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

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 18 Jul 2009 05:36

....but why is this all so shameful?...why is this so different from our past Indian thoughts or actions? I can understand jingo gurus getting upset, but what has caught even the media's attention?

Simple straight forward spoon feeding deeply appreciated. Moreover I have not read the 7 pages of material.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 18 Jul 2009 06:07

Satya_anveshi wrote:>>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.

Please don't complicate things unnecessarily. No one is going to "give" any role to India. The reason this declaration is wrong goes beyond all hair-splitting about how much actual difference it makes etc. Pakistan has waged war against India from the day it was born, with a very clear and implacable agenda for destroying India. The only way to remove this threat is to convince Pakistan that it has no hope of winning, ever. Contrariwise, any concessions by India reinforce the enemy's perception that India can be defeated and will only cause them to intensify their attacks, while India continues in the same pattern of capitulation, each time after a greater blow is struck by the enemy. Thus eventual defeat and destruction down the slippery slope.

Being as antagonistic as possible towards Pakistan is the only rational course for India. All other rhetoric is just rationalization of the defeat and eventual destruction that we are inflicting on ourselves.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 18 Jul 2009 06:10

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. 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 ....

Sorry to say this but this is total rubbish and self-delusion. Forget it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2009 06:48

RamaY wrote:
Gagan wrote:I don't know what 10 year or 100 year program GoI has to put an end to Pak sponsored terror.
Well there is this 912,830,194,804,234,890,234 year program that MKG put in place. Transform others' heart thru Ahimsa. And our MMS is following those phoot steps. Finally we got our jati-babai (paternal-uncle) after our jati-pita

Pakistan says that not resuming talks will help the terrorists.

Is it so difficult fro India to point out that with the Pakistani state being one of the sets of terrorists, we will be talking to terrorists by talking to Pakistan. We end up supporting Pakistan in eliminating "terrorists" as per Paki definitions leaving anti-India terrorists to thrive.

The issue is stupidly simple and India's reluctance to call a spade a spade is mystifying.

The story so far:

POW!
You hit me once - I'll take it. You hit me again - I'll finish you off
POW!!
What? You hit me again? You will not be able to hit me once more. You will be finished
POW!
Ouch! I will finish you off now. Unless you promise not to hit me again. Worse. I will stop talking to you.
POW!
No more talks. Next time I will hit you back.
POW!
Hitting me will get you nowhere. Only talks will get us anywhere. I will talk to you.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 18 Jul 2009 07:01

shiv wrote:The issue is stupidly simple and India's reluctance to call a spade a spade is mystifying.

How is it simple when the terrorists are backed by the Americans?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2009 07:17

vera_k wrote:
shiv wrote:The issue is stupidly simple and India's reluctance to call a spade a spade is mystifying.
How is it simple when the terrorists are backed by the Americans?

The way see it is that either
1) India is genuinely being armtwisted by Unkil (meaning that Unkll really is in a position to armtwist India - a position that Unkil is unable to adopt vis a vis North Korea for example)
or
2) There some deep deeep Chankianness in all this that requires the attainment of the absolute for me to understand.

I have reasons to believe that 1 is unlikely.

But 2 certainly sounds even more unlikely

Is there any other explanation for this? Other than what enqyoob says - it does not matter what you say to a Paki government.

Or maybe we are weak kneed, lily livered, yellow bellied - just as the Pakistanis discovered about us.

BajKhedawal · Post by **BajKhedawal** » 18 Jul 2009 07:26

John Snow wrote: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.

A picture says a thousand words so Please allow me to post a pictorial rejoinder to John Snows. (This is what precisely happened in

Sharm-el-Sheikh

) Paki showing false bravado in front of Amerikhans, I leave it to you all’s imagination what happens in the next shot

.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Jul 2009 07:31

I think there is truth in the statement, 'it does not matter what you say to a paki' or for the matter 'it does not matter what the paki says to you'.

