India's Sharm-el- Sheikh Harakiri...

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Jul 2009 02:12

We used to have a time-honored system of a Whine Thread. Let me cite RayC's logic here (of course, distorted to suit my objectives):

Do you really believe that MMS is capitulating / has capitulating on crucial issues of Indian national interest? Doesn't this rush to believe the worst, make you look like an idiot, more than anything else?

Is Pakistan better off today than on 11/25/2008? Is it heading in a direction that will swiftly make it better?

Do you believe that it matters one bit what sham the Pakistani "courts" do?

Will India be better off if Pakistan were to BAN the JuD, and all their "sahasranamas"? How?
Do you believe that Saeed (not Haffees, the other one - Shaikh Saeed) is really in jail on Death Row, or is he lounging in his mansion in LaHore?
Would banning JuD put a crimp in Dawood's activities?

I am not claiming to know the deep purpose behind MMS' statement/activities, but I think it is a time for me to "keep my mouth shut and have everyone wonder whether I am an idiot, rather than to open it and remove all doubt".

Archan, this thread needs a "whine" added to its title.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2009 02:32

A few remarks or grenades.

B. Ramanji is hardly the one to complain. If anyone recalls his ruminations on angst in nationalist forum after UPA win.

Second it was simple issue of English. MMS allowed Gilani to use the imprecision in the language to claim victory etc for his doemstic consumption. Its unfortunate that even Indians felt at a loss. One should go by what GOI does and not what others say. GOI could have given the speech before the TSP spokespersosn gave their spin, but thats a lesson unlearned.

Third I already said what the pressures were and what the options were. And what was doen advances them. Uncle holds the leash onteh pit bull which can be unleashed in directions of their choosing. So considering the factors MMS has scored/acheived the objectivs. My only concern is the inclusion of Balochistan in the joint statement. Saying its internal matter they want to bring up, wont pass scrutiny. If its internal then why bring in an external bilateral mtg? So may be there was a lapse here.

N^3 we do have a whine thread in GD forum. There is a purpose in this thread as it allows the misgivings to be aired and hopefully addressed. its not just forum members but opiinon makers in India who feel need to air their misgivings.

There is an old saying " He who asks a question is a fool for that moment. He who remains silent is one for ever!" the Indic way is to ask and find out.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Jul 2009 02:35

Rising disquiet in Congress over PM's Pak line

Faced with deep disquiet within Congress and protests from the Opposition over the "concessions" he is widely seen to have made to Pakistan, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh claimed here on Friday that India's stand on terrorism had not been compromised by the controversial joint statement he signed on to on Thursday at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
...
Party circles feel that the Sharm el-Sheikh document leaves room for suspicion that the Indian delegation relaxed its condition not to resume the composite dialogue with Pakistan
till the latter met its condition to bring the 26/11 perpetrators to justice and take credible and sustained measures to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan.

Sources in Congress were also upset with the mention of Balochistan in the joint statement, saying this was fraught with the risk of giving Pakistan room to fling the terror charge back at India at a time of its choosing. Significantly, PM skirted what party circles are calling the 'Balochistan bungle'.
...

The contrast between the tough tone Singh used and the text of Sharm el-Sheikh was highlighted by Jaitley, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha. "The explanation which the prime minister has given seems directly in odds to what is in the declaration. The two seems patently inconsistent with each other," Jaitley said. He also argued that it was the joint statement and not statements made in the country which will be taken as reflecting India's stand.

CPM's Sitaram Yechury, who supported the PM's intent to improve ties with Pakistan, supported Jaitley's contention about inconsistency. Comparing prime minister's statement in the House with the joint statement, Yechury said the two appeared to be in conflict.

For once, Congress leaders seemed to share the Opposition's perception. They also feel that the government failed to capitalise on Pakistan's dire need for early resumption of the stalled composite dialogue. "The very debate as to who has gained should not have been there had we played our cards well," said a senior leader who added that the party was wary of how the PM and his team negotiates on the sensitive issues of WTO and climate change. ...

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Jul 2009 02:39

Dipanker wrote:India too forced to admit Baluchistan, its written in joint declaration. So now we are equal-equal, thanks to MMS.

What did India admit? Pakistan is free to talk about Balochistan, Lahore, or New Zealand. If Indian position is that it is not involved, how far can the conversation go? In all the years that Pakistan claimed only 'moral and diplomatic support', was any substantial progress made? Did talks proceed past the Paki denial?

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 18 Jul 2009 02:39

archan wrote:
BijuShet wrote: I still want to hear from those who cheered the Cong(I)'s election victory as to how they read this current strategy. One such rakshak lives in the real Bangalooru (not the Kerala one) and would like for him to give me insight into why GoI feels the need to begin talks.
This shadow boxing is boring. Why don't you name names. Call them out loud and let us see then. Have you discussion that you are so wanting..

