Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 29th May 2012

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 May 2012 09:50

Pakistan knows that going forward, the only country that can help her survive economically is the mortal-enemy India. Pakistan is adept at managing conflicting situations, like for example, going to bed with both the US and China when Cold War was at its peak or helping US post 26/11 while protecting AQAM. It wants to do a similar balancing act with India too, of continuing the enduring hostility while deriving economic benefits from her. OTOH, the incumbent political leaders probably feel that this would offer an opportunity for a toehold which could be converted later into normalizing relationship through trade. Time will tell who will fool whom.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 May 2012 10:00

MMS has long been talking about three things every time he opens his mouth on TSP:

1. War is not an option
2. Cannot continue to not talk or not engage the TSP
3. Normalizing the relations between the countries over a period of time via increasing trade and people to people contact.

The recent developments only confirm the above it's just that MMS was waiting for Indians who are essentially sentimental fools to get over with their customary 4 day ro-dho over 26/11 attacks. Now that we all have forgotten everything the gobermund can get back to what it does the best when it comes to TSP i.e. commit a huge clusterfck and for some weird reason this is one area where the otherwise spineless bunch never fail to grow a pair everytime an opportunity presents itself.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 May 2012 10:36

US senator proposes suspending all Pakistan aid
http://dawn.com/2012/05/30/us-senator-p ... istan-aid/

WASHINGTON: A conservative senator called on Tuesday for the United States to suspend all aid to Pakistan and grant citizenship to a doctor who was jailed for helping hunt down Osama bin Laden.American lawmakers have already sought to cut or freeze some assistance to Pakistan, the third largest recipient of US aid, after a tribal court last week sentenced CIA recruit Shakil Afridi to 33 years in prison on treason charges.Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky and leader of the Tea Party movement, proposed going further by ending all aid to Pakistan until Afridi’s sentence is overturned and also granting the doctor US citizenship.“Pakistan must understand that they are choosing the wrong side,” said Paul, who pledged to introduce the bill when the Senate returns to session next week.“They accuse Dr. Afridi of working against Pakistan, but he was simply helping the US capture the head of al Qaeda. Surely Pakistan is not linking their interests with those of an international terrorist organisation,” Paul said in a statement.The US Constitution under Article 1 gives Congress the right to set a “uniform rule of naturalization,” but it is unusual in modern times for lawmakers to consider citizenship for individuals other than honorary titles.\The United States has provided more than $18 billion to Pakistan since the September 11, 2001 attacks when Islamabad agreed to turn against Afghanistan’s Taliban and back the US war effort.But US officials fear that elements of Pakistan’s powerful military and intelligence services still support extremists – concerns reinforced when US forces killed Osama bin Laden in the garrison town of Abbottabad last year.Leading members of both major US parties supported a 2009 bill that authorized $1.5 billion a year to Pakistan to promote civilian infrastructure and democratic institutions in the nuclear-armed nation.US President Barack Obama, a Democrat, has also voiced impatience with Pakistan

.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 May 2012 10:52

Lilo-ji

Lilo wrote: Sanku ji,

3) & 2) The amounts of capital investments going into extending 30km upto lawhore is frankly nothing much.

That is frankly a hand waving argument. You have magically removed the capital expenditure without even considering it. You have not even considered the various types of capital expense only that somehow you have decided it is not much.

You have also not considered that now, part of refinery production which would be otherwise sold to "other world markets" would be sold to Pakistan, thus now the cost of capital for refining will also need to be put on this project.

Bad economics. No wonder you came to the conclusions you came to.

1) That LNG is also imported - by using indian terminal at dahej and existing indian pipeline infrastructure to send gas to its nothern hub - paki will be subsidizing our imports by a dollar or half by paying usage fees -depending on the specifics negotiated.

So you dont know the specifics, but are happy to say that "xyz" will happen. Again bad economics.

Also you have magically waived away any and all capital expense for the same.

You have also magically ignored the fact that you entire argument about excess refining capability just falls flat if LNG is concerned.

HUGE HOLES.

in either case i dont see either the paki fertilizer industry or its textile industries suddenly getting a new lease of life from increased energy access and competing with their counterparts on indian side - because rates in pakiland will always be inflated over the local indian rates

Huge and basic logical mistake
0) Assumption that Pakis will get inflated over Indian rates
Lets say even if that is true. (just to humor you) -- You clearly miss the issue

1) Pakistan will now get POL CHEAPER than what they got before. It is irrelevant whether it is cheaper than India or NOT.
2) Paki industry will anyway fail -- because they are Paki's but clearly there is more to POL usage than industry in Pakistan.

Have you considered the impact on Military operations and reduction in mil expenditure because of a lower POL budget.

A pakistan weaned off its current sources of GCC petro products and made dependent on Indian sources is a pliable pakistan.