Judge the paki by only his actions, not his words. The entire 60 odd year history that india has had with pakistan is filled with lies, deceit and attempts at backstabbing us. Very rarely and for that fraction of a moment in time have we ever seen india and pakistan ever joining hands against someone else - and then it always was because the pakis had an interest and as usual couldn't do it alone (so temporary taquiya to the kafirs).

Now, with so much bile having flown below the bridge, I wonder what has paki land gained or have we lost? We can just as easily backtrack or go slow on this.

Haven't we seen even major powers not living upto the sprit of an aggreement they signed with india in good faith? It is happening even to this day.

So let us do a taquiya with the pakis, every step towards punishing the terrorists they take, we whisper sweet nothings into their ears. Ideally I would like this to be backed up with a danda up their musharraf when they do something bad or when they slow down doing good things.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jul 2009 07:34

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.

Eklavya, if reference to the Balochistan issue doesn't involve India, why should it figure at all in a joint statement issued by both the PMs ? Do we talk about some river dispute among South Indian states in a meeting between MMS & Gilani ? Besides, MMS has himself said that India is willing to talk to Pakistan if they have any concerns about Indian involvement there because India had nothing to hide. Obviously, therefore, the joint statement implies Pakistani accusations of Indian involvement in Balochistan. It also talks about 'other areas' where Pakistan has concerns. They have cleverly made it open-ended so that they can keep on adding FATA, Sind, South Punjab etc according to their whims and fancies. Allowing a reference to Balochistan certainly ranks as one of the lowest points of Indian diplomacy. No two ways about it.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Jul 2009 07:41

The issue is stupidly simple and India's reluctance to call a spade a spade is mystifying.

The other day someone on the Stephanopoulos Show (probably George Will) who said the old American saying:

There is nothing educational in the second kick of a mule

Maybe GOI's DiploBabus like to get kicked.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Jul 2009 07:44

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. 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 ....

On Baluchistan, it would be worthwhile to refresh and jiggle our memories.

SLAMABAD, April 22 (Reuters) - Pakistan accused on Wednesday Afghanistan and India of supporting ethnic Baluch separatists fighting in the resource-rich southwestern province of Baluchistan.

Pakistan has in the past accused old rival India of meddling in Baluchistan but Wednesday's comments from Interior Ministry chief Rehman Malik were the most explicit for years and come after a deterioration in ties over a militant attack in Mumbai
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL467345.htm

Malik is the Interior Minister in the present Pakistani govt.

Therefore, what was the aim behind Gilani's appending 'Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas' ?

Balochistan is not even adjacent to India!

What has Balochistan got to do with the composite dialogue if India is not involved?

This was the Joint Statement of the Indian and Pakistani PM covering India and Pakistan's bilateral concerns and not international concerns to include Afghanistan and its borders.

Does the appending of the Balochistan issue mean that Pakistan wants India to help her fight the Balochis? If so, it then has some meaning. I am sure Pakistan would never want India anywhere in her area.

Therefore, the appending of the Balochistan issue is nothing but an indirect reference by Gilani that India is responsible for the Balochi insurgency as is the official Pakistan view as mentioned by Malik, the Pakistani Interior Minister.

The Joint stated has clearly cemented officially that there is Indian interference in Balochistan and 'other areas'. Other areas could mean NWFP and Northern Area (Balwaristan). And by allowing it to slip in, we have accepted it as such!

Therefore, it was a serious political and diplomatic faux pas.

Why was India shy to slip in 'India has some information on threats in Kashmir and other areas?

Just because there is no familiar refrain of Kashmir from Pakistan, we breathed a sigh of relief and allowed a free rein to Pakistan to append what they like?

The Joint Statement is indeed a sad commentary of incompetence.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jul 2009 07:46

SwamyG wrote:....but why is this all so shameful?...why is this so different from our past Indian thoughts or actions? I can understand jingo gurus getting upset, but what has caught even the media's attention?

Simple straight forward spoon feeding deeply appreciated. Moreover I have not read the 7 pages of material.