Since BRadmin Archanji is asking me to name names, I will. Poster's who were on the election thread earlier probably know who I was referring to in my post. I was specifically referring to Vinaji and Amitji. These two opined that a Cong(I) led GoI was better than a BJP led GoI and that MMS as a PM was good for India. At the time many amongst us kept repeating that MMS is a weak PM when it comes to security and Cong(I) actions are suspect when it comes to Indian interests. It was in this context that I made my posts above. Tightning the langot and then applying some mitti to matha before entering the Akhada. if the named Sajjan accept then Archanji can grab popcorn and enjoy a wholesome bout of freestyle kushti.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2009 02:41

X-Post...

Satya_anveshi wrote:OK guys...obviously a lot of us didn't like what we have seen. Although I tried my best to see it from non-obvious perspective yesterday (which I am sure are very very relevant) albeit in a disjointed manner.

Now, any agreement, if it too good to be true, then other party should also be equally worried. What's pakistan's gain?

Are any of the problems that are *threatening* Pakistan getting solved because of this statement:

1. the impending crisis involving balance of power related to amendments to constitution; This is supposed to be a HUGE fiasco in the making

2. The crisis involving IDP registration. Not all that is in media is correct. One incident involving IDP and all of them will stay put in camps and none will go back. They need a reason now NOT to go back as they at least they get food 2 times in the camps.

3. 4-5 places there are on-going operations and none of the top leaders of Taliban are caught.

4. The situation in s.pakjab is getting worse

5. All harried rats stand neglected; did you guys note what all the omar farooq's, yasin maliks, et al have been saying before the meet.

6. Now that Nawaz has been acquitted, will he bring Musharraf back to Pakistan. Remember Musharraf *left* Pakistan for good about a month ago People's anger with Army is at historic high. Even if there are legitimate reasons, Army cannot come back on streets now

Which of the above problems are going to be addressed. I think, the strategy was to deprive Pakistan of political space at a venue like NAM and also that the old hag was visiting, prop up Gilani, and kind of stay put with current things.

If we agree with the above, what is the *material* damage to India? What is the *material* gain to Pakistan?

The only material damage was bring up Balochistan as if India is involved in their own mess and support the calumny about the Indian consulates in Jalalabad and the other one.

But the Balochis should take heart that they are an important irritant to be used as a neogtiating pawn by TSP. What TSP did was to use their genuine self-determination rights and claimed it was an Indian effort and used it to highlight their incompetence. One more strike against them by TSP.
----------
Anyone recall the ruckus against LKA after the Jinnah tomb visit? Well same sort of ruckus is being made with out understanding the message and to whom is it addressed to.

Hint: Both were to same entity- uncle. The ruckus destroyed any benefits.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Jul 2009 02:54

Shame uproar greets Singh

...
They all had a keen sense that what they were trying to project as a foreign policy breakthrough with Pakistan at Sharm-al-Sheikh would be met with angry cries of ‘surrender!’ at home. As one member of the prime ministerial delegation remarked as we prepared to board the flight home yesterday: “Beware, when we land, they’ll probably be screaming sharm (shame) at Sharm-al-Sheikh.” The uproar in the houses of Parliament today quickly validated all their fears.
...
...
At issue was not even that unprecedented Pakistani insertion on “threats to Balochistan”, which has already been damned by many, including former national security adviser Brajesh Mishra, as an indirect admission of Indian guilt. At issue was this paragraph tucked in the midriff of the statement: “Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.”

To Pakistanis, and to most on the Indian side who read it straight, it was clear that, for whatever reason or intent, New Delhi had made a radical overnight shift and agreed to resume composite dialogue even though Pakistan had made tardy progress on bringing the Mumbai plotters to justice.
...
It isn’t clear whether the Prime Minister’s party got instant and politically alarming feedback from home or whether they got alerted by the eruption of celebrations in the Pakistani camp, out in huge numbers at Singh’s Golf Resort Hotel where the three-hour bilateral talks were held. But the Indian establishment looked immediately stuttered and shaken by the response.

While the Pakistanis — officials and journalists — hugged and hailed each other in the vast lobby and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani floated out triumphantly in an eddy of flashbulbs, a senior Indian diplomat morosely conceded: “I don’t know what’s suddenly happened, but we seem to have given too much away, in fact more than the Pakistanis seemed to want. What have we got in return?”
...
Another one offered what he called the argument of “logic and reason” — “Look, talks are the only way out, not talking does not help, the nitty-gritty of statements is not important, what’s important is that we have agreed to talk even as we strongly demanded guarantees against terror.”But had India not linked terror and the composite dialogue in the first place? What did this agreement on “delinking” then mean? Had foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon not told journalists only the previous evening that there could not be talks unless Pakistan met oft-stated Indian conditionalities on terror? What prompted the abandoning of those from the text of the statement? Indeed, what brought on the insertion of Balochistan? Questions were flying in their faces thick and fast.
...