Clearly FALSE. Big time. Because
1) Pakistan can any day say F Off to India and return to GCC with ZERO cost to itself. Since it has made no stake in investments.
2) India depends on GCC for oil, it is India which is dependent, not Pakistan, India is merely a facilitator making things easy for Pakistan. GCC can very well say, "we will stop oil to you and start giving cheap oil to Pakistan if you dont do xyz" --you can not create a dependency when in reality you are yourself dependent.
3) Pakistan Pliable -- what this does is to show Pakis that India is pathetically pliable, they can hurt us all they want and we will hurt our interests to help them? Who gains by this. pakistan

1) i dont understand ur Q here

You made a case about refineries without considering LNG. LNG is not "refined" in the refineries you are talking off.

2) No one currently knows the specifics of these Indo-pak petro agreements - since they are in a gestation stage but assuming upfront that these will be on noncommercial terms is counterlogical.

First, looking at this issue merely as commerical/vs/non-commercial is fairly shortsighted and harmful. Clearly, reducing our interactions with Pakistan to commerce is a good example of the mercantile, "sab kuch bikta hai" (will sell anything) mindset -- which clearly misses out on most strategic perspectives.

That said, given Pakistan's situation, it is quite clear, that the deal can not be done on commercial basis. Even the basic cost of capital depends on the risk, and on this case the risk is HUGE. Of course waiving away
1) Cost of capital
2) Analysis of opportunity cost of making the same effort on Indian side etc.

Clearly your analysis is deeply flawed because it misses out on most of the critical factors, I would strongly encourage you to take a holistic look -- it will help you realize the mistakes you have been making.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 May 2012 10:54

Jhujar wrote:US senator proposes suspending all Pakistan aid

No problem -- India will now be supplying them oil, power and trains and more.

The payment for these have been made in advance as terror exports and this is our payback in the hope that will probably not want to hurt those who are working so hard to make their lives better.

dada · Post by **dada** » 30 May 2012 11:27

# Sanku,

We cannot avoid Pakistan as a neighbour. We have to live with them perhaps for next 10-20 years. Till then have strictly 100% business(primarily energy)relationship with them. No sports/culture/ heart to heart talkshows to keep the indian public in slumber ! Or if these side-activities cannot be avoided, give lip service to these Pakis in their language !

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 May 2012 11:36

dada wrote:# Sanku,

We cannot avoid Pakistan as a neighbour. We have to live with them perhaps for next 10-20 years.

True

No sports/culture/ heart to heart talkshows to keep the indian public in slumber ! Or if these side-activities cannot be avoided, give lip service to these Pakis in their language !

True

Till then have strictly 100% business(primarily energy)relationship with them.

Here is where I disagree

Why even this? We should not have any business deal with them. It does not benefit us, we have many other, better options for nearly every thing. It only helps them.

My charge the "ostensibly business" is yet another "out of box peace initiative" (which has been defined as "unilateral giveaways by old confused men once born in part of India now in Pakistan")

partha · Post by **partha** » 30 May 2012 11:38

http://tribune.com.pk/story/386021/oil- ... rom-india/

Oil imports: Mistrust hounds plan to import fuel from India

Pakistan has refused to import jet fuel from India citing security reasons, The Express Tribune has learnt.

The mistrust between the neighbours still seems to prevail and Pakistan is reluctant to place its reliance on India for strategically important products. Instead, the Pakistani establishment maintains there is a need to engage Gulf countries in oil imports, sources say.

“Pakistan refused to import diesel from India in a two-day meeting which concluded on Tuesday as it has a long-term supply contract with Kuwait Petroleum Corporation (KPC),” said an official source privy to the matter.

“If Pakistan relies on India for high-speed diesel and jet fuel, there is a threat to the country’s security if supplies are withheld for any reason.”

The official added that India is keen on providing all the mentioned products to Pakistan and expressed its desire to lay an oil pipeline connecting the two countries.

I sometimes wonder whether we should offer to export Cashmere to Pakistan. Just to confuse them

They will probably decline it saying they cannot import strat-e-gically important piece of land from India. A GoI official can of course deny having made the offer and say that he was quoted out of context.

sum · Post by **sum** » 30 May 2012 12:00

We want more TSP-ians in IPL onlee

:

Umar Gul's brother arrested in Pak for harbouring terrorist

Pakistan army [ Images ] commandos raided cricketer Umar Gul's house in Peshawar and arrested his brother on charges of harbouring a wanted militant, according to a media report on Wednesday.

The fast bowler's brother, Meraj, was arrested with two other men on charges of providing shelter to his uncle, Haji Daly, believed to be an active member of the banned Lashkar-e-Islam, the Express Tribune reported.

A local resident told the newspaper that a team of commandos raided the house on Tuesday.

Two paramedics, Younas and Shakil, were among those arrested. They were moved to an undisclosed location.

An official of the local police station claimed Haji Daly was injured in an operation by armed forces at Bara in Khyber tribal region, and had fled to Peshawar and lived with Meraj for several days before leaving the city

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 May 2012 12:01

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 012_pg5_14
Pakistan may seek more IMF loan to clear debt

KARACHI: Pakistan is likely to go to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in fresh fiscal year 2012-13 to seek loan for the retirement of IMF’s Stand-by Arrangement (SBA) facility, sources in the Ministry of Finance said on Tuesday.

