Speaking of India, is there anyone else on the list who is wondering why the heck Pakistan is even bothering to make any sort of diplomatic move? It seems patently obvious to me that India is just itching for an excuse to fight, and nothing that Pakistan will do will be satisfactory to the Indian warhawks. I grant that Pakistan's president must bow to pressure both abroad and at home to make a strong stand against international terrorism, but I wonder what would satisfy India besides a complete ceding of Kashmir? And isn't Kashmir what the current conflict really is about anyway?
-- Sliante, Richard S. Crawford Since independence, by UN estimates, India has lost somewhere between 35,000 and 60,000 people to terrorist attacks supported by Pakistan. Even the US - a Pakistani ally since 1947 - agrees that the terrorist attacks in Kashmir have been purposely supported and arranged by the government of Pakistan. Do you remember the attack by suicide gunmen on the Indian Parliament? This was an explicit attempt to assassinate everyone in the Indian government, done by groups sponsored by the intelligence agency of the government of Pakistan. It was hardly the first such attack. Spoiling for a fight? Indians have been dying by the thousands at the hands of these people for decades, and India has done nothing. Pakistan has attacked India three times since independence - India has never attacked Pakistan. It did win all three wars, of course. It was Pakistani troops that were committing mass murder in Bangladesh, and Indian soldiers who stopped it. Only a couple of years ago in Khargil Pakistan invaded India _again_, and _again_ India did nothing more than throw them out - although this was more than sufficient as a legal and moral justification for war. There is absolutely something that would satisfy India. Pakistan's President must repudiate Pakistan's support of terrorism, he must arrest the leaders of the terrorist groups who launched the attack on India's Parliament, and he must prevent terrorist groups from using Pakistani soil to launch attacks on India. It does not seem unreasonable for India to demand that it no longer be attacked by agents of the Pakistani government. India is not exactly itching for an excuse to fight - if an attempt to destroy the Indian government _isn't_ an excuse to fight, what the hell _is_ a reason to go to war? India, in case you forget, is a secular democracy and has been since its founding. Pakistan is an explicitly Islamic military dictatorship. The differences between the two are fairly significant. One of them (the secular democracy) has been attacked. The other one (the religious dictatorship) has been doing the attacking. One of them (India again) has lost tens of thousands of civilians to attacks launched by the other one (yup, that's Pakistan). The fact that India has not _already_ gone to war with Pakistan over the most recent assault is a rather extraordinary sign of restraint, and one you should be commending, not criticizing. Almost any other country would have done exactly that. Gautam