From the frantic hubbub of officials in and around the Prime Minister’s suite, it was only too evident that the Indian side knew it was not convincing too many and was having to run post-haste to put a respectable picture on what it had agreed to. By the time Singh took the stage to address accompanying Indian journalists — the international media was locked out of this one — the sense of “surrender”, and the need to allay it, had sunk in to South Block mandarins.
...
By saying unequivocally and repeatedly that India would not agree to resuming the composite dialogue unless it saw “credible, effective and sustainable action against the Mumbai attack perpetrators and the terror infrastructure in Pakistan”, Singh had immediately linked the two issues and virtually turned back on the agreement he had just made.

Now on, it is probably going to take all too many words to explain the meaning of that single and simple word called “delink”.

Read this article in full. It gives an impression of bumbling MMS & diplomats, who were clearly caught like a deer in the headlights once the statement was read out. It might be that the statement needs to be read in a different perspective, but the meaning one gets on reading it is of capitulation. And they have given a new lease of life to a cornered dog.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Jul 2009 02:55

It is unbelievable that the PM was left to do his own white-water rafting on the rapids without elaborate rehearsals and briefings. It is possible that parts of Congress leadership were kept in the dark - as it would obviously need to be, if the political consequences and costs were already anticipated.

But I have been trying to focus on the super-haste of the new GOI ministers in declaring ambitious plans and the extra belligerence coming from the top echelons as regards UNSC and TSP. For me this was a sign that a possible costly political reversal was being anticipated, and that actual "compromises" with TSP could be in the line of thought of some of the core planners.

To be fair UK+USA pressure could have been enormous. The attempt to build up MMS's image, with the latest being the French serenade, as a "valued" and "important" leader of Asia in the "West" were all signals that something like a truce with advantage TSP was being planned.

TSP will cry and bite if Kashmir is not given to them - at least this appears to be the storyline put up by TSP leadership. So USA+UK hastens to arrange for such an eventuality in return for promises of lesser costs of maintaining TSP. Since the "costs" of giving Kashmir to TSP will mainly be borne by India, USA+UK gains at the expense of India, which is lovely from the business point of view.

This has been a trap for the GOI in many ways. But one way out of this is for the political alternatives, to declare that they will not support any process that comes out of this joint declaration. Any such process and its legalization should be declared to be in jeopardy and subject to reversal by future governments of India. If any party out there wants to lead India in the future that party should start acting as shadow GOI from right now and disassociate from the outcome of this joint statement in concrete and uncompromising ways.

ramanaji,
I can see that you have more faith than some of us. I would have been glad to gain some portion of your faith. But would you not agree that it is two-forked road from here. We are still at the junction, and there is no obvious guarantee that the road that leads to doom is not going to be forced on us!

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 18 Jul 2009 03:03

Late IG with Late RN Kao and Late FM Manekshaw(on the left) watching the borders of India, Kao face hase been edited out for secrecy (on the right)

Notice the real SIngh was IG.

What India needs now is vigilant citizens opposition and Press like this

But dont despair Rahul baba to the rescue even though he is a minion... can grow better mane than the gaas boos singh of today.

Kyase kya hogaya bewafa Paki pyarmay....

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Jul 2009 03:04

Any one knows when Nobel Committe gonna start accepting nomination for Piss Prize ?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jul 2009 03:08

I think most BRFites are not appreciating MMS's Chankyan thinking.

Let me eggs-plain!

MMS only knows how to negotiate with world leaders with only his Chaddi on. If the world leaders make too many demands, he pleads with them, "Please don't take my Chaddi away"! Now the UPA victory and the Govt. stability has dressed him with 40 Paggs, 30 Achkans, and 20 Kacchey!

Now if he were to go like that into a meet with Mrs. Klingon, she will right away do a Draupadi on poor MMS. She will say, you have so many Chaddis, you don't need to worry at all. Thakur mujhe apni chaddi de de! And MMS would have no choice! Pakis negotiate best with a revolver to their own head, and MMS negotiates best with single Chaddi on!

So just before Mrs Klingon lands in India, MMS thought he should get rid of all his extra Chaddis/Kacchey! He went to the great Chaddi Bazaar in BeSharm-all-Sheikhs and sold all his Chaddis to Gilani. Since Gilani is always making his Chaddis geela, he had a great need for extra Chaddis.