The country will have to pay more than $7.82 billion in four different instalments from 2011-12 to 2014-15, sources said.

The economy of the country has been badly hit by huge government borrowing, power and gas crisis and uncertain political and law and order situation.

The IMF is still pressurising Pakistan to initiate economic reforms to tackle challenges the country is facing.

However, the government is still unable to implement key benchmarks agreed with the IMF, bringing the central bank’s borrowing to a desired limit, enforcing general sales tax (GST) on goods and services in integrated mode, eliminating power sector subsidies and keeping the budget deficit within the agreed limits.

The move by Pakistan government to choose short-term gains over long-term economic stability is risky.

The IMF wants Pakistan to raise tax revenue from the present 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 15 percent of GDP by 2013, which is peril for the economy.

The burden of subsidies along with higher security-related expenditures exerted continuing pressure on the fiscal system and adjustment path was affected.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 May 2012 14:14

A short India-Pakistan cricket series likely in December-January

The ice seems to be melting fast between India and Pakistan, at least on the cricketing front. There could soon be bilateral cricket between the countries. A small window is being created to squeeze in a few limited-overs matches between this Christmas and New Year period. Needless to emphasise, the matches will be played in India.

The BCCI and PCB officials, who held talks on the sidelines of the IPL final in Chennai over the weekend, are believed to have realised the need to restore bilateral ties between the neighbours. Should the short tour materialise, the counties will have played a bilateral match for the first time in close to five years.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 30 May 2012 14:23

Sanku wrote: HUGE HOLES.
Huge and basic logical mistake
Clearly FALSE. Big time
your analysis is deeply flawed
Lets say even if that is true. (just to humor you)
You clearly miss the issue
this case the risk is HUGE
Of course waiving away
magically waived away
magically ignored
Bad economics.
Again bad economics.
you(r) entire argument about excess refining capability just falls flat
it will help you realize the mistakes you have been making.

Sanku ji,
Please dont use so many hyperlatives to describe my post

.
In other words you need'nt be so hyper in trying to run down what has been said by me - then the casuality will be your clear mind - as seen in the fact that allmost all your "new" contentions have been addressed in my previous posts.

On another note,
I will address one question which is repeatedly alluded to by many here.
If pakistanis are getting some marginal benefit from indian exports - is it good or bad ??

It is a fact that pakistani economy is on life support - it has been on life support for a decade now.

Now suddenly because of indian petrochemical exports if there are going to be more nylon fibers in the ever slipping paki chaddi - or if in 20 years - say mahindra scorpios with katyushas mounted on them and running on indian diesel will be trolling the borders - it will not make one bit of difference. Not one bit.

But if currently like Pakis or even BD till a recent while back, if India too suddenly decides to keep cutting its nose to spite one's face - it will result in ridiculous situations like stopping all our farts to our west thinking that the gas will somehow power paki economy to dhothi shivering heights . Even when we were down we rarely did so and now when we are up and growing we dont ever need to.

Basically there is no equivalence between India and Pak and India has bigger fish to fry and bigger games to play than getting distracted from its goals of rapid economic growth and elimination of poverty (oft repeated by MEA as twin goals of Indian foreign policy)

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 May 2012 14:57

Taliban denies report of Haqqani's death

KABUL: Taliban on Wednesday denied reports of the death of Jalaluddin Haqqani, the founder of the Pakistani-linked Haqqani network which is regularly blamed for major attacks in Afghanistan.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 May 2012 14:59

SC rejects Rehman Malik's documents

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has rejected documents submitted by Interior Minister Rehman Malik pertaining to him forfeiting his British citizenship.

A three member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhamamd Chaudhry resumed hearing of the dual nationality case on Wednesday. The apex court said the documents presented by Malik’s counsel did not have the declaration of the Interior Minister forfeiting his British citizenship. The court summoned the necessary documents on June 4.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 May 2012 15:03

Karachi violence claims five more lives

KARACHI: Five persons lost their lives in different firing incidents that took place in the metropolis on Wednesday, Geo News reported.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 May 2012 15:13

Lilo wrote:Sanku ji,
Please dont use so many hyperlatives to describe my post .
In other words you need'nt be so hyper in trying to run down what has been said by me - then the casuality will be your clear mind - as seen in the fact that all most all your "new" contentions have been addressed in my previous posts.

Well, I am afraid, that the message was not going through without use of stress, I had no option. Now I believe at least I have made some progress in getting heard.

So some more plain speaking.

Basically there is no equivalence between India and Pak and India has bigger fish to fry and bigger games to play than getting distracted from its goals of rapid economic growth and elimination of poverty (oft repeated by MEA as twin goals of Indian foreign policy)

Goals of Min External Affairs are rapid economic growth and elimination of poverty? Could you please back this up with a statement from MEA?
==========================

Anyway assuming that is a national goal set out by the leadership:

"Goals of rapid economic growth" does not (or should not) I think translate into --> "commerce at any cost, including sales of all values that the country stands for, life of citizens, future security etc etc"

If we have a agreement on that --> It is easy to see that commerce with Pakistan does squarely fall into the category of --> focusing purely on the money while disregarding other crucial aspects of statecraft.

