India wants Pakistan crackdown on rebels

upi.com ^ | Nov. 8, 2007

[Tailgunner Joe]

NEW DELHI, Nov. 8 (UPI) -- India says it will persuade Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to crack down on Islamist militants following the imposition of emergency rule in the country.

The Indian assessment of the declaration of emergency in Pakistan is centered on the fact New Delhi will concentrate its energies on persuading Musharraf to go after rebels, The Times of India reported Thursday.

According to the Indian Foreign Office, the government will once again demonstrate that its foreign policy in the neighborhood is governed by more realistic considerations. It will have few qualms living with a military-led Pakistan provided Musharraf expands the crackdown he has planned against militants to include anti-India groups as well.

[Tailgunner Joe]

India holds its tongue on Pakistan - Uday Bhaskar, an independent defense analyst, said it was India's "standard operating procedure" not to interfere in the internal political affairs of its neighbors, given that most of them are not democracies. "Traditionally India has never made democracy the single issue on which to shape its response," he said.

"There is always this anxiety that words will be overinterpreted or misconstrued and that India will be seen as interfering, or playing big brother," he said.

India's opposition parties have been much more vocal in their condemnation of events in Pakistan than the government. Officials from the rightist Bharatiya Janata Party and the Communist party have separately called on Musharraf to restore democracy.

But because of Pakistan's geopolitical importance to India, the Delhi government prefers to maintain a pragmatic relationship with whomever is in power there, regardless of democratic credentials.

"We have been doing business with the military there for many decades," Bhaskar said.

[AU72]

"We have been doing business with the military there for many decades,"

For sure. Just ask the former East Pakistan.

[Brad from Tennessee]

New Delhi is closer to the action than the Capitol building in D.C. or to Times Square in New York. I’ll take the Indians’ assessment over the hand-wringing whining coming from Congress and the news media.

[JeeperFreeper]

It still gives me the vapors when I recollect how close India and Pakistan came to exchanging nuclear missiles in 2001. IMHO, that’s where the next use of nuclear weapons will start, likely within the 5-10 years. From there one hopes the conflagaration does not spread to India-China, the Formosa Strait, and so forth and so on.

[CarrotAndStick]

For the record, Delhi and New Delhi are different cities. It is irritating to see journalists substitute one for the other. India’s capital is New Delhi, not (old) Delhi.

[LeoWindhorse]

I’m sure both Delhi and Islamobad could use some urban renewal

[Wuli]

“India wants Pakistan crackdown on rebels”

Which could possibly be even more difficult after “elections”; that’s Pakistani elections that India’s diplomats say the U.S. should be pressing harder for.

Me thinks they know the score in Pakistan and yet are a little schizophrenic on how seriously they think “cracking down on rebels” can be pursued by Pakistan.

They certainly will not get more “crackdown” on Pakistani “rebels” from an “elected”, yet more fundamentalist Pakistan.

Pakistan’s only hope is a coalition of Musharraf (the military) and the so-called secular moderates demonstrating against him - and even that can only be a hope.

But divided, there will be no hope, they will give the country to fundamentalists; with the likelihood of Musharraf or another general instituting another period of martial law, as the only way to avoid a civil war, with their nukes at stake.

[Gengis Khan]

“They certainly will not get more “crackdown” on Pakistani “rebels” from an “elected”, yet more fundamentalist Pakistan.”

An elected government would either go against the terrorist (at least far better then the two faced Musharraf) if moderated are elected.........

Or would directly say “NO” if hardliners are elected.

Either ways they would come clean on the issue. That would be far easier to deal with then Musharraf who plays both sides.

BTW anyone knowledgeable on Pakistan knows there are no “seculars” in Pakistan. Just Islamic moderates and Islamic radicals.

[Gengis Khan]

India’s foreign policy for dummies:

To Pakistan and Burma......

India doesnt give a rats @ss how you want to f*ck around with your country, just reign in the terrorists and we wont bother you. And trust me, you dont want to be bothered by India.

Clear, simple and consistent policy.

[Wuli]

“Either ways they would come clean on the issue. That would be far easier to deal with then Musharraf who plays both sides.”

I cannot disagree with that, but, I believe (1) the Pakistani military establishment is not willing to serve an elected fundamentalist government and the west is even further away from even thinking of dealing with a Pakistan that “comes clean” as a bonified, elected, fundamentalist Pakistan. That is why I see nothing positive in the short run unless the military establishment and the Bhutto types can make and alliance and actually achieve an elected government with it.

“BTW anyone knowledgeable on Pakistan knows there are no “seculars” in Pakistan. Just Islamic moderates and Islamic radicals.”

There are some “secular” voices in Pakistan, but two decades of rising fundamentalist influence places their mostly secular perspective in the shadows more often - like a “don’t ask don’t tell” type of environment. They have their private voice and they have their public face. They are easier to find in staffs behind the public figures than in public figures themselves; because their actual voice is only heard privately and among trusted circles of associates. Unfortunately, for Pakistan, they are also among those who most readily migrate out of Pakistan.