South Asia News
Indo-Pakistan tensions rise after Mumbai attacks (2nd Roundup)
Dec 2, 2008, 15:38 GMT
Candles are lit outside Taj Mahal Hotel during a vigil in memory of victims killed by terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, 02 December 2008. EPA/STR
New Delhi/Islamabad - Tension escalated Tuesday between India and Pakistan as New Delhi mounted pressure on its neighbour to act against the suspected masterminds of the Mumbai terrorist attacks
India expected Pakistan to take action against these elements, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee told television channels NDTV and CNN-IBN, adding that the current atmosphere may not be conducive to pursuing peace talks.
'We have no intention of not carrying out the peace process,' Mukherjee told NDTV. But he added that if the incidents are not clarified they 'create an atmosphere in which it becomes difficult to carry on the normal business, including the peace process.'
India and Pakistan have, since 2004, been engaged in a bilateral dialogue to resolve differences over disputed borders, the contested region of Kashmir and joint use of rivers.
Mumbai police chief Hasan Gafoor said the police had 'hard evidence' that 10 heavily armed gunmen had come to Mumbai from Pakistan's port city of Karachi by a sea route with the intention of creating havoc and killing as many people as possible.
He said the one terrorist captured had said he was from Pakistan's Punjab province.
According to the police, 188 people were killed and more than 300 injured as the terrorists fired automatic weapons and lobbed grenades in chosen locations across south Mumbai including two five star hotels, the city's main railway station and a Jewish centre.
The terrorists stand-off with the security forces continued from late Wednesday to Saturday.
The Mumbai police chief said information was being shared with security agencies across the world.
India's Foreign Ministry summoned Pakistan's envoy in New Delhi on Monday and informed the envoy that the Mumbai attacks were carried out by elements based in Pakistan and demanded action.
The envoy was also given a list of 20 wanted men, including the chief of the Lashkar-e-Taiba militant organization and Mumbai crime lord Dawood Ibrahim, the alleged mastermind of the 1993 Mumbai bombings.
Investigations into the Mumbai terrorist attacks, including interrogation of the captured terrorist, have indicated the involvement of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamic militant group based in Pakistan, media reports said.
India was awaiting a response from Pakistan on the requested extraditions, Mukherjee said earlier.
India also told the Pakistani envoy that if Islamabad wanted to improve relations, it must back up its January 2004 pledge to not allow its territory to be used for attacks against India.
'The international community is behind us, including the newly elected US president Barack Obama,' the Indian foreign minister said.
Asked if India was contemplating military action against Pakistan, 'What will be done only time will show and you will get to know,' Mukherjee said.
He later told NDTV: 'Every sovereign country has the right to protect its territorial integrity and take appropriate action when it feels it necessary...'
In Islamabad, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said, 'In this crucial situation the two sides should exhibit tolerance, patience and seriousness, and blame game and finger-pointing should be avoided.'
Pakistani officials had earlier warned that heightened tensions with India could force Pakistan to withdraw troops from the Afghan front.
Qureshi, in a policy statement, said Pakistan's response and attitude in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks was 'balanced, measured and conciliatory.'
The government of Pakistan had offered India 'a joint investigating mechanism, a joint commission,' he said. 'We are ready to jointly get to the bottom of this matter.'
Qureshi did not mention India's extradition demand.
He said Pakistan's government and army were united and fully capable of defending 'Pakistan's borders, Pakistan's geography and ideology.'
The Pakistani government is also holding a meeting of all national parties in Islamabad to discuss the tensions with India following the Mumbai attacks.
Nuclear-armed neighbours India and Pakistan have fought three wars since independence from colonial rule in 1947, two of them over the disputed Kashmir region.
The US government, which is trying to calm down both the countries, urged Pakistan to help India investigate.
'I don't want to jump to any conclusions myself on this, but I do think that this is a time for complete, absolute, total transparency and cooperation,' US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said in London.