When MMS came back, the Opposition seeing MMS in a single Chaddi started shouting Sharm-Sharm-al-Sardar!

Now he can confidently go into a meet with Mrs. Klingon and tell her, he has no more Chaddis to sell.

So all People with high BP, relax, neither will we have to offer our Dhuaa for Doha, nor will there be a change in our climate. It stays 47 degrees Celsius onlee. Also New-Clear Dal does not become black.

Remember! MMS with 2 Chaddis is a Desh ki Chaddi ko Bechne Wala, but MMS with only one Chaddi is Indian Number One!

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 18 Jul 2009 03:09

>>If we agree with the above, what is the *material* damage to India? What is the *material* gain to Pakistan?

The question I didn't ask is what did India gain? IMO which is also echoed by some sources that the gains of India were outside of the Indo-Pak bilateral space and particularly in regard to Afghanistan.

the more we are seen antogonistic with Pakistan, the lesser the role we are offered in Afghanistan. It is current reality that world considers Pakistan as having more stake in Afghanistan relative to India. This == and dialog will help us maximize our stake there.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 18 Jul 2009 03:09

John Snow...excellent pics.

Any one knows when Nobel Committe gonna start accepting nomination for Piss Prize ?

Prem Nobel Committe only accepted nomination for that prize Morarji Desai won that Nobel prize hands down. Nobody could question his knowledge, experience and ability.

Sorry couldn't resist. How often do you get opportunity like this.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 18 Jul 2009 03:13

In respect of Balochistan, please read the statement carefully:

"Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats.

Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas."

There is no accusation against India nor any acceptance of involvment or blame on India's part.

In any case, India by itself does not have to do anything in Baluchistan. Our allies in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance, rule Afghanistan, which borders Baluchistan, and the NA dislike the Pak Army as much as we do. So, where is the need for us to leave any fingerprints. Give a knife to the NA, who NA gives it to, and what this third party does with it .... allah knows ... check the end user verification certificate.

As we all know, when dealing with Pakistan, words are anyway meaningless. The only language they understand is force. The PM of India is playing a long game ....

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Jul 2009 03:16

There will be no increased Afghan role for India. The hopes might have been raised, but no concrete offers. This will again run into troubled waters once TSP starts scratching the US+UK tail again for the next largesse. No, the game is not being understood. AFG will be USA+UK theatre of operations only, India can provide resources but nothing that gives solid military or strategic presence. This is mainly sops to TSP's infantile disorder - that it "needs" Kashmir. TSP is not conceding anything real, anytime soon. It simply has notched up one more step towards its dream - expansion east into Mughalistan.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2009 03:18

I agree that hedging is always necessary. The office of the PM has its own responsibilities that force the occupant to learn on the job.We dont know what was the view from there. Lets see.

On reflection what is amazing is the entire babudom abandoning their leader and not coming to his defence. The impression is that it was drafted by MMS. While the ultimate responsibility is his, the drafting was done by the official delegation. And their shock at the celebrations by the Paki delegation means they were in collective group think. And thats bad for the nation that the top babus are afflcited with this. Not one of them is coming forward with what transpired and led to this.

Meanwhile M.J. Akbar:

Byline for 19 July 2009

A statement out of joint

M.J. Akbar

A principal purpose of diplo-speak, and more particularly diplo-write, is to state the obvious. Platitudes are the daily diet of dialogue. Prudent officials wander from the obvious with great trepidation, and when tasked to create a new approach, they agonise over every word. Babur was wise when he warned, in Baburnama, “He who lays his hand on the sword with haste/ Shall lift to his teeth the back of his hand with regret”. This tenet of war is applicable to diplomacy. He who lays his hand on the pen with haste on foreign shore, shall scratch his head on returning home with deep dismay.

One sentence in the joint declaration issued by Dr Manmohan Singh and Yousaf Raza Gilani is going to hover over the future relationship: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”

You do not need a dictionary to decipher its meaning. This absolves present and future governments of Pakistan from any guilt in cross-border terrorism, a scourge India has to face for decades. It is a commitment that governments should continue the process of dialogue no matter how much havoc a terrorist group from Pakistan creates in India. If this principle had been in operation last year, India and Pakistan could have continued their Composite Dialogue in December after the savage Mumbai terrorism in November.

It reverses a consistent position taken by India from the time Mrs Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, and General Zia ul Haq financed and armed a massive terrorist upsurge in Punjab, even as his intelligence agencies trained and prepared young Kashmiris for a decisive “Jihad” in the valley. The role of the Pakistani state in this strategy of “war by other means” has now been documented in countless books and research papers. President Asif Zardari admitted as much when he said, very recently, that “yesterday’s heroes are today’s terrorists” — although officials tried to dilute the implications by suggesting he was talking about the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, they could not obscure the fact that he was referring to the hero-terrorist syndrome in operation against India.

