India's Stand on 26/11 Mumbai Attacks

The Pakistani government was involved in an attack on Mumbai that killed over one hundred and fifty people. The captured militants who executed the attack were never brought to proper justice, an incarcerated terrorist confessed that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency aided the attack, and the Pakistani government freed the militant group’s commander for no plausible reason. Pakistan has denied all accusations of its’ involvement but evidence shows that they played a key role in this devastating siege.

They simply declared that a Pakistani terrorist group organized the Parliament Attack. It is the author’s belief that India was willing to declare war against Pakistan in order to divert attention from Kashmir. The only party to benefit from a war between India and Pakistan would be arms dealers. It would not stop the terrorist (as we have learned from Afghanistan) and it would just cause would just result in loss of life and providing arms dealers with huge profits. As all of this is happening, the Indian economy is starting to go into a panic. The middle class has started to take notice and they can’t be silenced so

You are correct that it is time for the U.S. to revise its policy with Pakistan. Two points made in the article by Fair and Ganguly might be the place for the U.S. to start. First, the U.S. should make it clear that Pakistan will be held accountable for any of their nuclear material that ends up in the hands of the militant non-state actors. If violated, this could result in airstrikes to their nuclear facilities (Fair, Ganguly). The second is for the U.S. to make it clear that it will not intervene to de-escalate any future terror attacks against India. Letting India decide how to deal with Pakistan should be their decision without U.S influence (Fair, Ganguly). These are not silver bullets by any means, but they could be a place to start.

Moreover, contemptuous attitudes of West Pakistanis towards Bengal made the East Pakistan (the Bengal) felt irritated with them. This can be seen from the attitudes of the government official especially the West

Terrorism response, like any issue concerning domestic politics and international affairs, can be faced analyzing either causes or effects. Terrorists are usually motivated by political beliefs. Even if terrorists can take advantage of other particular situations such as economic difficulties and religious beliefs, the main purposes are always political. That being said, the right response to terrorism is prevention. Solving the problem at the root cause is achievable through stable political regimes and open and functioning democracies. As long as terrorists do not need to resort to violence because they have other means to make their voices heard, they do not represent a threat anymore. Since this process might be quite long lasting, an

In order to further understand India’s stance on the issue, it would be interesting to observe and analyze the following table in which four foreign policy approaches were estimated with respect to the Indian response within the country towards the US Rebalancing Strategy. They are laid in the table below along with various other factors that were taken into consideration :-

India recognizes that social and economic development in Afghanistan is critical to ensure security in Indian subcontinent. The signing of Strategic

The local and state response to 26/11 exposed several other failures and short-comings within the Indian internal security architecture at the state and federal levels. Many of these have been identified by the Ram Pradhan Committee (henceforth Pradhan Committee, 2009). This was a high level committee of enquiry which the Maharashtra government established to investigate the systemic shortcomings in the Indian internal security establishment that the attack exposed (Rediff, 2009)

Due to this terrorism and religious hatred, India has lost two of its prime ministers who were assassinated by hired terrorist groups claiming themselves to be warriors of the religion. Terrorist from Pakistan invaded Kashmir with the support of Pakistani government.

Turkish Parliamentary Deputy Kayatürk has known as on neighboring countries, such as Local local Indian local, for creating similar responsibilities as “It is in their passions to see a consistent Pakistan, otherwise attack will spill over into their position.”

The author of this book is Khaled Ahmed. Khaled Ahmed was in the Pakistan Foreign Service from 1969 to 1978. He left it to become a journalist of distinction in The Pakistan Times. He is a former consulting editor of Daily Times; resident editor of The Frontier Post; joint editor of The Nation and assistant editor of The Pakistan Times. He is a founder-member of Track-two Neemrana Dialogue between India and Pakistan. He is currently Director, South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA), Lahore. He contributes regular

India thinks that Kashmir is not the issue for an international concern and India does not consider UN’s take on any political action over Kashmir. India’s apprehension of Kashmir is reasonable somehow because India has fought three times with Pakistan regarding Kashmir’s issue. On the contrary, resolution does not come through military action. According to India, if India is ready to establish Kashmir as a democratic province with all the privileges of an autonomous, there is no guarantee to Kashmir will be under the Indian union. Because there are lots of terrorist groups are fighting against India. Pakistan is supporting them by providing materials as well as financial backing (Schofield, V. 2000).

On 29th September 2016, the Indian army carried out surgical strikes against a number of positions along the Line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir in response to a militant attack in Uri eleven days earlier. The Indian military response is unprecedented, as India has historically responded to Pakistan’s support for militancy in the subcontinent through diplomatic channels. Even after the Mumbai attacks, which claimed the lives of 166 civilians, Indian officials published a 69 page dossier detailing the involvement of Pakistani state-agencies, and the government responded by pressurizing Pakistan on the international front, rather than attempting military action (Rabasa 2009, 12-14).

Pakistan is an Islamic state located in South Asia that covers an area of 796,095 square kilometers. It shares border with India, Afghanistan, Iran and China and a marine border with Oman. It came into existence as an independent nation in 1947 and since then, it has been encompassed by incalculable issues including underdeveloped infrastructure, infertile and old production lines, international interference, instable government and corruption underscoring every deliberation towards progress (Africaw 2014). Moreover, regardless of being rich in natural resources, it struggles to be

His rise in politics and higher echelons of power was due to his mysteriously sharp mind coupled with cunning desire to be on the top of the national politics. His astute political manoeuvrings can be gauged from the fact that on the eve of India-China war in 1962, the rulers of China invited Pakistan to jointly dismember India by attacking on North East and Laddakh and Pakistan from Jammu side in Jammu and Kashmir to grab the maximum territory. Pakistan could fulfil their wish by taking Kashmir and China would grab entire North East to come closure to Indian Ocean. Bhutto disclosed the plan to General Ayub Khan the President of Pakistan but got rebuked for such a loathsome and outrageous suggestion, rather was suggested that Pakistan should have “Joint Defence Agreement” with India. Bhutto was aghast and made a sorry exit, calling Ayub Khan a political bankrupt.