Waiving aside murder, rape and many heinous crimes, both in past, and continuing by the Pakistani state and all its constituents including the Army, the civilians --> as "only a irritant" would be a case of SEVERE lack of caring for the health, wealth and well being of the country.

GoI has done NOTHING, repeat NOTHING --> to bring justice to the perpetrators of many crimes in Pakistan, AND now any and all feeble attempts to appear as doing something are also being given up as "whats the big deal"

This gradual dilution of any and all measures to pressurize Pakistan is already done, and now we are celebrating ways and means of HELPING them.

All coupled with statements like
1) Oh Mumbai was so far back, lets move on.
2) Oh Pakistan is also a victim of terror.
3) Its a small problem.

Letting all concepts of justice, security, values etc go to seed while we look at ways to help Pakistan --> in my book is a sell out. Plain and simple.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 May 2012 15:25

Pakistan: Concubine among nations - Tarek Fatah

Believe it or not, Dr. Shakil Afridi, the man responsible for locating the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, instead of receiving the $25-million bounty on the jihadi terrorist’s head, has been convicted of treason by Pakistan and sentenced to 33 years in prison.

To understand this bizarre sentencing of a man who should’ve been celebrated as a hero, one has to understand the schizophrenic nature of the Pakistani state itself. Among the community of nations, Pakistan today stands out on one hand as a petty thug brandishing a dangerous weapon, and at other times as a concubine, sleeping with anyone willing to pay for her expensive tastes.

Stung by the humiliation of being caught in the act of providing a safe haven to the world’s number one terrorist, the Pakistani military took its revenge by imprisoning Dr. Afridi and shutting down the supply routes to NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Shamelessly, Pakistan is also demanding a U.S. apology.

The country needs tough love. But no one is willing to wrestle Islamabad to the ground and drag it away to a detox centre where it can be woken from its visions of grandeur and confronted with its true worth — a nation that can offer nothing to the world other than jihadi terrorism.

Pakistan is not the only developing country that seeks aid. However, while others show gratitude, Pakistan responds with arrogance.

One month after its creation in August 1947, its founder, M.A. Jinnah, dispatched a senior finance official to Washington with a begging bowl and a demand for $2 billion in aid. His message: If Pakistan collapses, the Soviets will be able to walk to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea.

While his official lobbied Washington, back in Karachi, Jinnah was flaunting Pakistan’s geo-strategic location to the U.S. media. He told Margaret Bourke-White of Life magazine:

“America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America … Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed [on] the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.” Bourke-White wrote. Jinnah leaned toward her, dropped his voice to a confidential note, and wagged his finger. “Russia,” he said, “is not so very far away.” The Cold War had barely begun and here was the founder of Pakistan trying to benefit from the impending clash between the USSR and USA.

For 65 years the U.S. has succumbed to Pakistan — until now.

Thanks to congressmen Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Brad Sherman (D-CA) as well as Sen. John McCain, the Pakistan bluff has been called. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has referred to Pakistan as “a schizophrenic ally” while Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy said Pakistan’s conviction of Dr. Afridi, was “Alice in Wonderland at best.”

But talk is cheap.

The time has come for Canada, the U.S. and the West to draw a line in the sand. If Pakistan is unwilling to free Dr. Afridi and arrest the al-Qaeida leader Ayman Zawahiri, then we should cut all aid to Islamabad.

The U.S., U.K. and Canada should ban the entry of all Pakistani military officers, serving or retired, as well as their families and children. The thousands of Pakistan civil and military officials who have descended on America and Canada should be asked to leave immediately.

Hit them where it hurts the country’s top brass and the establishment will buckle. If we don’t, a thousand AQ Khans will bloom.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 30 May 2012 15:54

Sankuji, lets take it OT since this is getting more and more about you and your unique ways.

Sanku wrote: Well, I am afraid, that the message was not going through without use of stress, I had no option. Now I believe at least I have made some progress in getting heard.

Well , as i said your approach is that of rhetoric and pleading at emotions ... not a big surprise actually, that you thought stressing and hyperbole will get through me . Let me remind you again - iam convinced by logical arguments - nothing more nothing less .

The rest of your post is again rhetoric with nothing of substance -
i dont understand if your philosophy is innately Sophism or if this due to overdose of school type debate - where one is supposed to win by hook or crook , by bluster or blather -- which is it ? just curious.

Sanku wrote:Goals of Min External Affairs are rapid economic growth and elimination of poverty? Could you please back this up with a statement from MEA?

Its unbelievable that you asked for proof for some thing so obvious....
but here you go #p945011

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 May 2012 16:12

Lilo wrote:Sankuji, lets take it OT since this is getting more and more about you and your unique ways.

That my dear friend, is you not having anything meaningful to say and resorting again to personal discussion to distract from that.

I see you got caught out flat wrong on both economics and strategy and have thus resorted to taking personal attacks. I am familiar with this. However wrong gets to called out as wrong.

