What does Pakistan want from U.S. envoy Holbrooke ?

January 30, 2009

Former Pakistan ambassador to London and Washington Maleeha
Lodhi has given a taste of what Richard Holbrooke can expect when
he makes his maiden visit to Islamabad next week in his new role as
President Barack Obama’s special envoy to Pakistan and

She may have owed her diplomatic career to General Pervez Musharraf,  but being an ex-official does not mean she has lost touch.

Writing in The News, the paper she used to edit, Lodhi listed an eight-point agenda for Pakistan as it braces for Holbrooke, a diplomat with a reputation for playing hardball.

Lines have to be drawn to make the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and understand the limits of cooperation, Lodhi writes in an opinion piece titled “Back to the Future”.

Here’s the Pakistani agenda as she sees it :
1. U.S. missile attacks on Pakistani territory should end.
2. Assistance under the Biden-Luger bill should be offered
with no strings attached.
3. Give Pakistan helicopters, night vision, radar to fight a counter-insurgency, it doesn’t need conventional arms from America.
4. Give Pakistan a break in trade agreements. The all- important textile industry needs a lifeline.
5. Make India part of the equation for stabilising Kashmir, by recognising Pakistan’s security concerns on its eastern border.
6. The United States should reshape its Afghan policy to take into account Pakistan’s security concerns, otherwise no strategy will work.
7. Pakistan must also tell the United States that sending more troops to Afghanistan without a change in strategy will backfire.
8. Policies to stabilise Afghanistan should not end up destabilising Pakistan. The Taliban should be prised away from al Qaeda, and a reconciliation process with the Taliban begun.

President Asif Ali Zardari in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post also covered some of that ground, urging the new U.S. administration to boost both military and non-military aid to help Pakistan fight extremists. “Give us the tools and we will get the job done,” he wrote.

And he made clear too he expected Holbrooke to work with both Pakistan and India on the issue of Kashmir, although as special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, India was technically not part of his remit.

 ”Much as the Palestine issue remains the core obstacle to peace in the Middle East, the question of Kashmir must be addressed in some meaningful way to bring stability to the region,” Zardari said.

Reasonable expectations of a sovereign nation ? Or is the time for expectations over ?

[Pics of Richard Holbrooke and a protest in Karachi against U.S. missile strikes in the northwest]


Personally knowing some ex-MQM workers, they indeed did confirm cash and lodging from India (however denied any training or weapons given, though this accusation is very frequent especially in regards to the BLA).

However apart from Wikipedia here’s some stuff about RAW from some sources. You can decide on the credibility.

http://www.dailymuslims.com/News-Article s/559.html
Quotes made by a US Lawmaker (I don’t know his integrity)

Intelligence Resource Program from the Federation of American Scientists

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/raw1 .html
Can’t vouch for the reliability but this Panama martinfrost.ws website is recommended as an information aggregate

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/wor ld/india/raw.htm
A world security watchdog.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/raw .html
Council of Foreign Affairs, pretty much the same as global security.

I think the 2 reasons why RAW isn’t in the headlines compared to most intelligence agencies is probably because of its lack of notoriety (using already existing legit groups to advance agenda, rather than creating new ones) and recent intelligence failures such as Sri Lanka making it irrelevant infront of the public with corruption reinforcing that attitude. Of course this is my opinion NOT fact.

RAW is shouldn’t be singled out for all the intelligence failures. Its primary responsibility IS NOT homeland security. Those responsiblities belong to other Indian departments.

What I know of 1965 is different to the majority of Pakistanis and is a touchy issue. I’m surprised that you are taught that it is a win for India. Pakistan claims the same thing. However, in truth it was a draw because of the truce. BUT had the war gone on for another week, Pakistan would have eventually run out and not made it. On this basis, many in Pakistan celebrate it as a victory (National Defence Day) because they didn’t have the size to survive (over a week) an Indian attack, but managed to do so. Many in Pakistan believe they won out and out (as in destroyed Indian forces), and the rest believe the win was in the survival (repelled the attack). However most do not know how it happened and simply claim invasion.

It was instigated by Pakistan in Operation Grand Slam in Kashmir. It was a resounding success. However Ayub Khan’s boldness for such an attack was an assumption that India would not cross international borders. Which was wrong, as they did because India viewed and still views Kashmir as its territory. Reached very close to Lahore? They WERE just outside! Incredible luck for Pakistanis had to do with an Indian Commander’s false judgment of entrapment…because it was too EASY! Luckily PAF sent out jets and blew up the bridges to Lahore before ground forces could ‘walk’ into the city. So back and forth for over a week, each side claiming victory for each battle. UN steps in and truce. Though both Indians and Pakistanis are infatuated with the aerial dog fights, I think the battle of the tanks is something that most do not know about which perhaps was the greatest tank assaults in history.

Posted by Saf | Report as abusive

“…easterparts which are now owned by non-state actors…”
by Anitha.

lol. non-state actors?! Just as crazy as insurgents, extraordinary renditioin, weapons of mass destruction, etc!

Posted by Saf | Report as abusive

Bangash Khan:
“Indians need to learn that Pakistan is owned by …..PAKISTANIS. Always has been and always will be.

Holbrooke should push India to conduct a referendum in Kashmir on what the Kashmiris want, that will solve the problem once and for all. Otherwise if Holbrooke simply targets Pakistan, he will not succeed.”