Swamy, the difference between the last 62 years and Sharm-el-Sheikh is that while we let Pakistan off the hook so far on every occasion, now we have voluntarily hooked ourselves. Ordinary mortals don't see a reason why we have committed a hara-kiri.

As for the media, I am not sure if they are also upset. If at all they are, they are only mildly upset. Foreign policy issues do not hog limelight like Mayawati's statues, Rita Bahuguna's fury, Varun Gandhi's speech etc. The hara-kiri of Sharm-el-Sheikh will be totally forgotten in a few days' time.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jul 2009 07:56

No sell out at Sharm-el-Sheikh

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Jul 2009 08:00

In that case, I conclude that India had decided to be overt about supporting Balochistan, Balwaristan, Sindh and Pakhtoonistan. In which case it means the end game is near - or that GOI babus have pakistan between their ears. I have no idea which is the case.

So what was the "discussion" between the ISI and desi Babus like?

ISI: "We are having concrete broof oph yuwar involvement in Balochistan. We will brejent thij to the Duniya unless you hand over Kashmir"

dB: 'Teri maaki.. I mean, Dearie Paki! Please go ahead and post that "Broof" up where you keep your cellphone'.

ISI: "We want to include reference to Balochistan in Joint Ishtatement at sharam-sharam el Sheikh".

dB: 'Tere Baapka.. I mean, Very pucca! You can go ahead and wipe my musharraf with your Joint Istatement'!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jul 2009 08:07

More hara-kiri by SM Krishna at Sharm-el-Sheikh

Recorded before the joint statement . . .

NDTV: Do you think that might happen in Egypt this time? Are we seeing signs to resume something?

SM Krishna: I think there is less acrimony now as I see it. Even the statement made by Pakistan at the ministerial conference was a very mild one and perhaps it might be the harbinger of thawing of the relationship between the two countries, which is in mutual interests.

NDTV: And on the issue of Hafiz Saeed, the Pakistan foreign secretary is saying that India should not hold talks on this single issue, but you know public opinion is following this case very closely back home. So, your thoughts on this?

SM Krishna: I agree with whatever the Pakistan foreign secretary has said. The formulation is that it is an internal matter of that country, if they feel and if they have taken a position, then we have to go along with that position.

NDTV: But he's said to be a perpetrator of the Mumbai attacks?

SM Krishna: Subject to the caveat that Pakistan did make an attempt to go at him and the courts have released him. Wisdom would have dictated that they took the matter to a higher court, but let us wait for the unfolding of events further.

SM Krishna even defeats a Barkha Dutt. I do not know if we ever had a worse Foreign Minister. Everyone is taking SS Menon & MKN to task and rightly so. But, we forgot about SM Krishna. He was in Egypt and one wonders what kind of advice he could have given based on his attitude revealed by the above interview.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Jul 2009 08:15

Satya_anveshi wrote:
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.

He is also an unelected PM apart from being the unelected FM.

If skills and experience in such appointments cannot allow a person to discern the nuances of diplomat and political chicanery, then that person should go back holding appointment where his skills can be better put in the service of the Nation.

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.

Given the ethos of our environment, that surely is a miracle!

On the issue of his being 'humble', it appears that he is merely humbled by the environment he finds himself in.

If indeed he is humble, then he should comply with another US President's adage - Speak softly, but carry a BIG stick! I wonder if he can carry a Big Stick!

It reminds me of another humble man - the humble farmer with a whole lot of misplaced ego!

In this Joint Statement, Singh was not really the Kingg!

His humbleness has put India in a fix!

We, ipso facto, have accepted that we interfered in Balochistan.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Jul 2009 08:20

narayanan wrote:In that case, I conclude that India had decided to be overt about supporting Balochistan, Balwaristan, Sindh and Pakhtoonistan. In which case it means the end game is near - or that GOI babus have pakistan between their ears. I have no idea which is the case.

So what was the "discussion" between the ISI and desi Babus like?

ISI: "We are having concrete broof oph yuwar involvement in Balochistan. We will brejent thij to the Duniya unless you hand over Kashmir"

dB: 'Teri maaki.. I mean, Dearie Paki! Please go ahead and post that "Broof" up where you keep your cellphone'.