Rice is scheduled to arrive in New Delhi Wednesday for talks with Indian leaders, according to an Indian Foreign Ministry statement. Pakistani media reports said Rice may also visit Islamabad.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in South Asia
- 1. Sri Lanka leftist party says leader, activist are abducted
- 2. US agrees to let Afghan forces take lead in night raids
- 3. India, Pakistan leaders want better ties
- 4. Pilot killed in crash of Bangladesh Air Force jet
- 5. Pakistani president visits India for lunch meeting, prayers
Older Talkback
page: 1
Pakistan's a hair away from being a failed state with a nuclear arsenal. The government has little or no control over its own territory. Corruption is total, everyone is playing both sides.
But yeah, Lance, you can't hold their government responsible. And since what's left of their government is the only thing holding back a full-scale nuclear jihad, let's give 'em the benefit of the doubt.
I'm just wondering, though...at what point WOULD you actually hold them responsible? Say the radical religious elements take power in Islamabad next year and a group of pakistanis slip into mumbai with a nuclear bomb, which would obviously have been provided by their government. At that point, is retaliation justifiable? What if there was a note attached and the Pakistani government claimed credit for it. Would invasion be justifiable then?
Is it ever justifiable, in your view? Or are you of the mind that it's better to be attacked over and over, and ultimately to die, rather than fight back?
Blame Pakistan if you like but I blame Islam and that liar and psycopath called Muhammed.
muslim are as muslims do..
Being a muslim today is an embarrassment to humanity, and a disgrace to mankind. Appently pakistan will protect this criminal group. This pathetic religion sticks together like dirt to an anal cavity.
Like I always say, and the comments above prove:
This is a war of christian v.s. muslim. For the most part: Christians hate muslims and the main strategy christians use to get their way is: hypocrisy.
They kill muslims using jesus-bombs with the left hand, while extending the offer of food and charity with the right hand; while all the time ignoring what they do with the left hand and only talking up right-handed actions.
Hypocrisy through and through. It is the hypocrisy of christians that promotes the problems and injustices of the world.
Lance, I'm an atheist, and you didn't answer any of my questions.
'Lance, I'm an atheist, and you didn't answer any of my questions.'
Atheist do the same thing.
Hypocrisy is not limited to one form of 'faith', and for certain: Atheism is a faith: The faith that something does not exist. I am always humored by atheist that think they are better than christians. Mainly atheist think they have achieved enlightenment because they perceive reality the way it is, but little do they understand that their reality is based on the faith that something does not exist. It is an unprovable proposition.
Sure, atheist can and do use hypocrisy as a tool for power as well.
I find it ironic that the U.S. government has a 'faith based initiative' that excludes atheists as atheism is a faith and any institution based on atheism should be included in a 'faith based initiative', including secularism which is a faith that neutrality of religion is right. The real interpretation of 'faith based initiative' is an initiative to promote the values of the religion that people doing the promoting consider to be a faith. Faith in jesus as our lord and savior is the faith they refer to. Double talk and hypocrisy through and through. They say they want freedom of religion but what they really mean is freedom to be christian ... and freedom to do away with pagans.
'Would invasion be justifiable then?'
I really think you are taking the wrong approach and asking the wrong questions. Infact, your approach and your outlook is self-fulfilling. Your future and your destiny is one of conflict, war and intolerance.
It is a fact that the very people you partner with have provided the nuclear weapons for the destruction you speak of. You are your own worst enemy.
Well, Lance, thanks for the diatribe wherein, without knowing me at all, you act like you understand my beliefs and then spend three paragraphs equating atheists (lit: people who don't believe in God -- does not specify what they do believe in) with Christians and then insinuating that everybody who isn't you is either stupid or corrupt.
You've proven that you're insane.
What you didn't do was answer the simple question I asked: What level of attack should a country be willing to suffer before it retaliates against a neighboring country which harbors and arms its attackers?
That's a pretty simple, straightforward geopolitical question. If you can't answer it, all your blowhard posturing and off-topic raving isn't worth much.
it is none sense to say harsh thing about any religion rather its is Islam or christian its about terrorism or humanity the people who talk about religion in this case are extremist
page: 1
lanceDec 2nd, 2008 - 21:09:35
What? No knee jerk reaction to bomb Pakistan, kill any opposers and then take over their country?
How un-American.
Report this comment