Kashmir is an integral part and union of India. There is no question of referendum, as of 1947 Jammu and Kashmir are unseparable part of India.

By sponsoring Mumbai terrorist attacks, Pakistan has degraded its status from a “friendly” neighbor seeking good relations, to a pariah terrorist state undeserving of Indian friendship in all areas, trade, sports, cultral, people to people.

Considering this reality on the ground, Obama has wisely and strictly advised Holbrooke to stay away from Kashmir as this is a bilateral issue per 1972 Simla accord.

Once again Pakistan’s gamble of killing 172 civilians in Mumbai has earned it nothing but hate and scorn from the civilized nations around the world and taken Kashmir out of its reach forever. Holbrooke does not want a failed legacy, so he will wisely stay away from Bill Clinton era tactics and antics.
Nathuram Waghmare

Posted by Nathuram Waghmare | Report as abusive

Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke- A key player in government’s decision-making as the conflict in Vietnam escalated, Key advisor to propagate the war in Iraq & Afghanistan, East Timor controversy, Karadži? controversy, the Balkanisation etc.
- Posted by Anup

In that case, he’s PERFECT for Pakistan! lol. Peace Prize for Bosnia? I didn’t know a contribution to blanket bombing Serbs was regarded highly!

Nah, I kid. I’m grateful for the guy and the US helping out the Croats and Muslims (though probably more to do with sticking it to the Russians), but they bombed the Serbs BAD, not that they didn’t deserve it, but still that be the most violent candidate I’ve heard of.

Posted by Saf | Report as abusive

Obama and Holbrooke both know Kashmir is part of India itself. They don’t want to appear stupidly foolish by falling into the Pakistani trap and raise the Kashmir issue after Pakistani nationals murdered 172 civilians from 10 nations in Mumbai. The Americans would be rewarding Pakistani and as much as Pakistan wants it, the Americans are not that stupid to follow Nixon’s 1971 stupidity to cross Indians and support Pakistani slaughter of Bangladeshis and their antisemetic terrorism in Mumbai.

Holbrooke is a much more intelligent diplomat than Pakistanis give him credit for. By sponsoring Mumbai attacks on civilians Pakistanis have forever lost Indian good will and earned hate and scorn from all civilized nations. Stop dreaming about other’s property and mind your on country. Kashmir is now off the table for good after Mumbai.

What is this nonsense I hear about “sovreign nation” and “drones” in FATA??
Hon. President and Commander-In-Chief of the the most powerful Superpower in the Universe is a paying customer of Pakistan (some $20 billion US taxpayers monies, most of which is and was used for nefarious puposes and stolen by your leaders), and as such he or his surrogates, the CIA have every right to bend Pakistan a little and penetrate from behind into Pakistan’s “hot-bed”, FATA, as many times a day as he pleases, as agreed upon by your leaders.

Before Pakistanis start to complain about drones, get sore and uncomfortable, consider this , your own leadership declares every day “we Pakistanis are victims of terrorism” and “US must invest in Pakistan so the hopeless youth stop getting recuited as terrorists”.
After what the terrorists did to your other leader Benazir Bhutto, Pakistanis ought to be thankful to Obama for hitting the bad guys, but instead you are ungrateful? With “allies” like you who needs enemies right?

If you want America to give you unlimited Dollars in aid, then play by Obama’s rules. Its not that hard to understand. How else is America going to trust Pakistan with nukes and all the F22s and F35s you want, when you fail such basic test? Instead you give America a reason for distrust and are backing off from your ‘front-line ally” status already by not standing with USA and fighting shoulder to shoulder. How? By torching USA’s 250 loaded military trucks in Karachi and Peshawar enroute to Afghanistan based US troops. Do you think this is a good way to extract favors or money ot of a very kind friend and Superpower USA. You guys are really getting stupid!

Even Pakistan’s “all weather” and BFF China backed off helping Pakistan after what you guys did in Mumbai, evidence as seen and verfified by the EU and USA as Pakistani supported terror ativity.
Well I hope Almighty give Pakistani people the smarts to choose wisely to avoid disasters in your path, because your so called “leaders” will be enjoying wine with the Sheiks in Dubai when US or one of Pakistan’s neigbor does throw a “game-changer” at you to alter history and geography of Pakistan forever.
I pray to God that day never comes – but as you know some times prayers do get unanswere
Nathuram Waghmare

Posted by Nathuram Waghmare | Report as abusive

Nathuram Waghmare,

its really late on my side to reply in full, but no it wasn’t State sponsored. And you stereotyped everyone from government to layman to terrorist into one ball, not fair at all. You’re not being practical if you think Kashmir is going off the table and freezing our relationships isn’t going to help anyone. And no, those aren’t genuine prayers or sincere goodwill.

