Indian PM: Pak rejection of joint patrols a ploy to push rebels

The Times of India ^ | 6.5.02

[mhking]

Pak rejection of joint patrol a ploy to push rebels: PM

AFP [ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 05, 2002  9:31:59 PM ]

NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on Wednesday said Islamabad's rejection of Indian proposal for joint patrols to curb militancy in Kashmir showed that Pakistan was opposed to steps to stem infiltration in the state.

Vajpayee on his return from a summit in Kazakhstan said, he had heard from the media in Almaty of Pakistan's rejection of India's proposals for joint patrolling of Kashmir's borders.

"This means they (Pakistan) do not want verification. This is one of the ways of verification and if they reject it, it shows that things have not changed," Vajpayee said in New Delhi.

"If it is agreed in principle that whatever claims are made and a verification is needed then ways can be found and joint patrolling is one of them," Vajpayee said. "We will be discussing this at length tomorrow."

Vajpayee, who at the Almaty summit attacked Pakistan and its President Pervez Musharraf for Islamabad's alleged backing of "cross-border terrorism," said, however, New Delhi was opposed to any international participation in joint border patrols.

"The question of third-party verification does not arise," Vajpayee said on his arrival here.

He argued that infiltration of rebels from Pakistan had not stopped in Kashmir.

"Pakistan has said that it has stopped infiltrations on the border. This is something he (Musharraf) has repeated often even to our friends and do we not believe this at its face value.

"We have told them that we required verification. We have talked of various forms of verification and joint patrolling is one of them.

"There is pressure on Pakistan and that is why they are being forced to say time and again that infiltration has stopped."

Vajpayee said the Almaty summit had increased pressure on Musharraf's military regime to end its support for cross-border militancy.

"We believe that international pressure intensified on Pakistan at the summit conference and that is why it has had to repeat that there was peace on the borders and that there was no infiltration (of militants in Kashmir)," Vajpayee said.

In Washington, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said, there was "nothing inevitable" about war since Vajpayee had made the offer of joint patrols with Pakistan.

"There is nothing inevitable about war," Powell told US broadcaster National Public Radio.

[mhking]

Sounds distantly related to the old Klingon battle cry, "Today IS a good day to die..." Vajpayee and Musharraf may get to put that into play pretty soon if Rumsfeld can't knock some sense into these two.

[Starwind]

There is a similar thread from earlier this morning here

Interesting that no Pakistan news sources have confirmed any of this, just one vague AP report of the Pakistani position.

[CatoRenasci]

Here it is

[Dog Gone]

India is sure quick to say that Pakistan rejected the idea, when they didn't say that at all.

India: "Let's have joint patrols."

Pakistan: "Hmmm, we have some reservations about that, but let's discuss it."

India: "Aha! You rejected our proposal you scum, now you must die."

[Free the USA]

Bump list

[Dog Gone]

Vajpayee on his return from a summit in Kazakhstan said, he had heard from the media in Almaty of Pakistan's rejection of India's proposals for joint patrolling of Kashmir's borders.

"This means they (Pakistan) do not want verification. This is one of the ways of verification and if they reject it, it shows that things have not changed," Vajpayee said in New Delhi.

This is a good example of why Rumsfeld and Armitage need to sit down with these boys. Vajpayee relies on the Indian reporters to tell him that Pakistan rejected the proposal, and then he proceeds to shoot his mouth off in response. It never dawns on him the Indian reporters might not be completely accurate in their characterization. He must believe that the Indian press is unbiased.

Then Vajpayee jumps to the conclusion that Pakistan doesn't want verification. Never mind that for weeks Pakistan has been offering verification by the presence of British and American observers. Naw, if Pakistan hasn't immediately and unconditionally accepted the Indian way of verification, then it's clear that Pakistan is sending waves of terrorists into Kashmir every day.

Maybe we can knock some sense into these two leaders because it's pretty clear that neither one has much now.

[mikeIII]

It is magnanimous of the Indian Prime Minister to even suggest joint patrols after it has been established and admitted by the Pakis that they have been promoting terrorism acvross the border. No one trusts this two-bit lying dictator who is sitting on a pile of nukes and a bigger pile of Islamist terrorists and scumbags.

[Dog Gone]

Yes, it was. Too bad the Indians decided that Pakistanis rejected it. Of course, the Indians DID reject the Pakistani's offer for international monitors, which would have been a good idea, too.

[RightWhale]

The question of third-party verification does not arise

The UN already has field stations in the region. Guess: they aren't getting the job done.

[mikeIII]

Why is this a third party issue? It is a matter internal to India! Just becauyse today Kashmir has a majority of Muslims and Pak is Islamic does not mean it has any say in the matter, much less foist unrest and promote cross-border terrorism!

[Dog Gone]

It's not inherently a third party issue. Frankly, I don't think country outside of Pakistan or India really gives a rat's *ss who ends up with Kashmir. I know I don't.

But, if you have two parties who clearly don't trust each other, but trust a third party, it's completely normal for a third party to get involved.

It's the same principle as why we have referees and umpires for sporting events.

[mikeIII]

Bad example! Referees are for maintaining "equality" and it works when the 2 parties have had the same head start. In this case a "referee" would merely settle the issue temporarily to avert a current crisis, only to blow up another day!

[Dog Gone]

Probably, but we have to take this one step at a time. The immediate goal (for the US, not the Indian hardliners) is to defuse the current situation. Avert a war.

These two countries have a lot of different issues to resolve, but the most pressing one, at least according to the Indians, is cross-border terrorism. India is willing to deal with the problem of terrorists already in the country, but it wants some assurance that no more are coming in from Pakistan.

Fair enough. So how do we assure that no terrorists cross anymore? Ideally, the Indians and Pakistanis work together to prevent it. Joint patrols, like the Indians proposed. You'd almost have to set up a DMZ to do it, back troops off the LoC, and set some ground rules.

But you could also do it with some international observers. They could do the same thing, and you wouldn't have the problem that the joint patrols have, which is that they hate each other's guts and have been shelling each other for years.

Maybe you go with international monitors first, get the border sealed, cool off some tensions, and then negotiate the joint patrol idea. Why not? It's just a step.