Raja rental off to Ajmer....all's well at home

[nikhil25]

Re: Raja rental off to Ajmer…all’s well at home

@Med911

Well, at the end of the day, you cannot expect justice if you dont present evidence. The Pakistani side denies it. In fact, the suggestion was made to appoint a neutral third party to ascertain the actual facts on the ground. Now im fairly certain a neutral third party would be able to decipher between a body with and one without a head, so you wouldnt need to advertize it to the world. But we are made to believe that the Indian narrative is accurate, your premise is based on the Indian narrative being the true, yet India seems to have refused a third party investigation. Even if nothing comes of it, at the very least, Indian position is vindicated. If they are now trying to hide the truth of the matter, well that makes no sense either, as they have already made the accusations.

again you are totally detached from reality if you think india would solicit a “third party” certificate on whether or not its soldiers were beheaded just to “prove it” to pakistan. there is no value to pakistani acknowledgement and therefore isn’t required. that is not what the government or media was focused on with this issue.

Perhaps your right about India post 26/11. But hyper aggressive nationalism isnt a recent development post 26/11, its simply that now it has a voice in your many cable networks. Where before this sort of goading of the public was limited now its perfused.
So, post 26/11. I dont think it justifies anything, hurt feelings arent a rare commodity in Indo-Pak relations. if you can point to such and such as rational, we can quote numerous examples of our own. For some reason, we don’t seem to share in the acrimony that the Indians as a nation display toward us. For all the faults faults of the Pakistanis, you do not get this level of vitriol towards Indians, Zahid Hameed, a clown by most standards notwithstanding.

there are many things wrong with the above comments. firstly, indian nationalism (not specific to pakistan) has increased along with the national trajectory. pakistan has moved in the opposite direction so the relative lack of aggressive nationalism is not a function of higher sanity levles or moral superiority. secondly, i don’t know why you are positioning zaid hamid as a fringe element with a monopoly on anti-indian aggression when it is pervasive (btw there may be loud voices and asses in the indian media but nothing comparable to conspiracist lunatics/zealots like zaid hamid). thirdly, the indian public is faced with pakistani aggression regularly while the reverse is simply not true. from jihadi infiltration to kargil to the parliament attack to the bombay train attacks to 26/11…an unending series of aggressions either directly or indirectly sponsored by pakistan. there is no corresponding indian aggression in pakistan apart from the theoretical funding of balochistan. indian militants are not attacking pakistani parliament and indian terrorists are not gunning down civilians in karachi hotels. the indian army isn’t invading gilgit and starting war. pakistan has given plenty of reasons for indina hyper-nationalists to call for cutting off diplomatic ties, surgical strikes, etc. what reasons do pakistanis have to call for aggression? keep this in mind before comparing sentiments across the border and drawing simplistic clusions.

I doubt this could have ever helped the ruling govt, as it happened under there watch but then there is the opposition. And peace at all cost would have meant far more then a few platitudes. So if this is what you call “peace at all costs” I would hate to see what your real hawks are like. I should think the motives of the govt arent always clear. Perhaps they felt demonizing the Pakistanis would take attention of other issues, such as the economy? Election time or not, its not unheard of for a govt to try to divert attention from news that isnt all that palatable. i don’t know, but until there is an actual investigation, its hearsay.

At the end of the day, both sides lost men. If Indians are upset, then so are we, but we understand it with in the context of the conflict. Such is the state of affairs. and thats why the Indian reaction is over the top. It does not acknowledge its own role in what happened and adopts victim status for itself.

again the outrage was specifically about beheading and mutilation. if the soldiers had simply been shot it would have hardly made it to page 5 of the newspapers.