ISI: "We want to include reference to Balochistan in Joint Ishtatement at sharam-sharam el Sheikh".

dB: 'Tere Baapka.. I mean, Very pucca! You can go ahead and wipe my musharraf with your Joint Istatement'!

A great uplifter in the morning!

I can't stop laughing!

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 18 Jul 2009 08:23

Gagan wrote: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.

Gagan Bhai
I agree. Looks like India will perpetually remain the nation with great potential. This incidence has proved a my hypothesis unless you are born in India you can never be Indian. Gujral and MMS has proved beyond doubt their allegiance at sub concious level is toward pakistan.

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 18 Jul 2009 08:24

I am at a loss to understand the angst and the wailing and the gnashing of the teeth. We have a population of 120 crore. It will take 1 crore major attacks to wipe us out. Based on the frequency so far, that would take roughly 1 million years (@ about 1 major attack per month). By that time the human race itself would be evolved into something else and pakis would have evolved into something else altogether. So why the halla-gulla? light le lo yaar!

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Jul 2009 08:37

Raja Ram wrote:In Sharm al Sheik, India's Pride (Singh) became India's Sharam

Very aptly put.

Meanwhile setting side the pain inflicted in Sharm El Sheikh FWIW a member of our Prime Minister’s delegation was thinking in a somewhat similar fashion as you were:

Shame uproar greets Singh

SANKARSHAN THAKUR

New Delhi, July 17: By the time Prime Minister Manmohan Singh returned pre-dawn today from his frenetic two-nation scurry, it was already clear to most in the high-powered executive nose of Air India One that they faced another hard and wearying day ahead.

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. ………………..

Telegraph

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Jul 2009 08:38

But one doesn't have to "wipe out" more than a couple of hundred before most of that 1.2 billion will surrender and kiss musharraf. So there is plenty of reason for concern that the Top Leaders act in a way that appears spineless.

The British did not have to "wipe out" more than a few hundred thousand, to enslave the whole region.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 18 Jul 2009 09:05

narayanan wrote:But one doesn't have to "wipe out" more than a couple of hundred before most of that 1.2 billion will surrender and kiss musharraf. So there is plenty of reason for concern that the Top Leaders act in a way that appears spineless.

The British did not have to "wipe out" more than a few hundred thousand, to enslave the whole region.

Well said Narayanan ji
We already are surrendering bit by bit.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Jul 2009 09:09

Next, Terrorist will demand all indian accept Islam and MMS will negotitate the date of this conversion. Obama , Of course has already declared America as one of biggest islamic =Pissful /BC / Incestuous country. I am little sad as soon whole world gonna become real time BC with bigger BC ruling.

Can some one find out the real contractual allegiance by Kangress in 47 " Transfer of Power" act by London Sahibs?

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 18 Jul 2009 09:12

SSridhar wrote:More hara-kiri by SM Krishna at Sharm-el-Sheikh

Recorded before the joint statement . . .
NDTV: Do you think that might happen in Egypt this time? Are we seeing signs to resume something?

SM Krishna: I think there is less acrimony now as I see it. Even the statement made by Pakistan at the ministerial conference was a very mild one and perhaps it might be the harbinger of thawing of the relationship between the two countries, which is in mutual interests.

NDTV: And on the issue of Hafiz Saeed, the Pakistan foreign secretary is saying that India should not hold talks on this single issue, but you know public opinion is following this case very closely back home. So, your thoughts on this?

SM Krishna: I agree with whatever the Pakistan foreign secretary has said. The formulation is that it is an internal matter of that country, if they feel and if they have taken a position, then we have to go along with that position.

NDTV: But he's said to be a perpetrator of the Mumbai attacks?