Posted by Saf | Report as abusive

AQ Khan meeting Laden is unlikely considering his dealings were purely for nuclear advancement and he had ties with Iraq.
- Posted by Saf

—-Saif: If I remember correctly the name of the scientist that met AlQaida is Mohammed (mentined in the NY article as mentally unstable scientist). So that must be before his arrest.
See this 2001 Dawn interview where OBL claims he has some nuke.
I doubt that but there must be some basis like the hope of obtaining from this above-name scientist.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

Though both Indians and Pakistanis are infatuated with the aerial dog fights, I think the battle of the tanks is something that most do not know about which perhaps was the greatest tank assaults in history.
- Posted by Saf

Saf: There is nothing like a draw. The claims can be overestimated but the balance of success tilted towards India due to the size and the kind of areas India held. Oops did I touch sensitive subject :-)

I agree with the tank fight. That was major. 3rd time writing this that Indian control was so complete that even my uncle who is a civilian went on the outskirts of Lahore–he still tells me his story. Pak tried to do to Amritsar what India did to Lahore. The khemkaran was the place where pak forces reached and were successfully pushed back (facts). Pak’s proud patton tanks and other tanks were destroyed or captured alive/working. Not to get into this sensitive topic :-)

Your message reminded me of my school text book about Indian soldier–all Pakistanis sit tight for the obvious reasons. The name was Abdul Hamid, a Havildar. he won posthumously the highest military award PVC for his achievemnts in Indo-Pak 1965 War. Oh I loved this story and read over and over.

“Although his citation gives him credit for only 3 Tanks destroyed, it is confirmed that he had destroyed no less than 7 enemy tanks [1]. This is because the citation for Abdul Hamid’s PVC was sent on the evening on 9 September 1965 but he destroyed 3 more tanks on the next day, plus the seventh one which also killed him. PVC Abdul Hamid’s actions exposed an important vulnerability in the Patton M48 and after the 1965 war, the M48 was largely forced into extinction from military use around the world and replaced by the M60. India set up a war memorial named “Patton Nagar” (“Patton Town”) in Khemkaran District, where the captured Pakistani Patton tanks are displayed. A U.S. study of the battles in South Asia concluded that weaker areas of the Patton’s armor (such as rear and sides) could in fact be penetrated by the 84mm 20 pounder guns of the Centurion and the 75mm guns of the AMX-13.The patton tank used in war were given by china.”

The citation for the Param Vir Chakra awarded to him reads:

4 GRENADIERS (NO 2639985)
At 0800 hours on 10 September 1965 Pakistan forces launched an attack with a regiment of Patton tanks on a vital area ahead of village Cheema on the Bhikkiwind road in the Khem Karam Sector. Intense artillery shelling preceded the attack. The enemy tanks penetrated the forward position by 0900 hours. Realising the grave situation, Company Quarter Master Havildar Abdul Hamid who was commander of an RCL gun detachment moved out to a flanking position with his gun mounted on a jeep, under intense enemy shelling and tank fire. Taking an advantageous position, he knocked out the leading enemy tank and then swiftly changing his position, he sent another tank up in flames. By this time the enemy tanks in the area spotted him and brought his jeep under concentrated machine-gun and high explosive fire. Undeterred, Company Quarter Master Havildar Abdul Hamid kept on firing on yet another enemy tank with his recoilless gun. While doing so, he was mortally wounded by an enemy high explosive shell.

Havildar Abdul Hamid’s brave action inspired his comrades to put up a gallant fight and to beat back the heavy tank assault by the enemy. His complete disregard for his personal safety during the operation and his sustained acts of bravery in the face of constant enemy fire were a shining example not only to his unit but also to the whole division and were in the highest traditions of the Indian Army.”

Here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_Qua rter_Master_Havildar_Abdul_Hamid

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

I think the 1965 was a draw .
What you said is all true but not the complete truth.
India was stopped just outside of Lahore. Pak wanted to do a lahore but failed. India prematurely (Yes AGAIN!) ceasefired. 1 More week of war would have led to surrender of Pakistan. Pakistan had used most of her ammunition by that time.
@ Saf
Operation Gibraltar was a failure. All the strategic goals set by Pakistan for 1965 wars were not met. So claiming victory is just a wishful thinking.

Read the Wiki article that is probably most balanced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakist ani_War_of_1965

Posted by chirkut | Report as abusive

Since you asked about my views on the 1965 war,I will try to express some of my personal views and I will quote a few of my sources-all of the sources are Pakistani.

My personal view is like this. The war had been akin to that of a chess game. Pakistan started aggressively-operation Grandslam and operation Gibraltar-like many of us try to attack the opposition queen immediately at the second move itself,but India’s stance had been all defense. Because Pakistan tried to attack the queen,it lost many of its own pawns and exposed its defense vulnerability. India took advantage of it and tried to do a checkmate. But the patriotic Pakistani pawns built a castle around their king and finally convinced India for a draw.
But I don’t agree with the Pakistan army trying to feed ignorance to its people by hiding the fiasco of the Operation Gibraltar. Qadir, Brigadier (retd) Shaukat says “Whatever his [Ayub’s] reasons, Pakistan went into Operation Gibraltar without any preliminary preparations and undertook a guerrilla operation inside IHK with a large number of regular soldiers, some SSG elements and a smattering of irregulars, expecting to be welcomed by the local population and raise them up in arms against the Indian government. They were destined to be rudely disillusioned. Far from rising up in arms, the local population denied any support and, in many instances handed over the infiltrators to Indian troops”

I will quote a little more from Mehmal Sarfraz,Deputy Editor,the Post ,”A little more than two weeks into the battle and it was quite evident to Ayub that the army was running out of logistics – ammunition, fuel, food, etc. It is reported that during the war, the American ambassador said to Ayub Khan, “They [the Indians] have got you by the throat Mr President, don’t they?” or words to that effect. It is ironic that when our fairweather ‘friend’ the US decided to leave us in the lurch, the communist Soviet Union came to our aid and helped broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan.”