As always if you can discuss without getting personal, I would be happy to do so.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 30 May 2012 16:52

arun wrote:Incidentally both Umar Gul and Shahid Afridi are on the list of cricketers from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that Wasim Akram has named as those who "can add to the charm of the league"

Yeah, it will be a blast.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 May 2012 17:04

sum wrote:Umar Gul's brother arrested in Pak for harbouring terrorist
Pakistan army commandos raided cricketer Umar Gul's house in Peshawar and arrested his brother on charges of harbouring a wanted militant. . . on charges of providing shelter to his uncle, Haji Daly, believed to be an active member of the banned Lashkar-e-Islam, . . . Haji Daly was injured in an operation by armed forces at Bara in Khyber tribal region, and had fled to Peshawar and lived with Meraj for several days before leaving the city

Two important points here. Umar Gul's uncle is himself a jihadi terrorist. He stayed in Umar Gul's house in Peshawar.

Imran Khan supports jihad and is openly supporting Taliban policies. He wants shariah implemented in Pakistan. His team mate, Javed Miandad married his son off to the daughter of the most wanted terrorist Dawood Ibrahim. Ex captain Inzamam-ul-Haq and many of his team mates are members of the fundamentalist and extremist Tablighi Jama'at. The Media Manager of the 2007 World Cup Cricket team complained bitterly about how religious fervour has overtaken the team. For expressing his opinion against “praying more and playing less”, a fatwa was issued against the Media Manager. After his team's world cup defeat against India in cricket, team captain Shahid Afridi spoke of how large Muslim hearts were and how small Indian (read Hindu) hearts were. On an earlier occasion, another captain Shoaib Malik and a Tablighi-Jamaa'ti member, said 'sorry to all Muslims of the world' after losing a T-20 world Cup tournament to India. The bus driver who drove the bus with Sri Lankan cricketers on board that was attacked at Lahore proudly held aloft, during a felicitation ceremony, the photo of his shaheed brother who was killed in Kashmir as a terrorist by the IA.

Terrorism, extremism, fundamentalism and hatred for India pours out of every pore of every Pakistani.

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 May 2012 17:08

Lilo wrote:
Sanku wrote:^^
Lilo-ji; very nice.
I see in your scenario building above you have left out a few things.
-1) Do you consider a prosperous Pakistan as good for India? (Yes/NO?)

If you answer yes, you dont have to answer the rest of the questions. But anyway for sake of completion.

0) Can India sell POL products from its refineries to any other nations at the same prices as it can sell to pakistan? Yes/no (please answer in one word)

1) If the market place for POL is X, is there a particular marketing reason for India to sell it any one below that, even if we can? Is it marketing? Yes/no

2) How do you know that when India says cheap, just what are the pricing mechanism built in? (absence of information is not proof of absence please)

1) India will also supply LNG. To help you understand what LNG is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas

Can you please tell us what does refinement and LNG have to do with each other?

2) The plan involves, setting up pipes for distribution, as I am sure you understand, this is large capital outlay. As is obvious as well, this capital expenditure by India needs to be recovered by regular operations.

Would such regular operation guarnatee be given by Pakistan?
If yes, what according to you will be worth of this guarantee?

3) Have you considered what would be the impact on Indian industry if similar infrastructure is made available for INDIAN DOMESTIC DEMAND. One which incidentally is starved?

==========================================================

To me, Lilo-ji, you have not considered about 90% of the situation here. However you have felt to attribute lack of understanding to others. Which to me clearly is because of a very different reason.
Sanku ji,

3) & 2) Amritsar is 30km from lahore, if we are going to save on the over road transportation costs from bhatinda to amritsar via faridkot by laying a pipeline upto amritsar, we may as well extend it 30 km ahead upto lawhore to milk the pakis. The amounts of capital investments going into extending 30km upto lawhore is frankly nothing much.

1) That LNG is also imported - by using indian terminal at dahej and existing indian pipeline infrastructure to send gas to its nothern hub - paki will be subsidizing our imports by a dollar or half by paying usage fees -depending on the specifics negotiated.

in either case i dont see either the paki fertilizer industry or its textile industries suddenly getting a new lease of life from increased energy access and competing with their counterparts on indian side - because rates in pakiland will always be inflated over the local indian rates

-1) No, and thats a nobrainer - but i do like the idea of an addicted pakistan in which every industrialist worth his salt knows that indian sourced petro products are cheaper by a dollar or two compared to the ones sourced from the old overland route from the "friendly" GCC countries. A pakistan weaned off its current sources of GCC petro products and made dependent on Indian sources is a pliable pakistan.

1) i dont understand ur Q here

0) For now india can only supply to pakis at competitive prices from its bhatinda refinery - just as we have been supplying nepal from mathura/barauni/bongaigon in the past, we may supply to bangladesh, srilanka in the future from our inland and coastal refineries. We are supplying to the other countries on the indian ocean rim and this has to be further ramped up.

India shall be and must be the most cost effective refiner of high sulphur crude in the future and a ideal scenario shall be when we are supplying to all and sundry in southasia and indian ocean rim. We have the low cost and skilled manpower (compared to arab based or western manpower manning the refineries currently supplying to these countries) and our companies have the capital to ramp up production, have decades of experience and pocess many bleeding edge technologies for refining high sulphur crude.

