC killingnot changed at our behest: PMO

The Prime Minister’s Ofce (PMO) rubbished as

“mischievous” the reports that a statement on the

killing of ve Indian soldiers on the LoC was

changed at its behest.

PTI, Aug 7, 2013

New Delhi: The Prime Minister’s Ofce(PMO) rubbished as “mischievous” thereports that a statement on the killing

of ve Indian soldiers on the LoC was changedat its behest.

“Such allegations being made are mischievousand have no basis,” a PMO spokesman said. He

was reacting to reports that the statement waschanged after being drafted by the Army.

While the Army statement issued in Jammu

had said the attack in Poonch was carried out by Pakistan army’s Border Action Team (BAT), astatement read out by Defence Minister A K An-tony in Parliament said the assault was carriedout by “terrorists along with persons dressed inPakistan Army uniform.”

Sources today said the statement made by An-

tony was vetted by several senior ofcials in-cluding National Security Advisor ShivshankarMenon, Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh, theDGMO and some Defence Ministry ofcers.




LoC killings: BJP has its way, Antony will make new statement

The government is highly likely to issue a fresh

statement on the killing of ve Indian soldiers along the Line of Control in Poonch, Jammu &

Kashmir by Pakistani troops.


The victory over the Pakistan ‘clean chit’

will go to the BJP.

After unrelenting pressure from the main op-position party, the government is highly likely to issue a fresh statement on the killing of veIndian soldiers along the Line of Control inPoonch, Jammu & Kashmir by Pakistani troops.

Antony’s statement, in which he said that the

Indian jawans had been killed by persons‘dressed in Pakistani uniforms’, caused mas-sive outrage because, as the BJP said, it gavethe neighbouring country an easy exit route by

which it could deny its role in the attack.

The BJP had moved a privilege motion againstDefence Minister in Lok Sabha and has soughtan apology from him “to the nation”.

“I demand the defence minister turn up in thehouse and apologise before the country formaking such dubious statements on a graveincident like this. It can’t be coincidence that heis not present in the house right now, so I’ll ask

the Prime Minister to respond to the demand,”leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha Su-shma Swaraj said in a ery session that wasdominated by protests, disruptions and even-tual adjournment.

The government move to change its ofcialstatement came after a meeting between Con-gress and BJP leaders, in which the BJP hadtold the government that the defence minister’s‘diluted’ statement was totally unacceptable.The government had reportedly assured BJPleaders that Antony would update Parliamentafter being briefed by army chief Bikram Singh.

A big question of course, is why Antony went with the now controversial statement despite being briefed by the DGMO that the attack involved Pakistan Army personnel along with 20heavily armed terrorists. With the PMO denying

what it called ‘mischievous’ reports that it hadasked the defence minister to water down hisstatement, the slip up has been attributed to an‘error of judgement’. According to the Hindus-

tan Times, a senior Congress leader had told thepaper, “There is an error of judgement on thepart of the government. It happens sometimes.Now we will see how it can be rectied”.

Of course, the entire incident – from the Con-gress’ initial tepid reaction to the retractionof the statement comes as a massive llip tothe BJP, who have found yet another reasonto attack the crumbling UPA government. AsFirstpost editor Sanjay Singh pointed out on

Wednesday:

“The tag of ‘soft state’ has come back to haunt the Manmohan Singh government yet again.




The killing of ve Indian soldiers in an ambushby Pakistan has given the BJP a chance to re-

focus the debate on Congress follies on national security issues and its ineffective response to

Pakistan. This has come as welcome ammuni-tion for the BJP which thinks that this meekresponse will make many look up to Modi’sstrong leadership.”

And with the government’s about turn in theface of all that BJP pressure, it gives the opposi-

tion another vital victory point in its own battleagainst the Congress. One that it will undoubt-edly use during future electoral campaigning forthe 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

For now however, the more crucial thing for theCongress seems to be the smooth functioning of the parliament. With the populist Food security

bill up for debate in the house, it has more tolose by letting Antony’s statement stand.




Full text: How AK Antony slammed Pak hand in LoC killings

Defence Minister AK Antony on Thursday issued

a fresh statement in Lok Sabha blaming specialist troops of the Pakistan army for the attacks

along the Line of Control.


Defence Minister AK Antony on Thurs-day issued a fresh statement in Lok Sabha blaming specialist troops of the

Pakistan army for the attacks along the Line of

Control.

“It is now clear that the specialist troops of Pa-kistan Army were involved in this attack.. In-dia’s restraint should not be taken for granted..the strength and capacity of our army shouldnever be doubted,” he said.

Below is the full text of his statement:

The brutal and unprovoked attack on an Indianpatrol on our side of Line of Control (LC) on

August 6, 2013 outraged us all. When I reportedthe incident to the House, it was Government’s

obligation to report the facts as we knew themat that point of time, and my statement was

based on the available information.

Since then the Chief of the Army Staff has visited the area and gone into the details of thematter. It is now clear that the specialist troopsof Pakistan Army were involved in this attack

when a group from the Pakistan Occupied Kash-mir (PoK) side crossed the LC and killed our

brave jawans. We all know that nothing hap-pens from Pakistan side of the Line of Control

without support, assistance, facilitation andoften, direct involvement of the Pakistan Army.