There is no evidence, as far as the Government of India is concerned, that Pakistan has changed this policy. Terrorism remains its major export to India. The joint statement was signed on 16 July 2009. On 9 July, just seven days earlier, Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna told the Indian Parliament, “Notwithstanding Pakistan government’s assurances to us, terrorists in Pakistan continue attacks against India.” If Mr Krishna was misleading Parliament, he should be dropped from the Cabinet. If he was reflecting the Government of India’s considered position, then one can only infer that Delhi had decided to delink Pakistani terrorists from Pakistan’s government even before the Prime Minister left for Egypt. Otherwise there would have been no consensus in Sharm el Sheikh. The delegation accompanying the Prime Minister, including Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan, was aware of this change and party to it. Junior minister Shashi Tharoor was clearly not considered important enough to be kept in the loop, since, as he told a television journalist, the media had seen the joint statement before he did.

The Prime Minister has been very keen to resume talks with Pakistan, as he wants to expand his legacy. One can see some merit in this desire. The Indo-Pak gulf is infested with sharks. One treads with care. Some thought on how to handle the language would have given him what he wanted without compromising India’s options. Here is an alternative formulation, without the now infamous brackets : “No peace process can go forward without the support of the people, and people will not offer support until terrorism is eliminated, since they are its direct victims, as evident in the tragic events in Mumbai last November. The Composite Dialogue shall resume as soon as possible, but only after the Indian people are convinced that credible action has been taken against the perpetrators of the Mumbai havoc.” The second sentence is, in fact, precisely what the Prime Minister said at his explanatory press conference after the joint statement.

The problem is that press conferences have no status in international affairs; signed statements are the only documents that matter. Who recalls what was said before, during or after the Shimla summit in 1972? The signed agreement is what holds.

The Pakistani delegation used some very thin fudge to explain its impotence in the case of Hafeez Saeed, head of the Lashkar-e-Tayaba or whatever that terrorist organisation’s current name is. It passed the blame on to the state government of Punjab, run by Shahbaz Sharif, brother of the more famous Nawaz Sharif. Any reading of the government lawyer’s statements to the Lahore High Court, widely reported in media, would make clear that Islamabad was complicit, since the judges were not convinced that Islamabad was certain that the LeT was a terrorist organisation. There was deliberate ambiguity in the official stance. Moreover, action against a single individual would be inadequate. The danger is organised and spread across more than one network.

This leads us to a fundamental flaw in the joint statement, which may have escaped those who drafted it.

The text repeatedly uses the term “terrorism”. It is very easy for India and Pakistan to agree on terrorism. What they do not agree on is a collateral question : who is a terrorist? Pakistan still refuses to admit that any “Jihadi” who uses terrorism in pursuit of an independent Kashmir, or in support of Kashmir’s merger into Pakistan, is a terrorist. Pakistani diplomats and interlocutors repeatedly sought to condone the Mumbai attacks through the “root cause” theory. Kashmir was the root cause of terrorism, and therefore unless the Kashmir problem was sorted out (presumably to Pakistan’s satisfaction) terrorism would never end. America has bought this argument, because Pakistan has some excellent advocates in Washington. Should one surmise that Delhi is now nodding its head in the same direction?

Curiously, the joint statement includes a reference to Balochistan, lending implicit credence to Pakistan’s accusation that India is behind its troubles in Balochistan. If this were not the case, why mention Balochistan in an India-Pakistan statement? We did not make any effort to include the Naxalite violence in the statement, did we?

India may have gone to Sharm-el-Sheikh as the victim of terrorism, and returned as the accused.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 18 Jul 2009 03:24

eklavya wrote:In respect of Balochistan, please read the statement carefully:

"Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats.

Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas."

There is no accusation against India nor any acceptance of involvment or blame on India's part.

In any case, India by itself does not have to do anything in Baluchistan.

Is the joint statement between India and Pakistan or is it an internal document of Pakistan? Did the Indian Govt sign it? What is the role of that statement for the Indian side?
Why was Pakjab, Sindh, NWFP not mentioned? Why was Maharashtra, MP, rajasthan, so on not mentioned?

It is another form of saying in Baluchistan, India has been playing a role and the clear inference, it is negative. In other words, we have accepted that we have been playing harakiri in Baluch, couched in diplomatic terms. Where as Pakistan accepted exactly zero responsibility for mumbai.