I am pretty convinced that General Mushraff-or whoever advised him badly-himself was ignorant about the 1965 war. Else there would have been no kargil War-1965 part 2- at all.

Posted by mitchell | Report as abusive


Thanks for updating me on 1965 war, can you enlighten me with you independent views as to what prompted Pakistan to go for this war? Was it on the advise of American and Saudi masters of Pakistan ? I want to go into the back ground of this war and other wars as well, both India and Pakistan are the world’s poorest countries , we put in so much our precious resources in fighting each other for reason or rhymes , why this war was imposed on us ? What are the reasons why former USSR brokered peace ? it was widely reported in Indian media and our history books are full of the fact that Indian army was striking distance from Lahore or Islamabad ? Was Shastri, the then Indian Prime Minister really died of heart attack or he was forced to sign Tashkent Agreement much against his will , which resulted in a massive heart attack to him? These are some of the facts,where I want an independent opinion .

Saf :

India is a poor country, when our security forces or intelligence agencies can not provide security to us, how can they launch sabotage or anti Pakistan activity inside Pakistan , perhaps occasionally , Indian agencies might have provided to media coverage to them , but mind it in the decades of seventies , or eighties or even early nineties, India was considered as Soviet block country , and in western media, India was treated as totally insignificant , it was only when our honeymoon with socialism was finished subsequent to fall of USSR, we launched massive massive economic reforms, the world realized the immense potential of India and Indian economy. The west or US is listening to us not for love of India, but because we hold such a massive market , Pakistan is still their first love, in last 10 years, US has given more USD 10 billion as military aid , this is the blatant example of US love for Pakistan . If Pakistan is in a mess, nobody else is responsible but Pakistanis themselves . Please do not blame India for all the evils leading to growth of Islamic fundamentalism , or Talibans or economic mess or rise of MQM .

Posted by Manish | Report as abusive

Most of the following are my views, mostly collected from the sources which I trust is right . Ayub khan was actually egged on by Bhutto to infiltrate kashmir because he considered India was weak at that time. Why did he consider that India was weak?
The first reason is the over-confidence and some fool hardy beliefs. There is an old saying in Pakistan, ’Ten Indians are equivalent to one Pakistani Soldier’ .Many sepoys dumbly believed in those idiocy.
The second is Nehru’s India was militarily weak, instead of fighting China in 1962, India wanted American president JFK to intervene. But very unfortunately Nehru died in 1964 and L.B.Shastri had become the PM of India, so Pakistan misjudged that the current PM will also mostly defend rather than attack and that he will go begging after Soviet in case of a war .
The third and the most important reason is at that time Pakistani forces were technically superior compared to the out-of date Indian forces. I quote from the Indian express, “the Pakistani technology edge at that point was sweeping and could (should?) have been decisive. Its air force had operational supersonics (F-104 Starfighters) while the IAF was entirely subsonic. The PAF with its American Sidewinders was already in the missile age and more of its fighters were night-capable. Pakistan Navy had a submarine (Ghazi, sunk off Vizag in 1971) and the Indian Navy had none, it did not even have adequate sonars to detect it. Pakistan’s Pattons were the best tanks in the region, with night-vision capability, its special forces had the benefit of American training. Finally, the Pakistani generals certainly had more tactical dash, also because this war had been their idea, they had planned for it for at least a couple of years and, unlike India, they had a clear objective to grab Kashmir. For an entirely unprepared India, it was at best a defensive war”.
So for the adventurous Pakistanis ,they were not egged on by any nation ,it was their plan itself in the first place. They thought the US and China will help them in the long run. They started the war, the rest is history.
I again quote from the Indian express “Only when it seemed to be difficult to defend Kashmir in view of Pakistan’s near-breakthrough in Chhamb that Shastri decided to go on the offensive in Lahore and Sialkot. There, too, there was no real objective other than to carry out probing thrusts to force Pakistan to move forces away from the widening assault in Chhamb, and into defensive battles along Punjab.”
As far as USSR is concerned it did a very good job,trying to act like a big boss,but indeed a very good job-saved a lot of lives. Even though there were many Indian hawks trying to continue the war,I don’t think Shastri acted against his will,after all he is a Gandhian,isn’t he? But we must agree Pakistani sepoys who were willingly or unwillingly dragged into the war gave a very tough fight to secure their motherland from the advancing Indian forces. They did everything-even gave up their lives-to stop the Indian forces into entering Lahore,eventually most of them paid a price for their superior’s incompetency. So till today Pakistan celebrates Sep 6 as victory day not for Ayub or Bhutto but for the noble Sepoys.
Maybe Shastri’s heart attack was a coincidence,he might have been ill during the war itself,but Indians must have hidden the news(maybe the only truth censored by the Indians compared to the Pakistanis :) ) because it might have demoralized the forces.

