Soviet vetoes blamed by US for Pakistan's 1971 division

Dawn ^ | 28 February 2005 Monday | Dawn

[Cronos]

I'll assume that by "Pakistan" you meant "Afghanistan".

Your assumption is wrong -- The training camps were (and are) set up in Pakistan.

The answer to your first question - "What does the US call those folks now??" - is the "Northern Alliance", who sided with us when we deposed the Taliban

Er.... NO. The US (thanks to Paki "help" supplied stingers and other weapons to the Pashtuns. The northern Alliance was created later on against the Pashtuns. This consisted of forces that were armed and trained by Russia, India and the stans -- it also includes a former Soviet general -- General Dostum of the Uzbeks

[Cronos]

By giving Stingers to the Mujahideen, we made the world of aviation THAT much more dangerous

[Cronos]

Where is India with respect to our war on terror, namely on Iraq?

India was hte first to offer support for the WoT -- for the initial battle in Afghanistan -- they were arming and aiding the Northern Alliance before the US even got on the scene. THey are right now supplyign Afghanistan with aid and training. I'd consider THAT pretty much on board on the WoT

[Cronos]

Quite rightly put -- India's not going to budge until the US forces pakistan to close down it's jihadi camps

[Cronos]

When India grows up and starts thinking about defending the freedom of the whole world instead of just its own people

WEll, first India's got to defend her own people, just as OUR country's number one priority is to defend Americans

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/india1984a.htm

[Cronos]

Did you even read the article you linked to ?

The insurgency in the state of Punjab originated in the late 1970s. The roots of this insurgency are complex. The Green Revolution, a package of agricultural inputs, transformed the socioeconomic landscape of Punjab (see The Green Revolution, ch. 7). Amidst this new-found prosperity, large numbers of Sikhs started to shed some of the trappings of their faith. This propensity rekindled an age-old fear in the Sikh community--that of being absorbed into the Hindu fold. In turn, many Punjabi Sikhs, who were dispossessed of their land as a consequence of agricultural transformation, found solace in various revivalistic practices. One of the leaders of this revivalistic movement was Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a politically ambitious itinerant Sikh preacher. The second factor contributing to the insurgency was the attempt by Indira Gandhi (India's prime minister, 1966-77 and 1980-84), the Congress, and from 1978 Congress (I) to use Bhindranwale to undermine the position of the Akali Dal (Eternal Party), a regional party (see Political Parties, ch. 8). Bhindranwale and his followers were encouraged to verbally intimidate Akali Dal politicians. Although this strategy met with some success, Bhindranwale and his followers became a source of mayhem and disruption in Punjab. Eventually, in June 1984, Gandhi had to order units of the Indian army to flush out Bhindranwale and his followers, who had taken refuge in the Golden Temple complex, Sikhism's most holy shrine, in Amritsar, Punjab

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

My point wasn't to exculpate Sikh extremists, it was to illustrate how unpopular Indira Gandhi was.

Even during her putatively "democratic" reign, she was an authoritarian, whose policies were detested by huge pluralities among the more disenfranchised groups living within India.

The fact that she was murdered by two extremely close family friends should tell you something about how ordinary Indians viewed her.

[Cronos]

My point wasn't to exculpate Sikh extremists, it was to illustrate how unpopular Indira Gandhi was.

I thought you were trying to attempt to potray how this "dictator" trampled on human rights of minorities. There wasn't any doubt she was unpopular among Sikhs for ordering the storming of their most Holy site, but it had to be done -- extremists had taken control of the place.

[CarrotAndStick]

They were not family friends who murdered Indira, they were here bodyguards.

[CarrotAndStick]

here=her

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Somehow, the goon squads of Moqtader al-Sadr were able to be successfully neutralized without American marines-or Iraqi Defense Forces-physically storming the Imam Ali Shrine.

The IDF were able to force the surrender of Palestinian terrorists who had taken the Church of the Nativity hostage, without adding to the destruction already inflicted by the Fatah gangsters who had seized control of it.

The seminal event of Indira Gandhi's domestic agenda was not a display of strong-willed leadership, so much as it was a confirmation of the fact that her primary method of negotiation was the application of brute force.