If this is not a comprehensive defeat for Indian foreign policy, I do not know what is.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 18 Jul 2009 03:25

I am going to Egypt for holidays next week.....................will be sad reminder

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2009 03:28

Maybe we should let SS Menon and MKN retire. They have served the country for too long and are fatigued when they couldnt see the PR disaster looming and were in group think mode.

archan · Post by **archan** » 18 Jul 2009 03:29

narayanan wrote: Archan, this thread needs a "whine" added to its title.

I hear ya. But lets enjoy the 'wine' while it lasts.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 18 Jul 2009 03:31

Gerard wrote:
Dipanker wrote:India too forced to admit Baluchistan, its written in joint declaration. So now we are equal-equal, thanks to MMS.
What did India admit? Pakistan is free to talk about Balochistan, Lahore, or New Zealand. If Indian position is that it is not involved, how far can the conversation go? In all the years that Pakistan claimed only 'moral and diplomatic support', was any substantial progress made? Did talks proceed past the Paki denial?

I have been following the flood of emotions all over the forum on this.

One thing I agree was that it was a shoddy affair that that MMS and team. Two things to note here..
(1) It deprives us all of one hope that we all clung to.... "hope it was all a big chanakyan move". These hopes fall flat now.
(2) Seems like we really have nothing to do with the B problem.

But, maybe we can turn this on its head.

How many provinces does Pakistan have?
(1) Among those, PoK is QUOTE"disputed"UNQUOTE.

(2) Now Balunchistan is added
If we have let "Baluchistan" creep into the pact now, then that is second Pakistani province that is getting attention. If we can bring it in today, tomorrow why can't we ask for restraint yada yada yada tomorrow.

(That will ofcourse enrage PA and bring in their gunships. Let Baluchi's take shelter in India (asylum). No use hiding under the "Its their internal matter" anymore . This is a game played by every tom dick and harry in the world, US/UK/Pakistan etc. Why should India be left behind? Unfortunately, numbers are against us though, but its got its nuisance value)

(3) I say, next time add South Punjab too. It has its problems and it next to us.

(4) Sindh can follow.

Ofcourse they are all internal matters.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 18 Jul 2009 03:38

RajeshA wrote: Remember! MMS with 2 Chaddis is a Desh ki Chaddi ko Bechne Wala, but MMS with only one Chaddi is Indian Number One!

Was thinking the same thing. Maybe its the silver lining.. or maybe MMS will beat his current record in the coming week??? We will found out.

Maybe Clinton will think.. "Gosh Dude.. I didn't ask you to give out all of them!!!"

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Jul 2009 03:45

Hoping for mile from Pakistan, India gives more than an inch

K-word out but big B-word in: Balochistan

...
Seasoned diplomats expressed surprise and concern over the inclusion of Balochistan in the statement, the first time that the issue has found a mention in any joint statement issued by the two countries.

“This is an indirect acknowledgement by New Delhi that India has a hand in what is going on in Balochistan,” said Brajesh Mishra, the National Security Advisor and Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister in the NDA government. Mishra went on to denounce the joint statement on another count, on the assertion that action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process between the two countries.
...

...
Former Foreign Secretary Lalit Mansingh was equally critical of the Balochistan reference. “Pakistan, perhaps, will be able to score some brownie points on this from its domestic audience. But this is an absolutely absurd theory that India has any involvement in the terror activities in Balochistan,” he said.
...

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Jul 2009 03:47

A clincher? - Shekhar Gupta

...On Balochistan, however, Indians would be concerned to know what it is that is happening there that it merited inclusion in the joint statement when no other region did — and what this would imply for future negotiations.
...

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 18 Jul 2009 03:50

A PM with real b@lls can now say to Kao boys, boys, I just got some job for our numbnut diplos to keep them busy with talks.....go screw Pakistan and break it up..let there be Diwali celebrations at Quetta and Peshawar

Alas..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2009 03:57

From the Hoping for a mile article

While there was no mention of Jammu and Kashmir in the joint statement — unlike in previous such documents — it said that, “Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas”, a hark back to Islamabad’s accusations that New Delhi was fomenting trouble in that revolt-torn province of Pakistan. Indian diplomats however sought to dismiss it as a “lame introduction”.

Asked how Balochistan made its way into the joint statement, Singh said Gilani told him there was a feeling in Pakistan that India was responsible for the unrest there. “I told him our conduct is an open book and we are willing to discuss it. If you have evidence, we will look into it. We are not afraid of discussing anything.”

Hope it wasnt a silly acceptance as that. Now TSP can hand over any cooked up stuff with uncles help and browbeat India.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jul 2009 04:05

What really hurts is that India is not being ruled by a man, who simply has a different opinion as you, perhaps even on a whole range of issues, or that he is a rural-type, and his language is unpolished; but rather that he is stupid.