Posted by mitchell | Report as abusive

Chirkut, Nikihil and Mitchell:
Yes 1965 war was stalemate but it was defeat of Pak hypothesis of the war: 1. since the defeat of India by China in 1962 (Chinese back stabbing) Pak had come to believe that Indian military would be unable or unwilling to defend against a quick military campaign in Kashmir, 2. perception that there was widespread popular support within for Pakistani rule and that the Kashmiri people were disatisfied with Indian rule and welcome Pak with open arms”

Neither of the above 2 turned out to be true.

Another neutral and good link is:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/w orld/war/indo-pak_1965.htm

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

I talked about why Pakistan started the war,but not on why Pakistan messed it up. My view is that if there was a single intelligent command in Pakistan at that time,today there would have been wonders. First of all there would have been no genocide in East Pakistan,Sheik Mujibur Rahman would have been the PM of Pakistan in 1970 and hence a ‘Bangladesh’ term wouldn’t have been coined at all. Some intelligent leader would have sparked series of non-violent protests in Kashmir-India can suppress violence brutally and efficiently but not peaceful protests,it is their own weapon.
Many of the Indians like to thrash Nehru for his incapability in handling border disputes .But I want to quote something from the opinion column in Dawn,which tells why Nehru was so important to India. I don’t think my Pakistani counterparts will like it.

“Why is Pakistan in such a precarious state at this time? There are many reasons for this. Of these three are particularly important. The first is the inability to develop a durable system of governance by laying the institutional foundation on which the structure of the state could be built. Second is the inability to come to terms with the structural problems that keep the economy excessively dependent on foreign largesse. Third is the absence of a foreign policy that could factor in the opportunities available to the country because of its location and not on the basis of fear of some immediate neighbours.

Leaders belonging to various Pakistani generations were so consumed with their quarrels that they did not turn their attention to the building of institutions. India, on the other hand, had the luxury of being led without interruptions of the kind for 17 years. Jawaharlal Nehru’s long rule resulted in the adoption of the constitution that provided a reasonable amount of security to most segments of the population and ensured respect for the constitution once he was no longer there.” by Shahid Javed Burki

Posted by mitchell | Report as abusive


Thanks for your views, perhaps some of them I donot agree, especially your views or perhaps the quotations from Pak news papers about Nehru. In India, we think 1962 war with China was eye opener, a wake up call, slogans or idealism can win you false accolades but can not build nation or defend the country against marauding enemy ,perhaps this was one of the reason for Nehru’s death . Post 1962, India with its limited resources , launched drive to build a military to defend its borders, Nehru was slowly loosing its grip on power . After his death in 1964, there was an attempt to instal Indira Gandhi as the PM , but it was not acceptable to a large section of the then congressmen , some Nehru loyalist found Shastri, which was so far living under shadow of Nehru, considered a weak man , a Nehru crony, was installed as PM . I donot know which institution , you are talking about ? Nehru never built any institution , but at that time, Indian politicians were very powerful, nationalist politicians like Lohia , Morarji desai, etc for them national interest was supreme than personal interest, as such the institutions were built and created . Indira Gandhi learn t from mistakes of her father, and after coming to power, the first action she took was to sideline all the politicians who are opposed to her policies , she then started destroying all the institutions, the judiciary , the institution of President, when she appointed Fakhruddin Ahmed as President, etc. India survived because , there are still good people left in the country. From time to time attempt were made to promote dynastic policies, but due to its diversity and intelligence of Indian voters , such attempts could not succeed .

Reverting back to Indo-Pak relationship, what needs to be done ,this is very important especially the design of Pak army, ISI, and their associates , a host of terrorist organisations are hell bent to destabilise India , 26/11 is blatant example of this machinations. The most surprising is the Pak Govt’s attempt to shield them , why are they doing so, what is their objective ? What do these terrorist want ? Can India and Pakistan ever live in peace ? can we instead of spending billion on arms and ammunition , use this money for economic development, alleviation of poverty, eradication of child labour, to educate women rather than killing them in the name of some filmsy religion or quoting from some obscure book?

Posted by Manish | Report as abusive

“I donot know which institution , you are talking about ? Nehru never built any institution ,…..”- Posted by Manish

Could not resist responding to above. while Nehru is known for his 1962 Indo-china war failure. He was big time into building strong infrastructure in Science and Technology. He set up the infrastrcuture on which India stands and is building uo today.

“He got together with people like Bhabha, Bhatnagar, Sarabhai, Krishnan and Mahalnobis to build the S and T infrastructure”

Thus Bhabha developed the nuclear industry–BARC

TIFR Bombay which he founded is today one of the prized assets of the country.

“Under him, Bhatnagar and Krishnan set up the CSIR chain of laboratories, more than 40 in number today, doing research from Aeronautics to Coconuts!”

The setting up of IITs

The space program under Sarabhai and Satish Dhawan- India’s pride in the form of ISRO.

The same goes for the efforts in the defense sector under Abdul Kalam

Bhakra –Nangal Project.
he said: “This dam has been built with the unrelenting toil of man for the benefit of mankind and therefore is worthy of worship. May you call it a Temple or a Gurdwara or a Mosque, it inspires our admiration and reverence”.

Built Chandigarh

The list goes on and those are his big acgievements and that’s what Pakistan did not do.