SM Krishna: Subject to the caveat that Pakistan did make an attempt to go at him and the courts have released him. Wisdom would have dictated that they took the matter to a higher court, but let us wait for the unfolding of events further.
SM Krishna even defeats a Barkha Dutt. I do not know if we ever had a worse Foreign Minister. Everyone is taking SS Menon & MKN to task and rightly so. But, we forgot about SM Krishna. He was in Egypt and one wonders what kind of advice he could have given based on his attitude revealed by the above interview.

This is extremely disappointing. For some reason I thought tha SMK will be a efficient minister. I don't know why I had good feeling about this guy.

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Jul 2009 09:15

Statement by the Prime Minister in Parliament on his visit to Italy, France and Egypt

17:12 IST

………….................... Prime Minister Gilani assured me that Pakistan will do everything in its power to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. He also told me that there is consensus in Pakistan against the activities of these terrorist groups, that strong action is being taken and that this is in Pakistan’s own interest. The distinguished parliamentarians from different parties who accompanied the Pakistan Prime Minister also said to me that there was political consensus in Pakistan on this issue. …………………...........

PIB

Before being taken in by the above reproduced Pakistani assurance on acting against terrorists targeting India within Pakistan, it would have been better all round if our Prime Minister had first read former US Secretary of State George Schultz’s memoirs:

Useful Fictions and Big Whoppers

Posted Friday July 17, 2009 under Krepons Shoebox
by Michael Krepon

………………. George P. Shultz’s superb memoir, Turmoil and Triumph, removed veils of official deception on many issues. One of my shoe box favorites concerns Shultz’s efforts to negotiate an agreement with the Kremlin on Afghanistan. One of the agreement’s provisions would obligate Pakistan to “prevent within its territory the training, equipping, financing and recruiting of mercenaries from whatever origin for the purpose of hostile activities” – pledges Pakistan and the United States were not inclined to honor. Indeed, Pakistan was doing precisely what the proposed agreement would prohibit. According to Shultz,

“After some discussion through our embassies, two phone calls were arranged. First, Pakistani Prime Minister Junejo called me to urge us to sign the accords and to pledge that regardless of the language the Pakistanis would agree to, they would continue to provide a home to the mujaheddin and be a place through which U.S. arms and other supplies would flow to them. Several hours later, President Zia, the truly authoritative figure in Pakistan, called President Reagan with the same message. I heard the President ask Zia how he would handle the fact that they would be violating their agreement. Zia replied that they would ‘just lie about it. We’ve been denying our activities there for eight years.’ Then the president recounted, Zia told him that ‘Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause.’” ………………

Arms Control Wonk

As George Santayana put it, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jul 2009 09:41

The Hindu editorial says the anger over the Joint Statement is 'ill-informed'

There is nothing in the language of the latest India-Pakistan joint statement to warrant the ill-informed cries of ‘sell-out’ that have rung out at home. What Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yousaf Raza Gilani agreed to in Sharm-el-Sheikh was this. The Foreign Secretaries would meet as often as necessary and report back to the two Foreign Ministers, who, in turn, would review the state of the bilateral relationship on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly this fall. If, in the wake of Mumbai and the run-up to Sharm-el-Sheikh, the composite dialogue stood suspended, it remains so after the July 16 joint statement. As Dr. Singh has explained, Mr. Gilani wanted the composite dialogue process to be resumed immediately but the Indian side told him this would not be possible without the perpetrators of the November 2008 terrorist attacks being brought to book. A legitimate question then is: what can be the meaning of this formulation in the joint statement, “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”? In plain English, this means both processes must proceed on the basis of their own logic, independently of each other. Pakistan must take action against terrorists regardless of whether the composite dialogue process resumes; and India must not link the process of composite dialogue to the quantum of action Pakistan takes against terrorism. {And yet, we will go back and tell the Pakistanis that we will not resume the composite dialogue until the Mumbai perpetrators are brought to book ? Am I the one not to understand these seemingly illogical arguments, being the mentally challenged person that I usually am ?}