A stupid man is ruling over 1.1 billion people; and the whole world can see it. What is worse, that your ruler is a dictator, a human-rights violater, a corrupt man or is it worse that your ruler is stupid?

If one is a dictator, or a human rights violater, or a corrupt man, at least that doesn't reflect on you as a citizen. May be you just didn't have a chance to put a more righteous man in power. That reflects on your lack of capacity to bring about change.

But if you put a stupid man in charge through a democratic process, then it just says that 1.1 billion people were stupid to put him there, or too stupid to understand that he was stupid, or too stupid to bring him down. It reflects on a nation's lack of intellect, and that hurts!

Disclaimer: It is a general whine, not MMS specific.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Jul 2009 04:24

" He who asks a question is a fool for that moment. He who remains silent is one for ever!" the Indic way is to ask and find out.

OK.

But I also believe in this case, as per the Smuggler's song, that

He hu pooch no questions
Ain't told no lies

Perhaps MMS has decided that the only way to deal with the Pakis is to say one thing and do another. India saying that talks CAN happen, is very different from India actually giving anything away.

Or maybe MMS has got the same info that I have, from Usually Reliable sources who shall remain unnamed:

Pakistan's civilian govt is in its very last days. Any promises made to or by them are irrelevant.

Anyway, the

here seem to have forgotten the very significant leaked news that Indian Top Babus have been in "discussion" with the ISI in relation to the "Will negotiate between US and Mullah (Colonel, PA, as we know) Omar" offer. If THAT is going on already, then what difference does it make, what MMS says or nor leaves unsaid?

Given the above, and the daily Suspected Predator Susprected Attacks, the PA is clearly in desperation stage, and cannot tolerate the continuation of the Das Berjent regime.
Also, Sugar Thief Sharif has been cleared by the Court, so he has no reason now to tolerate the PeePeePee. If he returns to power, as he very well can, given the extreme job ratings of the present "government", then he will go after Musharraf.

So.... it is time for the next round of the Pakistan Dictator Cycle. MMS was talking to nonentities.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Jul 2009 04:26

Politicians are not stupid. No one who has survived decades of political cut and thrust and made it to the top, placeholder or not, can be accused of stupidity.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 18 Jul 2009 04:31

RajeshA wrote:What really hurts is that India is not being ruled by a man, who simply has a different opinion as you, perhaps even on a whole range of issues, or that he is a rural-type, and his language is unpolished; but rather that he is stupid.

Show me one other Rhodes Scholar who talks and sounds like MMS?

Show me one other individual with equivalent skills who gets to hold so many high profile jobs (in all govt's): in Indias Atomic Energy Commission , Planning Commision, UGC chairman, Governor Reserve Bank, Finance Minister (without ever getting elected), and then PM.

Then one has to know whether a humble man in India can get to move across so many different posts without any recommendation, backing and *cunning*etc.

If there ever is one luckiest person I have see in all of life..he is MMS. This is like a story that goes that when god asked an dying poor old blind women who had no children, what do you want I can grant your wish..she said...God..I want to see my grandson on a throne....boleto...she has to get married, get busy, have children, have grand children, they become rich and also she should get back her eyes

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 18 Jul 2009 04:34

To all the ones, feeling rage:

I strongly doubt that we know the whole story. What has been promissed, what are the internal dynamics in TSP etc etc.

1
It is evidently clear that India will not/can not/it not willing to respond to TSP terrorism. By starting an open conflic, India could end up uniting TSP.

2
It is very clear that TSP is heading for civil war. The knifes are being sharpned on all sides. It is in the Jehadis interest to start an IndoPAK conflict. With the statement, India has refused to play to the Jehadi plot.

3
In my opinion MMS has opted for an "live and let die" strategy.

4
Has India been able to shut down SIMI and its bakcers? Has India managed to arrest the Dawoods Quislings in the country? How is TSP going to shut down the LET with it massive backing? It's just not going to happen.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jul 2009 04:38

But some politicians inherit power, others are picked, others are misinformed and still others let their jhapphi-pappi emotions get the better of them. And some grow old and senile.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 18 Jul 2009 04:38

ramana wrote:Maybe we should let SS Menon and MKN retire. They have served the country for too long and are fatigued when they couldnt see the PR disaster looming and were in group think mode.

You are wishing and asking this many times. Unfortunately it is not happening.