If you google, you’ll see a lot more info about Nehru’s such contributions.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive


I don’t blame India for all evils…just some…like Mugambo in the movie, Mr.India (‘Mugambo Khush Hua’)! lol. No, I don’t blame India for the mess as many of the groups were created by Pakistanis NOT Indians, however India isn’t absolved from responsibility, as funding any separatist,terrorist or violent group is still contributing to instability (and we don’t do stuff like that, no, no…we’re worse!). That is my only stick. As you see my other posts I always put the onus on Pakistanis but I always like an acknowledgment of the same on the other side. Otherwise we will kidnap the Indian cricket team and force them to play a TEST series in Pakistan…this will ensure we kill the world with boredom! LOL. :P .

Mitchell, it wasn’t just the superiority ideology, it was also simply “get Kashmir”. As Bhutto believed and kissed up to and told Ayub, the army strong man, that India would never break International borders, which was proved false. The Pakistani Generals were NOT ready to fight India southwards. They may have been tactically better, but they were taken by surprise because of their false belief of Bhutto’s guarantee and lack of communication (the Pakistan air force marshall was clueless of Kashmir and had easier access to co-ordinate for a ceasefire with his Indian counterpart than with his own army,navy brothers when everything was going awry).

Rajeev, you make me cry! I don’t dispute your claim as its debatable. It is a draw because of its technicality. A good analogy is like in cricket…consider a Test match where it goes dark early. Though the batting side has/had no chance of getting the runs needed to win, it ends in a draw. That’s why Test Cricket sucks! :) However India would have won the war if it continued. It depends on where you stand.

You’re right about the tanks. Pakistan’s tanks were sophisticated but were abandoned due to a resilient Indian force which was not only due to numbers.

Chirkut, you’re right Grand Slam, was a failure. I don’t know how I mixed it up. Maybe I got carried away with the name or patriotism. That’s weird.

Thanks Mitchell for recognizing the brave Pakistani soldiers that did their utmost best to defend Pakistan. I don’t think the Pakistani people realize though how much the Superiors had screwed everybody and should be seething, like how the Americans seethe against the last regime, that these morons got so many people killed.

Mitchell, you’re right we weren’t always ignorant on our role in 1965. Its the newer generations who read the wrong texts who are clueless. And 1971 is taboo almost.

But don’t you guys get any funny ideas that other Pakistanis are going to debate it properly!! i.e. Pakistan Zindabad, India Murdabad, we kicked your ass in 1965, India wanted to invade us and sucked, etc etc. LOL. ;P :) Ah, ignorance is bliss…

Posted by Saf | Report as abusive

Oh Rajeev you mean ideologically when everything unfolded…well yea that’s evident how mistaken Pakistan was about support and operational theory and its execution. The whole thing was folly. Its just a question of who defeated who. Thing is Pakistan wasn’t defeated because they survived and hence the continuous false perception of invincibility.

Posted by Saf | Report as abusive

Rajeev’s right about Nehru’s love of infrastructure. He was very into ‘modernization’ through construction.

Posted by Saf | Report as abusive

Saf, Rajeev,

Saf, it seems first time I am reading you right, I also misunderstood for some cheap jingoism, but I admire your candidness in admitting that fault for present state of Pakistan lies with itself and its selfish leadership. The fact, which I fail to understand, why Pakistani leadership is bent upon shielding perpetrators of 26/11? India and Pakistan can ever live in peace, but the war or various acts of terrorism is the only solution ? can we forget our history ? can we forget taxilla or indus valley civilisation?


I fully agree with you about various development projects undertaken during Nehru regime? But do you think it was only Nehru responsible for this ? No my friend, as I said at that point of time there were number nationalist and well meaning politicians and bureaucrats (unlike today) ,who were responsible for such acts , Nehru was a drunkard and womaniser , he was busy with his women and drinks ? Otherwise, instead of inheriting a bruised nation, the shape of our nation would have been entirely different . I repeat that Nehru was responsible behind fiasco about Tibet and kashmir .

Posted by Manish | Report as abusive

Mitchell is again overall right.

Just like to throw two pointers. Nehru bet on the wrong horse with communist Russia in the long term. Though a good history, Russia wasn’t exactly the innovative type country that even India is and it was remarkable how the friendship was strong considering the contrasts of their governments.

Unfortunately for us Jinnah died within a year. And Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated. Then we suffered military coups undermining constitutions. There was nation building till the 60′s as Pakistan was considered an economic model by then. However Ayub Khan was brilliant in Agriculture and some manufacturing, everything else, not so much. And he totally fragmented the ethnicities forever in Pakistan, rigging the elections against Fatima Jinnah, of all people! And what can we say of the government overseeing ’71? War criminals? And nothing new since then as the country is running on Personalities NOT Processes.

I’m really learning alot from these conversations guys. Just upset I’m the only Pakistani around here to read it. And I’m really surprised by the views taken by Indians on China and the US. I think most Pakistanis don’t know the roles of the US,Russia and China that plays in Pakistan.

Posted by Saf | Report as abusive

Yeah maybe you are right about Nehru. At that time any leader would have kept India stable.