2) No one currently knows the specifics of these Indo-pak petro agreements - since they are in a gestation stage but assuming upfront that these will be on noncommercial terms is counterlogical.

============================================================================
finally sankuji , getting confused is not a bigdeal as i too get confused about many things many times but getting hung up that someone else pointed to some confusion (real or assumed) is not useful either.

Lilo,

This is a typical la la argument you can't win. The petroleum is imported, the refinery in India value adds and then sells to Pakistan at a profit and typically these contracts are long term and money being paid guaranteed usually with an escrow account. The refinery's capacity utilisation goes up and it makes money. The Pakis benefit in an indirect way because the Bhatinda refinery is cheaper than their traditional sources mainly on account of distance (which is a major cost driver in these products).

As long as India is not giving dole, and instead is importing crude, value adding and then selling at a profit, its hard to understand how this is a dhimmi attitude. On top of that it gives leverage, some supplies can be delayed due to various reasons, like terrorist attacks and such.

However, in la la arguments these factors don't come into play, unfortunately.

Note: I must add this issue is entirely different from the locomotives issue, which is a dole and should be opposed vehemently.

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 May 2012 17:10

Sanku wrote:I see you got caught out flat wrong on both economics and strategy...

One would love to be enlightened on this!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 May 2012 17:30

amit wrote: Lilo,

This is a typical la la argument you can't win. The petroleum is imported, the refinery in India value adds and then sells to Pakistan at a profit and typically these contracts are long term and money being paid guaranteed usually with an escrow account.

You can not win this argument because you apart from focusing on the wrong factors, from the point of argument, you are concentrating on making snide remarks rather than talking about real issues.

For example, the above statement airily says "typically these contracts" --> Note typically. An assumption has been made -- are long term.

So obvious long term assumption as been so easily made for economics --> now given the data available for India Pakistan relationships, unless Amit-ji you have a special line to Kiya-nahi and have his personal assurance, that the world is going to turn 180* and the sun is going to rise from west tomorrow --> a long term statement of stability is unique, because only few would make that.

I believe Lilo-ji after calling me names left in a hissy fit, after I asked him assessment of cost of capital including risk factors in Indo-Pakistan context in a long term projection.

I see however that simple fact has escaped your notice.

Ah well, if good economics is not a strong point of debate -- vile personal attacks can always be.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 30 May 2012 18:09

Sanku wrote: I believe Lilo-ji after calling me names left in a hissy fit, after I asked him assessment of cost of capital including risk factors in Indo-Pakistan context in a long term projection.
I see however that simple fact has escaped your notice.
Ah well, if good economics is not a strong point of debate -- vile personal attacks can always be.

More like a "laughing fit" Sankuji,
never , never vile personal attacks anywhere ...
you your self charged them as barbs... now you are changing my original crime into something quite henious.

amit wrote:Lilo,
This is a typical la la argument you can't win. The petroleum is imported, the refinery in India value adds and then sells to Pakistan at a profit and typically these contracts are long term and money being paid guaranteed usually with an escrow account.

I had a feeling that this is going to be a la la argument amit ji, a while back especially when the argument memes kept repeating inspite of any and (in my view) sufficient answers to the issues raised. But i for some reason persisted then... now iam desisting (trying) ..

amit wrote: Note: I must add this issue is entirely different from the locomotives issue, which is a dole and should be opposed vehemently.

Exactly Amitji, leasing of locomotives is physically handing over productive capital assets to theives and/or imbeciles and will have to be written off or degraded to that extent. Pakis should be made addicted to consumables not capital goods.
And petrochemical outputs firmly fall in the category of consumables and the tap can be literally turned off in case of mischeif.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 30 May 2012 18:33

If pakistanis are getting some marginal benefit from indian exports - is it good or bad ??

Actually naPakis wanted to eat Grass along with Khushboo!! we should not even spend a cent to convert this grass into a "grass burger" let them eat it raw.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 May 2012 19:19

Lets consider that we establish a business relation with pakistan, my question to the pro business lobby is what will happen to this relation when a terrorist attack by "non state actors" happens ??? How shall India respond to such a situation ???

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 May 2012 19:38

Sagar G wrote:Lets consider that we establish a business relation with pakistan, my question to the pro business lobby is what will happen to this relation when a terrorist attack by "non state actors" happens ??? How shall India respond to such a situation ???

I think I answered that question in my post. The petroleum tap is a powerful one which we can turn off. it's easy to sell refined petro because demand is greater than supply. from the Paki POV they would have to buy at spot rates which are prohibitively expensive compared to fixed supplies. I would think this gives us leverage.

BTW just to clarify using broad strokes and identifying a pro business lobby is a pointless exercise. for eg I'm against a liberal business regime with the Pakis. but in this instance I think its a damn good idea. in fact it gives us do much strategic leverage I'm 400 per cent sure the Pakis will not go thru with the project.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 30 May 2012 19:59

Sagar ji,
How about immediately cutting off supplies after a major terror stike (though i personnally think a major terror strike is less probable now due to various reasons) and letting the rest of the world markets including the massive indian market absorb any excess capacity earmarked for pakis in the meantime?
Coupled with the expected retaliatory attacks by our armed forces (since 26/11 has supposed to have touched the limits of indian patience) against high value targets , the escalatory curve will be moving down and pakis will in no time approach for restoration of supplies.