[sukhoi-30mki]

Guess what!!Most Indians(including the youth) in India want a leader of the Indira Genre who doesn't take **** from anyone,be it the Pakistanis,Lefties or hindu fundamentalism.

[Cronos]

The seminal event of Indira Gandhi's domestic agenda was not a display of strong-willed leadership, so much as it was a confirmation of the fact that her primary method of negotiation was the application of brute force.

Perhaps. Perhaps not -- each situation calls for a different response.

[risk]

>>>> Kissinger chose short term gains at the expense of creating long-term headaches -- by cozying up to Pakiland and the Chicoms, he forced the republic of India to cozy up to China's other giant neighbor -- the USSR.

No, India was already cozied up to the USSR by then. But again, please don't trouble me with India's internal problems during the Cold War. The communists were busy murdering 100 million people all over the planet We had many, many, many more serious issues to worry about besides India's internal issues. I'm sorry you're not happy with America's decisions regarding India's indecision, but you were too busy to be troubled with global freedom. We on the other hand, were financing and dying all over the planet to save it from communism.

You should keep in mind that most Americans were very much against Great Britain's colonialism in India. The Anglosphere was not monolithic on that issue. But after WWII, and after independence, India had a clear choice. Behind the scenes, I'm sure that Americans were working to pressure Britain to honor India's nonviolence protests.

Once and for all, it chose wrong in holding the entire west responsible for the 17th century errors of Britain. India chose to side with the Gulags. It chose to side with the death camps. It chose to side with collectivist tyranny beyond human imagination. There is simply no way to exculpate India for its gross error in non-allignment, and its drift toward the Soviet union.

It's time to forgive and move forward, however. India has to earn its place on the world scene by reaching out beyond its borders and helping the west to defend freedom. India has to draw itself out of selfish introspection and become a global force for freedom instead of simply a Machiavellian entity seeking its own advantage.

It can happen. You personally are responsible for seeing it to fruition. I can't do it. My people are fighting for their lives and the lives and freedom of everyone on the planet. We're already doing our part. When will you?

[Gengis Khan]

To paint India-which was governed, for much of this period, by a nationalist, Communist-affiliated dictator, who did not respect the essential human rights of religious minorities within her own nation-in a completely benign light is as ridiculous as whitewashing the sins of Pakistan.

 

I would agree with Do not dub me shapka broham's assessment of  Indira Gandhi being a Communist-affiliated dictator who trampled over human rights of ordinary citizens (and not just Sikhs alone) and made use of brute force to take on her opposition. Dictator or not the fact remains that it was Indians who voted her into power and it was Indians who voted her out despite her attempt to clamp an unconstitutional "emergency" in 1974. One can have an endless debates on merits and demerits of her policies now that she is dead and times have changed. Its easy to be judgmental about the actions of a leader when they are long gone and you have nothing to do with his/her country. People have not spared Mahatma Gandhi I doubt they will spare Indira Gandhi, but even then people in India remember Indira Gandhi as a leader who stood up to American and Chinese hegemony and boldly went ahead against world opinion to give the Bengalis what was rightfully theirs. Those were no doubt difficult times for India when we were grappling an economic crisis spawned by drought, crop failures and starvation even as waves of refugees were pouring into India from neighboring East Pakistan. That was the time when "self-appointed crusaders of freedom and Democracy" chose to look the other way even as millions of people were slaughtered in East Pakistan. Ask me who would I want as the leader should similar situation arrive again. My answer would definitely be Indra Gandhi despite her numerous faults and inadequacies. Millions of Bengalies (myself included) would thank her for having the courage for doing the right thing at a time when ordinary Bengali lives were less important than world politics and cold war chess moves .

 

Somehow, the goon squads of Moqtader al-Sadr were able to be successfully neutralized without American marines-or Iraqi Defense Forces-physically storming the Imam Ali Shrine.

The IDF were able to force the surrender of Palestinian terrorists who had taken the Church of the Nativity hostage, without adding to the destruction already inflicted by the Fatah gangsters who had seized control of it.