You say to Rajeev,”The fact, which I fail to understand, why Pakistani leadership is bent upon shielding perpetrators of 26/11? India and Pakistan can ever live in peace” .
I just can’t control myself on commenting on this. The damage to the State had been done already by Zia-Ul-haq. Even if Zardari publicly announces that he wants to hang Lakhvi,do you think he will be able to do that? He just can’t. Only a human Right Activist like Ansar Burney can openly support India. Zardari and Gilani are just politicians and they can’t speak the truth risking their lives. I think Zardari said ‘India is not a threat to pakistan’ and I bet he himself was bewildered when the Indian media took his word for granted. Now i think Zardari won’t risk speaking to the Indian media anymore. :) A few months ago,I thought he will become a great leader and that he will guide South Asia,Can you believe that? Now I take back my opinion,he is just a kind of a corrupt leader you can find anywhere in the Subcontinent..

Posted by mitchell | Report as abusive

“Nehru was a drunkard and womaniser , he was busy with his women and drinks ? Otherwise, instead of inheriting a bruised nation, the shape of our nation would have been entirely different . I repeat that Nehru was responsible behind fiasco about Tibet and kashmir .”
- Posted by Manish

Manish: Yes he had all those negative qualities. These traits can be overblown—drinking or drunkard (???). I do not think it has anything to do with his role as a leader/policies. Clinton did Monica Lewinsky, but that does not make him a bad leader. My feeling about him is he was not cut out for shrewd politics for which as you mentioned India suffered in 1962 war. India needed to take care of national security and infrastucture devleopment right away. He focused only on the latter. He was an idealist, belived in co-existence with neighbors–not a shrewd leader. His lack of shrewdness and bad choice of chief of Army Staff (Kaul; peraphs Kashmiri Pundit connection) and not any focus on defense costed India 1962 war. That was embarassing. The reason was he was focusing on infrastructure and neglected defense. worse was his misreading of the Chinse. you might be knowing that India was offered UN permanant membership by USA in the time Taiwan/China issue was going on. Nehru said no and rather suggested China’s name bec. China is big brother he thought. So here we are asking for what nehru said No to–that was not smart. Tibet (you mean Lama shelter) is a humanitarian crisis issue and with the history of budhism, Nehru’s personality and considering it is none other than China in the picture, his decision is defendable. !962 was reason for his early death too. On Kashmir he announced UN invlovement plebiscite on the radio despite patel against that. Yes he could not forecast such things. Patel was better at that. But then you do not know Patel’s emphasis if he was to become a PM. After all everythigs costs money/time/men and India had to be judicious in making choices–imbalance can change the course.

Yes shadow planning was going on different projects much before 1947. But it is up to the leader for the focus. This is too naive to say that he was busy boozing and womanizing. It is widely believed and my view too that he wanted India to develop science and technology and develop infrastrucrure. You cannot take away that credit. Saying bacon-eating Zinnna or drunkard Nehru will not lessen their contributions, if they have.

Saf: I liked your dark clouds/cricket match explantion of 1965 war. My major point there was to talk about PVC Abdul Hamid in context of battle of tanks especially because his achievements were part of story in my school text book.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

“But don’t you guys get any funny ideas that other Pakistanis are going to debate it properly!!”

I am actually new to these kinds of blogs. Of course I know subcontinent’s history somewhat. I used to play with Disney videos and upload them on Youtube, the Mumbai attacks disturbed me very much and I started visting those kinda funny videos -India vs Pakistan army comparison,Pak police vs Indian police ,blah,blah,blah- worst kind of abuses really. One day i wrote a comment against Zia-Ul-Haq’s policy and got a rude retort by the uploader who immediately assumed me to be an Indian ” Remember how you Indians begged to us for mercy during 1965″ I took me a long time to realize what was wrong with him,and then only I started researching and visiting these(reuters) kind of blogs to search for the truth. I started to appreciate ‘Dawn’ and ‘the Hindu’.
Even here, Umair and Ali believe in the distorted version of 1965 :) Particularly when people speak garbage and lies,we can’t even appreciate when they speak the truth sometimes.

Posted by mitchell | Report as abusive

Nehru was a fool!

Posted by Anup | Report as abusive

Jinnah was a lawyer,

Posted by Anup | Report as abusive

Manmohan is an economist

Zardari is a commission agent (MR.10%)

where are the statesmen????

Posted by Anu | Report as abusive

The ones who are loathing Nehru – Both Nehru and Jinnah assumed their responsibilities at the same time and look where the two countries stand today. Whatever qualities he had were his personal, what he gave to India matters and that is what seperates us from the dismal state of Pakistan.

Posted by Aaruni Upadhyay | Report as abusive

To all those who hate Nehru,

Whatever faults Nehru had,Nehru never killed anyone directly.
Ayub khan killed a lot of our soldiers in the name of war. Yayha Khan massacred a million of our citizens and finally made them non-citizens. Zia-Ul-haq injected a slow poison called jihad into us . Vajpayee made a Nero when Gujarat was burning. Even your beloved Mr.Singh only concentrated on economy and forgot there is something called national Security.

Posted by pk | Report as abusive

The ones who are loathing Nehru – Both Nehru and Jinnah assumed their responsibilities at the same time and look where the two countries stand today. Whatever qualities he had were his personal, what he gave to India matters and that is what seperates us from the dismal state of Pakistan.

- Posted by Aaruni Upadhyay

But Nehru ruled for 17 yrs and Jinnah survived only 1-2 yrs.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

Whatever qualities he had were his personal, what he gave to India matters
- Posted by Aaruni Upadhyay

-I agree but not many Indians will. Even Mahatma Gandhi is criticized.