Those in Pakistan who are responsible for thistragedy and the brutal killing of two soldiersearlier this year should not go unpunished.Pakistan should also show determined action todismantle the terrorist networks, organizationsand infrastructure and show tangible movementon bringing those responsible for the Mumbaiterrorist attack in November 2008 to justicequickly.

Naturally, this incident will have consequenceson our behaviour on the Line of Control andfor our relations with Pakistan. Our restraintshould not be taken for granted; nor should thecapacity of our Armed Forces and resolve of theGovernment to uphold the sanctity of the LCever be doubted.




Talking to Pakistan is not equal toa clean chit: Mani Shankar Aiyar

“Diplomacy is about talking,” Aiyar said during a

panel debate on CNN-IBN. “War is about not talking;allowing the guns to talk for you. While I do not

know whether talks will lead to a solution, I do

not think not talking will lead to a solution.


S

enior Congress leader Mani Shankar Ai- yar defended the UPA government fromcriticism that it has given Pakistan an es-

cape route over the killing of ve jawans on theLine of Control, and said that continuing to talk to Pakistan did not mean that India was givingits neighbour a free pass over the incident.

“Diplomacy is about talking,” Aiyar said dur-ing a panel debate on CNN-IBN. “War is aboutnot talking; allowing the guns to talk for you.

While I do not know whether talks will lead to asolution, I do not think not talking will lead to asolution.

Aiyar pointed out that even at the height of theCold War, the United States and the formerUSSR continued to talk to each other eventhough they disagreed on just about everything.Even today, there is dialogue between the Unit-

ed States and Iran, for example, or the UnitedStates and North Korea. Just because Pakistandenies that the incident on the LOC took place,does not mean India cannot voice their objectsto the “senior most Pakistani,” he said.

His comments came in response to criticismfrom the BJP, who insisted that Defence Min-ister AK Antony’s statement in Parliament was

misleading and had given Pakistan wriggleroom because it did not categorically state thatthe men who ambushed the Indian Army patrol

belonged to the Pakistan Army.

The killing of Indian ve soldiers along the Lineof Control in Poonch by a group of around 20men comprising both militants and Pakistanisoldiers sparked massive outrage and has led toangry scenes in both houses of Parliament.

Antony’s statement described the men as beingdressed in Pakistan Army uniforms, which Aiyarsaid, did not exclude the possibility of their be-ing members of the army. The defence minister

was simply making the most precise statementhe could make given the information he had atthe time. Anthony is expected to make anotherstatement on the situation in Parliament today.

Ravi Shankar Prasad, the deputy leader of theopposition in the Rajya Sabha, pointed to thestatement released by the Army which did cat-egorically state that some of the intruders werePakistan Army soldiers, and wanted to know

why the defence minister had made a differentstatement. It is, he said, a case of the “defenceminister vs the armed forces”.

Aiyar’s response was to say that the title of theminister’s statement still named the Pakistan

Army and that in any case, “the authoritativestatement in Parliament cannot be given by aPRO. It can only be given by the defence minis-ter.”




When the debate turned to the issue of Aiyar be-ing called a Pakistani agent in the Upper Houseon 6 August, he said that none of the oppositionmembers came to his defence then, includingPrasad, who should denounced the allega-tion. At that point, Prasad decided he would nolonger be part of the panel, removed his mikeand stormed out.

Kanwar Sibal, an ex-Indian Foreign Service Of-cial, said the spat the between the two parties

was not only showing India was a splinteredcountry but taking the focus off the main issue,

which is Pakistan’s actions, and turning Indiainto a laughing stock.

“Nobody is focusing on Pakistan’s denial,” hesaid. “So they will not learn any lessons or give

us any explanations.”

Sibal called on the government to take a toughstand and hold Pakistan responsible for theJihadist violence that had taken place. Hedisagreed with Aiyar on the value of dialogue– “What is more important? India’s security ordialogue for the sake of dialogue?” – and saidthat India should wait to uncover what NawazSharif’s real motives are before engaging with

his government. Otherwise India runs the risk of letting Pakistan deny all the claims againstthem while continuing to press for what they

want from India.

“We have been lodging strong protests for somany years and nothing has happened,” he said.“We need to nd out what our options are.”

Aiyar, of course, disagreed with him, sayingIndia could not have a coherent foreign policy

without dialogue with Pakistan.

Amit Baruah, the former Pakistan correspond-ent for the Hindu and author of Dateline Islam-abad, said the issue [of Anthony’s statement]has been “blown out of all proportion. An abso-lute non-issue has been made the central point,”he said.

Whether someone was wearing or not wearing auniform was beside the point. Everyone under-stood that neither side could breach the Line of Control without the support or assistance of ei-ther army. The kind of hysteria that Parliament

was drumming up was therefore not benecialin anyway and leaves no room for debate.

“You don’t talk to people because you want tosay nice things to them,” he said. “You talk tothem because you want to say hard things tothem.