Comparing one situation with another is outright idiocy. Please dont get me started on American human rights abuse in Iraq or that of Isreali army in Palestine. One or two incidents that ended well means nothing.

The seminal event of Indira Gandhi's domestic agenda was not a display of strong-willed leadership, so much as it was a confirmation of the fact that her primary method of negotiation was the application of brute force.

Definitely not. I have to disagree with you there. It is because of her strong-willed leadership that Bangladesh exists and Kashmir is still with us. It was because of her that India today is able to protect herself with military might and do not have to rely on "passive resistance". And it was she who gave India her first nuclear test notwithstanding world opinion going against her. And it she who chose not to negotiate with terrorists and paid the price for that with her life but she stands vindicated in sofar as her stand against terrorism is concerned. India has learned a hard lesson that you cannot have dialog or negotiation with terrorists. Her "socialist" policies may not always be the correct choice for India but nevertheless in difficult times SHE is the leader that I would like to have for India.

Somehow, the goon squads of Moqtader al-Sadr were able to be successfully neutralized without American marines-or Iraqi Defense Forces-physically storming the Imam Ali Shrine.

The IDF were able to force the surrender of Palestinian terrorists who had taken the Church of the Nativity hostage, without adding to the destruction already inflicted by the Fatah gangsters who had seized control of it.

Comparing one situation with another is outright idiocy. Please dont get me started on American human rights abuse in Iraq or that of Isreali army in Palestine. One or two incidents that ended well means nothing.

The seminal event of Indira Gandhi's domestic agenda was not a display of strong-willed leadership, so much as it was a confirmation of the fact that her primary method of negotiation was the application of brute force.

Definitely not. I have to disagree with you there. It is because of her strong-willed leadership that Bangladesh exists and Kashmir is still with us. It was because of her that India today is able to protect herself with military might and do not have to rely on "passive resistance". And it was she who gave India her first nuclear test notwithstanding world opinion going against her. And it she who chose not to negotiate with terrorists and paid the price for that with her life but she stands vindicated in sofar as her stand against terrorism is concerned. India has learned a hard lesson that you cannot have dialog or negotiation with terrorists. Her "socialist" policies may not always be the correct choice for India but nevertheless in difficult times SHE is the leader that I would like to have for India.

[risk]

So you think what America is doing in Iraq is abusive? You think what Israel does on the strategic West Bank, in Gaza where the Egyptians have rolled through to grasp at their throats, and Jerusalem - which is their own traditional capital city, is inhumane?

Do tell us more. We'd love to hear all about it.

[Gengis Khan]

Yep buddy, dont deny there havent been any human rights abuses by Americans army Iraq or by Isreali army in Palestine or else you would be lying. Wanna hear more? Hear it from your own press. The argument here is not about human righta abuses, the point is that when you point fingers at others you mustn't forget that a few fingers are pointing back at you. If Indian government committed a few human rights violations then so did every body else and much more than what we did.

[risk]

You're equivocating.

[Gengis Khan]

No, India was already cozied up to the USSR by then. But again, please don't trouble me with India's internal problems during the Cold War. The communists were busy murdering 100 million people all over the planet We had many, many, many more serious issues to worry about besides India's internal issues. I'm sorry you're not happy with America's decisions regarding India's indecision, but you were too busy to be troubled with global freedom. We on the other hand, were financing and dying all over the planet to save it from communism.

 

Do you have any idea what "red" communism could have done to our world? We would have turned into the "Red Planet".  Thanks, you guys financed and died all over the planet to save us!

Just one advise:  Dont open you mouth too wide or you might swallow the whole planet. (after doing so much)

 

Yup India's problems are too petty dont bother yourself with it. Concentrate on the larger picture the good of all "humanity". You must fulfill you grand, noble mission of saving this world. Dont let petty third world massacres and genocides bother ya. And if you are expecting help from Indians I have a bad news for you buddy, Indians unfortunately dont share your grand delusions.

 

My people are fighting for their lives and the lives and freedom of everyone on the planet.

 

Oh I am sooooo touched! I wish I could help you some way. Okay here is another advise: Cut down on the alcohol.