Nehru was zero on National security for sure.

now we are here in the land of Senas and Dals(Shiv Ram Bajrang…..) who are admired as saviors of the culture and religion. I tell you have a poll today Nehru will lose.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

On Nehru and on early days of Independent India

If you ask me to rate early indian leaders i will take the following three names

Rating – 1: Sardar Vallabh bhai Patel – Rating
Reason: He was instrumental in bringing the warring independent states under the umbrella of India. Because of him we are still able to retain some part of Kashmir with India.Second reason is to create the Indian Administrative structure.
It is this administrative structure that keeps India running inspite of our leaders. (Yes, Like Paki’s most of our leaders are also corrupt and incompetent)
Rating 2: Lal Bahadur Shastri
Reason: A comparison of his achivement and his tenure tilts the scale towards him. He was the man behind green revolution in India. Another reason is the 1965.
Rating 3: Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru
Reason: He was instrumental in developing India’s non aligned foreign policy. Though he is given credit for T and S (Even IITs and IIScs), i think he did a good job encouraging people like Bhabha, bhatnagar etc. These are the people that developed T and S for India.
However Nehru failed in Kashmir. He opposed sending indian troops to Kashmir and when the troops started turning the table he went to UN and brough ceasefire.
He LIED to the nation and parliament about Chinese activities in Aksai Chin. His handling of this issue just falls short of treachory. The way he supported Kaul and VK Menon against overwhelming opposition can only be explained by favouritism and Nepotism. But as Rajeev said it could be his naivette. All in all his contributions to india is a mixed bag

Posted by chirkut | Report as abusive

If i remember correctly both Jinnah and Nehru were lawyers by profession.

This reminds me of another theory(conspiracy?) going around on Jinnah. Both Jinnah and Nehru wanted to become Head of the independent state.(Jinnah was with congress for sometime before joining muslim league.) When he realized that he had no future in Congress he joined Muslim league and started demanding Independent Muslim state so that he can become her head of state. Just before independence he was diagonosed with stomach cancer and it becase clear that he would not live long enough to enjoy the new state. So he gave away the reigns of Pakistan to Liaquat Ali.
On the other side Nehru’s aspirations to become PM shot down by congress when they votes to side with Mr Patel instead of Mr Nehru. However on Mr Gandhi’s request Mr Patel bowed out of race leaving the “Kursi” for Mr Nehru.

Posted by chirkut | Report as abusive

Simon and et al,
Well here is a twist… Hope holbrooke must include Bangladesh in his agenda :P

Investigators see Bangladesh link in Mumbai terror attacks

Posted by Blogger | Report as abusive

“Investigators see Bangladesh link in Mumbai terror attacks

This is hilarious !

Its going like a nonsense bollywood movie so many twists and turns. Nobody knows who runs Pakistan, Political govt got a whip from ISI when they requested the chief for “go to India”, then they sacked Durrani for speaking truth, Then they said it was non-state actors, Finally after investigation :-) they are blaming Bangladesh for it.

If Bangladesh responds they will blame “Somalian Pirates”. And after getting response from Somalia probably they will accuse “Pirates of Caribbean” for Mumbai attacks. Where is this investigation going, Please tell me ? anybody ?

Posted by punjabiyaar | Report as abusive

– Wonder if Chinese, Mongolians, Bhutanese, Burmese, Nepalese were look alike Pakistani and Bangladeshi.. hopefully we would have seen some more twists…

Blaming Around the world for Brutal party :P

Posted by Blogger | Report as abusive

–short and simple “jab geedad (Pakistan) ki maut aati hai to woh sheher (Bangladesh) ki taraf bhagta hai” :P

Posted by Blogger | Report as abusive

Oh Rajeev you mean ideologically when everything unfolded…well yea that’s evident how mistaken Pakistan was about support and operational theory and its execution. The whole thing was folly. Its just a question of who defeated who. Thing is Pakistan wasn’t defeated because they survived and hence the continuous false perception of invincibility.
–posted by Saf on 1965.

Saf: Back to 1965, perhaps for the last time :-) Yes ideologically. Any ways your last sentence reminds me of VP debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. Knowing how bad is her knowledge about the issues, the bar of her success was set so low that even when she barely survived that debate, republicans sighed with relief with little smile on the lips as if she had won it. She “survived and hence the continuous false perception of invincibility” is carrying her towards 2012 elections.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

Yes, exactly like Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. lol.
Good analogy, Rajeev.

Posted by Saf | Report as abusive

Nice theory, Chirkut. However, Jinnah was offered to be head of state as PM by Gandhi. It was shot down.

Posted by Saf | Report as abusive

yes Gandhi did offer PMship to Jinnah to pacify his aspirations. It was shot down by Congress, most particularly by Mr Nehru and hence this theory.
Again this theory could be totally wrong. But it does provide an interesting insight into the power struggle between different factions and forces during the British Raj.

Posted by chirkut | Report as abusive

Mr Holbrooke’s visit was pretty good. He listened to Pakistanis, and then will go back and formulate policy after consultations. The Democrats should not repeat the mistakes of the past when they stole F-16′s from Pakistan and put sanctions on the country.


Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/