In case of a minor strike( which is more probable )- measures could include immediate price escalation or squeezing the supply. Then pakis will protest and stop consuming - for a while.

But ultimately both scenarios WILL see pakis coming back and haggling for restoration of access - and in that process of open begging their H&D will be again and again publicly GUBOed. This uniquely paki phenomenon has already been tested and demonstrated working may times in the reccuring shameless demand for access to IPL.

Ofcourse all this in actuality will provide no measure of real Justice (except for some fleeting succour to the victims) and the accumulated debts from terror strikes can only paidback to the pakees in full measure in an Indo-pak war or in case of a SNAFU situation prevailing withing pakistan in case of a raging civil war. Till then we have to bide our time.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 May 2012 20:06

amit wrote:I think I answered that question in my post. The petroleum tap is a powerful one which we can turn off. it's easy to sell refined petro because demand is greater than supply. from the Paki POV they would have to buy at spot rates which are prohibitively expensive compared to fixed supplies. I would think this gives us leverage.

BTW just to clarify using broad strokes and identifying a pro business lobby is a pointless exercise. for eg I'm against a liberal business regime with the Pakis. but in this instance I think its a damn good idea. in fact it gives us do much strategic leverage I'm 400 per cent sure the Pakis will not go thru with the project.

The bolded part is what I intended to say eventually but you have yourself pointed it hence saving pages of futile discussions. I think a weak paki economy is favourable to India, having a business relation with them gives them a breathing space so that they can attempt and get their economy on some kind of track. We must deny this opportunity, instead of daydreaming that puki economy will become dependant on us and they will magically turn into a saner nation.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 30 May 2012 20:15

Sagar G wrote:
amit wrote:I'm 400 per cent sure the Pakis will not go thru with the project.
The bolded part is what I intended to say eventually but you have yourself pointed it hence saving pages of futile discussions. I think a weak paki economy is favourable to India, having a business relation with them gives them a breathing space so that they can attempt and get their economy on some kind of track. We must deny this opportunity, instead of daydreaming that puki economy will become dependant on us and they will magically turn into a saner nation.

Its more an opportunity for us than to pakees.
On the question of whether such an trade will come to pass will depend on active GCC push on pakis to switch over to indian sources- please refer to this discussion to understand what i mean.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 May 2012 20:19

>> How about immediately cutting off supplies after a major terror stike

And Indians who work for the suppliers would surely not complain? For example, see Op. Parakram.

arun · Post by **arun** » 30 May 2012 20:19

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is claiming that Dr. Shakil Afridi, the informant who provided information leading to the execution of Mohammadden Terrorist Osama Bin Laden just outside the premises of the Pakistan Military Academy at Kakul was actually jailed for supporting Mohammadden Terrorists and NOT for the act of providing intelligence to the CIA on Bin Ladens whereabouts.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan alleges that Dr Shakil Afridi was linked with the Mohammadden Terrorist group Lashkar-e-Islam (LI) led by Mangal Bagh and to which group he gave PKR 2 million and provided medical assistance there to the LI's commanders Said Noor Malikdinkhel, Hazrat from the Sepah tribe, Wahid from the Shalobar Qambarkhel tribe and others:

Dr Afridi convicted for militant links

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 May 2012 20:32

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> How about immediately cutting off supplies after a major terror stike

And Indians who work for the suppliers would surely not complain? For example, see Op. Parakram.

Anyway what good will that do. GCC will immediately step in and make up for the loss to Pakistan.

It will be double whammy, all the capital and other effort that we have invested will be wasted, in addition, by then it would have created another bunch of vested intrests in India who will be even more queasy at a hard action against Pakistan (there are already communities who want peace at any cost, communities which are closer to Pakistan and communities which want buisness and money at any cost)

Net net, short term Zaziya (i.e. rewarding your attacked at cost to yourself to buy peace), long term a mill stone around our neck.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 May 2012 20:33

Lilo wrote:Sagar ji,
How about immediately cutting off supplies after a major terror stike (though i personnally think a major terror strike is less probable now due to various reasons) and letting the rest of the world markets including the massive indian market absorb any excess capacity earmarked for pakis in the meantime?
Coupled with the expected retaliatory attacks by our armed forces (since 26/11 has supposed to have touched the limits of indian patience) against high value targets , the escalatory curve will be moving down and pakis will in no time approach for restoration of supplies.

In case of a minor strike( which is more probable )- measures could include immediate price escalation or squeezing the supply. Then pakis will protest and stop consuming - for a while.

But ultimately both scenarios WILL see pakis coming back and haggling for restoration of access - and in that process of open begging their H&D will be again and again publicly GUBOed. This uniquely paki phenomenon has already been tested and demonstrated working may times in the reccuring shameless demand for access to IPL.