Better phrasing might have suggested that while there would be no unidirectional linkage, there would be a positive expectation of reciprocity. The reality is that Pakistan cannot expect India to resume meaningful dialogue if it does not take credible action on terror; and New Delhi cannot expect a constructive response from Islamabad if it refuses meaningful engagement , especially given the divided nature of the Pakistani establishment. While Pakistan has taken more meaningful action in the aftermath of Mumbai than it has perhaps taken in the past three decades of cross-border terrorism, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh feels there is insufficient political and institutional support in India for the resumption of dialogue at this point. That is why he told Mr. Gilani that the dialogue process would have to wait — and the Pakistani side seems to have taken this in its stride. Regrettably, the government is likely to come under pressure to backslide and disown the small steps taken at Sharm-el-Sheikh. The Prime Minister struck the right note in Parliament by clarifying what India expects Pakistan to do but emphasising that the only way forward in the coming months is engagement. This newspaper could not agree with him more — and expects him to hold firm on the course worked out.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Jul 2009 09:44

The headlines 'Help Pak fight terror, Clinton tells India' in today's (18 July) Daily Times article is an indicator who 'guided' the Joint Declaration!

The Pakistani comment on the Joint Declaration is in the Editorial.'Editorial: Interpreting the Sharm al-Sheikh meeting'.

This makes interesting reading:

The Balochistan reference is important for Pakistan because Baloch insurgents themselves have talked about getting help from India. The fact that the world has ignored it is less about the lack of evidence and more about the pragmatism of geopolitics. As for India’s involvement in fomenting trouble in FATA, the issue has been handled in Pakistan irresponsibly. The trouble in FATA is home-grown but India has been taking advantage of it indirectly. That is smart from the Indian perspective because it is extremely difficult to find “direct” evidence of its involvement.

They are gloating!

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 18 Jul 2009 09:46

Now Bakstan seems to be indulging in sharam sharam by bringing out the dossier on 26/11 and naming Lakhvi, Kasab, etc. Not that it will change Bakstan's Bakistaniyat, but still what happens to the internal constituency in Bakstan? What will the aam jihadi think? Will the mullahs now shout sell out at sharam sharam al sheikh? Will 10%i/groper get IED mubarak, hain?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Jul 2009 09:48

Interestingly, the Hindu editorial is silent on the Balochistan reference!

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 18 Jul 2009 09:50

RayC wrote:Interestingly, the Hindu article is silent on the Balochistan reference!

Add that to the article .... even hardcore WKKs will start doubting gubmint intentions.
Chindu is providing MMS fig leaf.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 18 Jul 2009 09:58

"The terrorist attack in Mumbai in November last year was clearly carried out by a Pakistan-based outfit, the Lashkar-e-Toiba. There is enough evidence to show that given the sophistication and military precision of the attack, it must have had the support of some official agencies in Pakistan," Manmohan Singh's speech in the chief ministers meet in New Delhi January 2009.

This comes a day after India handed over its dossier of evidence. He also asked the international community to isolate Pakistan if it continued to use terrorism as a state policy. "Pakistan has utilised terrorism as an instrument of state policy and is engaging in whipping up war hysteria. Some countries like Pakistan have in the past encouraged and given sanctuary to terrorists," he said.

So from describing Pakistan as a terrorist state the PM is reduced to this:

With the contentious formulation on delinking terrorism from the composite dialogue creating a controversy in India, the prime minister reminded Pakistan about its 2004 anti-terror pledge. "As the joint statement says, action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process, and, therefore, cannot await other developments. It was agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats," he said.

How can he talk of sharing information on terrorist threats with a state sponsor of terror, whose official agencies he himself described as the perpetrators of terror?