The lords of Mordor are becoming progressively more powerful in India. It is a matter of time that the rings will reach them as Frodos are not available.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Jul 2009 04:39

The Prince
by Nicolo Machiavelli
CHAPTER XVIII

For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious.
...
One prince of the present time, whom it is not well to name, never preaches anything else but peace and good faith, and to both he is most hostile, and either, if he had kept it, would have deprived him of reputation and kingdom many a time.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 18 Jul 2009 04:47

Rishirishi wrote:To all the ones, feeling rage:

I strongly doubt that we know the whole story. What has been promissed, what are the internal dynamics in TSP etc etc.

1
It is evidently clear that India will not/can not/it not willing to respond to TSP terrorism. By starting an open conflic, India could end up uniting TSP.

That option was lost 27/12. so no point in talking about what is not even on the table

2
It is very clear that TSP is heading for civil war. The knifes are being sharpned on all sides. It is in the Jehadis interest to start an IndoPAK conflict. With the statement, India has refused to play to the Jehadi plot.

It is the prior statements which made the past 6 months terrorist incident free. Now with this MMS has basically said, "Pakistan, you can send as many terrorists you want. Even if they are caught live on TV, Pakistan will have zero fall out". So now Pakistan can now no need for suicide bombers to escape scrutiny. They can even get arrested and their faces shown on TV, but it will not change a thing.

3
In my opinion MMS has opted for an "live and let die" strategy.

I apologize for differing, it is "get killed again and again, but do nothing"

4
Has India been able to shut down SIMI and its bakcers? Has India managed to arrest the Dawoods Quislings in the country? How is TSP going to shut down the LET with it massive backing? It's just not going to happen.

Let me give you another angle. By forcing Hafeez Syed and co out of public reach and getting them "arrested", what you have done is for the lower level jihadis showing that Pak is not fully supporting them, thus driving a wedge between PA and jihadis. By removing the pressure, there is no wedge and they can have a cozy relationship.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jul 2009 05:11

ramana wrote:The impression is that it was drafted by MMS. While the ultimate responsibility is his, the drafting was done by the official delegation. And their shock at the celebrations by the Paki delegation means they were in collective group think.

Ramana, Mr. Singh has clearly said that after his one-hour long one-on-one, they both called their foreign secretaries and he told them what to include in the Joint Statement. So, Mr. Singh takes full responsibility for the Statement.

SS Menon & MKN must have told Mr. Singh, at least in private, quite firmly that including Balochistan was a no-go. We don't know whether they said that and they were still over ruled by the PM. If they had not said that to the PM, they stand accused of dereliction of duty.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 18 Jul 2009 05:14

At times people do things just to stay in limilight.

Take the example of UKondom.....It is so fu(ked up that no one, even african countries, bother about them. so, once in a while, clown PM G.Brown or his ambassodor Miligand comes out and gives out stupid statement. Media creates ruckus and the joker gets his 2 mins of attention. This is very consistent with UKondom.

Recently, Kambli got is 2 mins first by slinging mud on Tendulkar and then eating his own spit. but he did get is 2 mins in media.

It could be that MMS, when he feels threatened by clown prince columbia wale, he also gets into controversy. Due to increased nuisance value and publicity, he gets to stay on to correct his own mess lest people will think rajmata has punished this humble man, friend of pakistan.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 18 Jul 2009 05:15

I agree, Balochistan reference was a bouncer. I am scanning paki media to see the reaction of Baloch leaders.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Jul 2009 05:17

I am through criticizing MMS period.

I have a new grouse.

India is still an immature nation which can't even negotiate right. Which aspirant to great nationhood status capitulates like this? How can a nation's foreign delegation - the prime minister and the best of its foreign policy mandrains, let something this disastrously confusing ever to arise in India's dealings with a foreign nation?

The failure is of the whole team, they should have educated MMS to the futility of talking sense with pakistan. MMS is just not strategic a thinker enough.
We last saw this in the Nuclear deal, where perhaps GWB had caught on very quickly that the indian PM was the weak link in the chain. The babooze probably saved the day to allow india to fight another day.
The eagerness with with MMS is willing to wave the white flag and let bygones be bygones is astonishing!

I am praying, that the next occupant on the chair, Rahul baba, has the sense and the fortitude to LISTEN to his foreign policy team, else we have no hope.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Jul 2009 05:23

Has MMS disbursed largess in a manner that IK Gujral and Morarji Desai did by shutting off RAW ops in pakistan?
I hope we don't have to wait 10 years to find out, that when the fireworks were going off in pakistan, our PM had handcuffed RAW to his front door, while he went on an = = ego trip.

If we betray the balochs, there is no hope for our nation. Pakistan is going to kill off all the baloch resistance in a matter of a few years, and then the baloch will hate us more than they hate the pakistanis. Pakistan will then emerge stronger than before and inflict even deeper cuts in its 1000 cuts policy.