Sorry to say this sirji but your post is mostly filled with exotic imagination which is a manifestation of a number of assumptions like pakistan's economy will become dependant on India, Pakistan will hence become a saner state, Pakistan will stop supporting terrorism, in short Pakistan will grow up. We didn't attack them after 26/11 and I guarantee you sir another 26/11 will happen and we will be only dreaming about attacking pakistan. If India had the will to attack it would have done so long long time back. I personally don't understand this fixation with 26/11, were the terrorist attacks before them a lesser intimidation by Pakistan ?? Pakistanis are not that dumb that they will integrate their economy with ours in such a way that hurting us also hurts them or gives us any kind of leverage over them. As I said before to amit saar they only want some breathing space so that they can get out of their economic mess, doing business with India gives them that space and that's why we must not have any economic relation with them. A weak paki economy is in India's supreme interest.

Ofcourse all this in actuality will provide no measure of real Justice (except for some fleeting succour to the victims) and the accumulated debts from terror strikes can only paidback to the pakees in full measure in an Indo-pak war or in case of a SNAFU situation prevailing withing pakistan in case of a raging civil war. Till then we have to bide our time.

Look at your own post sirji talking about economic relation and war in the same breath. This is our problem we imagine situations where pakistan will become a mature state due to good intentions shown by India or as in this case having "business relations". When the thinking of average paki for India has not changed in all these years how come will any kind of business relation or CBM's are going to change that ?? For that to happen first pakistanis have to change their attitude towards India only then we can imagine to have any kind of relationship with them, till then we have to bide our time as you said.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 May 2012 20:37

Lilo wrote:Lot of personal attack

As I said, if you have something remotely worthy (even rehashing old points which have been shown to be simply incorrect) -- we can take it up.

The tactic of creating confusion through personal attack wont work.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 30 May 2012 20:45

Any cost savings on account of import of energy sources from India (includes electricity, diesel, kerosene, petrol and gas) and cheaper raw-materials/merchandise from India would only help shore up pakistan (that much more resources will be available for economic progress and military build-up) and for India to propose it and Indians calling to make feasible is a very very stupid idea. Its like nursing a sick poisonous reptile back to health.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 30 May 2012 20:46

India always wanted to move on economic front and encourage cross border trade in a free manner. However , when Pakistan was not so much threatened by implosion it never gave primacy to trade relations. Two examples come to my mind.

Onion: When onion prices were skyrocketing and there was general shortage, India tried to import Onion from Pakistan. It refused permission to import by Train Rakes and permitted only by Trucks which proved costly and timeconsuming.

Cement: Almost similar thing happened in this case.

In all trade related talks the position of Pakistan has been that it wants J&K issue to be solved first . That is one reason that Pakistan did not give India ( and still pussyfooting on this) MFN status despite India giving it and is mandatory under WTO regulations. In big brotherly approach India continued with onesided MFN status .

Now what changed.IMHO nothing except that Pakistan realised that as Tap is slowly being turned off and demands are being made by USA to cut off its relations with Terror groups and restricting its role in Afg , it can not survive without improving trade relations with india. But it has committed cardinal sin against India and has show little repentence. So unless Pakistan agrees to spell out what it would do to address Indian concerns , all talks of improving trade relations would come to naught sooner.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 30 May 2012 20:49

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> How about immediately cutting off supplies after a major terror stike

And Indians who work for the suppliers would surely not complain? For example, see Op. Parakram.

ASji,

If you mean whether the petro barons and the allied mercantalist class will browbeat GOI from taking punitive measures...
I think 26/11 changed the answer to that question. Many corporate big wigs were jolted out of slumber and got a real taste of fear of death in that episode. Regrettably a few top honchos of indian corporate sector even perished in that ordeal.Yes Bank chairman Ashok Kapur is one who comes at the top of my mind.

Another is ex-Vysya bank chairman KS Ramamoorthy (he can be very well called the bhishma pitamah of banking in canara region) who found himself staring down a gun barrel - he lied that he was a teacher but still a PigLet locked him up in a room distracted by nearing gunfire maybe to execute later ... he fortunately survied by somehow freeing himself and escaping out through a window.

Such cases are many and 26/11 and associated taj-oberoi seige was directly targeted at the elite of the indian corporate class. And this time they may not play a stalling game when india decides to move ahead and punish pakis.

As is well known Mercantalist class is prone to protect their interests by hook or by crook and the rising insurance premiums from reccuring terror attacks may well make them array in a coalition to coerce pakis to yield - but such a scenario is quite far into the future to come to pass. In the mean time there are many small scores to settle with the pakis.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 May 2012 21:00

How many businessmen wanted to punish Pakistan after 26/11? After 1993 blasts?

Only a small number of businessmen are affected by a given blast. Thousands of others can easily preach the virtues of cooperation and dialogue.

Unless the country descends into a civil war, I don't think businessmen would want to coerce their market --Pakistan.

And this phenomenon is not unique to India. You might recall that US companies wanted to relax sanctions on India in 1998 because they wanted to sell their goods to us.