Baruah was also critical of the BJP’s attack on Antony, saying the defense minister had every right to make a statement that was differentfrom his PRO. The attack also obfuscated the

real issue, which was how to deal with a duplici-tous Pakistan. The two sides trading barbs wastherefore doing a disservice to the country.

“Democracy is under question in the kind of debates we are having in Parliament,” he said.




The Pak response




Full text: Pakistan Foreign Ministry says its army didn’t kill 5 Indian soldiers

Pakistan has said that its troops were not involved

in the attack that left ve personnel dead.


Pakistan rejects Indian allegations of kill-ing of its soldiers

Pakistan rejects the allegations carried by somesections of the Indian media of an attack acrossthe LoC in the Poonch sector in which ve In-dian soldiers were claimed to have been killed.These are baseless and unfounded allegations.Our military authorities have conrmed thatthere had been no exchange of re that couldhave resulted in such an incident.

Pakistan remains committed to the ceasereagreement of 2003 which is an important Con-

dence Building Measure and should be respect-ed in letter and spirit. Pakistan also urges theneed for abiding by and strengthening existingmilitary mechanisms to ensure that such ill-founded reports that have the potential of vitiat-ing the atmosphere, are avoided.

Pakistan is committed to a constructive, sus-tained and result-oriented process of engage-ment with India and looks forward to an early resumption of the dialogue process. It is im-portant that both sides make serious efforts in

maintaining the positive atmosphere and avoidnegative propaganda.




Pak media slams Indian ‘rhetoric and vitriol’ after LoC attack

The Pakistani media called on both Indian and

Pakistani ofcials to desist from rhetoric and take

steps to defuse rising tension along the LoC.


The Pakistani media called on both Indianand Pakistani ofcials to desist fromrhetoric and take steps to defuse rising

tension along the LoC.

after the killing of ve Indian soldiers in Poonchhas caused massive outrage in India.

An editorial in the Express Tribune newspapersaid that India needed to take responsibility inensuring that peace talks do not get derailedand also commented on the anti-Pakistan

‘rhetoric’ in the Indian media.

The editorial says:

Rhetoric against Pakistan is owing strongwith India also saying that militants from

Pakistan were trying to inltrate Kashmir. One

should mention that a day earlier, four Kash-miris on the Pakistani side of the LoC went missing and according to Indian media re-

ports, quoting unnamed Indian Army sources,may have been killed.




It also praises the conduct of the Pakistanforeign ofce for reiterating its commitment topeace talks.

“Such incidents only reinforce the fact that thetwo countries must go ahead with talks. Indiawould do well to take advantage of this and

play its part in improving relations and ensur-ing that the peace process is not derailed“ , itadds.

An editorial in The Nation also slams the Indianmedia for ‘vitriol’ against Pakistan and cautionsagainst bowing down to hawks on both sides of the border.

It says:

The vitriol by the Indian media and the Opposi-tion is a sad reection that Pakistan bashing isbig business in India, and also demonstrated the hold that many radicals enjoy over themedia. Charged demonstrations in front of

Pakistan’s High Commission in New Delhi will excite mob sentiment that must not be allowed to sway reason. Peace is the only option that is available. And hence it must be given a fairchance to show the miracles it can perform.

The Dawn newspaper for its part, has written athought provoking editorial questioning why thetiming of such attacks are always before or afterkey meetings between Indian and Pakistani of-cials, and occur just when relations between thetwo countries are beginning to look healthy.

However it also questions the motives of theBJP, saying “The truth is that, with the nod of

the intelligence set-up, the BJP is trying to nipany peace talks with Pakistan before the com-ing elections.”

The overwhelming sentiment in the Englishlanguage media in Pakistan is that the two na-tions need to tone down the rhetoric and talk. Itmust be noted, however, that there is very littleto no questioning of the Pakistani army, with allthe media understandably sticking to the ofcial

version of events.

Whether advice on continuing talks will beheeded by the powers that be in Pakistan is an-other matter altogether.

As this Firstpost piece notes:

“One way to look at the killing of the Indiansoldiers could be as an act by the Pakistanarmy to show the civilian government, who

calls the shots in the country and who wieldsgreater power over the country. The strongest

possible way the Pakistan army could registerthe sense of its power with the government, isby hitting where it hurts the most.”

If Sharif fails to make the Army accountable toits own government, how does India expect tobenet from talks with the government head? One solution, as noted in this Times of India re-

port, would be attempting to initiate talks withthe Pakistan Army itself. However, with the

Indian Army taking the brunt of its Pakistancounterpart’s violence, that again might not bein the best interests of the morale of the Indian

Army.

Caught in a typical catch 22 situation, all eyesand electoral decisions, however, will be on theUPA to see what it does next. Because nothing

ares emotions in India across classes as Paki-stan and how India deals with it.




iPhoneiPad Android

Scan or click to download our Android, iPad/ iPhone apps

http://itunes.apple.com/in/app/firstpost/id445829858?mt=8

http://itunes.apple.com/in/app/firstpost-for-ipad/id458043826?mt=8

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.firstpost








http://twitter.com/#!/firstpostin

https://www.facebook.com/firstpostin

Documents

Pak LOC Attacks