And BTW the Chindu is wrong in this regard; the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks are not limited to bearded jehadis. They include the beardless beauties in the Pakistan army.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jul 2009 10:00

arun wrote:
Statement by the Prime Minister in Parliament on his visit to Italy, France and Egypt
………….................... Prime Minister Gilani assured me that Pakistan will do everything in its power to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. He also told me that there is consensus in Pakistan against the activities of these terrorist groups, that strong action is being taken and that this is in Pakistan’s own interest. The distinguished parliamentarians from different parties who accompanied the Pakistan Prime Minister also said to me that there was political consensus in Pakistan on this issue. …………………...........
PIB
Before being taken in by the above reproduced Pakistani assurance on acting against terrorists targeting India within Pakistan, it would have been better all round if our Prime Minister had first read former US Secretary of State George Schultz’s memoirs:

Pakistan has been kept alive since the early 1950s by only one country, the United States of America. But for the USA, Pakistan would certainly have been history. The billions of dollars aid, the support in international lending agencies, the arms and military training, the wink, nod, nudge and overt support it gave to Pakistan in its proliferation are all well known.

Let's see what some of the Americans have to say about Pakistan, in spite of all that:

"In Pakistan, we can no longer suffer the duplicity of that government in sort of fighting and not fighting and supporting and not supporting and the dual roles that many in the military and the intelligence service have played in the past” Congressman George Miller, Feb. 2009

For over a decade, India has been in the bull's eye of both al Qaeda and the global jihadist syndicate that has its hide outs in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bruce Riedel, Chairman, Policy review Committee on Pakistan & Afghanistan

“And after years of mixed results we will not and cannot provide a blank cheque. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out the Al-Qaeda and violent extremists within its border,” Barack Obama, US President, Mar. 27, 2009

"The Pakistan army, ISI, have had a very unclear, a very ambiguous relationship with the Taliban over the last 15 years." Lt Gen Karl Eikenberry, US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Mar. 2009

"Fundamentally, the strategic approach with the ISI must change and their support ... for militants, actually on both borders, has to fundamentally shift," Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mar. 2009

''I don't have a lot of confidence that the Pakistani government has the will or the capability to take on the violent forces inside of their country,” Senator Carl Levin, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, USA, Mar. 2009

“I think ISI is a — or parts of ISI — are certainly a problem to be dealt with,” Ms. Michele A. Flournoy, Under Secretary of Defense, US, April 1, 2009

“The Pakistani military and police and intelligence service don't follow the civilian government; they are essentially a rogue state within a state.” David Kilcullen, Adviser, Gen. Petraeus

"Pakistan poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world," Ms. Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State at Congressional Hearing, April 2009

“I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the existing Pakistan government to do one blessed thing,” David R. Obey, Chairman, House Appropriations Committee, April 2009

The reason I have quoted these ladies and gentlemen is that the USA which knows Pakistan like the back of its hand feels deceived by Pakistan's double game, deceit, fraud and perfidy even while being the largest and the longest donor, what motivation does Pakistan have of playing it straight with Bharat whom it considers as its only and implacable enemy and with whom it has vowed to fight a war of a 'thousand years' ? Past history more than amply demonstrates what Pakistan's intentions are vis-a-vis India. Man Mohan Singh is yet to understand Pakistan's hudabaiya and taqiyya tactics. That was why G.Parthasarathy said that MMS does not understand the seriousness of Pakistani terror directed against India.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 18 Jul 2009 10:12

RayC wrote: Given the ethos of our environment, that surely is a miracle!
.
.

In this Joint Statement, Singh was not really the Kingg!
His humbleness has put India in a fix!
We, ipso facto, have accepted that we interfered in Balochistan.

RayC ji,

I think my post came a little different than what I had meant to be. What I said about MMS was not really to display that he had some chankiyaness up his sleeves. I was just uncovering the personality of MMS that media so carefully built of that humbleness. If we remove the miracle part, what could be the reason?

I simply can't HATE this man enough for the most fundamental reason that he does not believe in Indian democracy (a representative democracy such as ours). There is no other reason than not fighting elections even when he was PM candidate, more popular than many other leaders, backed by media to an extent that no one has ever been pampered as much, further more, it may not have mattered as he still could have become PM irregardless. Rather this man has lied on oath (atleast in the spirit) that he belonged to Assam (RS member from Assam) and represented a population whom he may not even know.

He is an opportunist par excellence!

However, I was trying my best to still see some reason in the joint statement believing our institutions. It is fair to assume that bureaucracy might have prevented a lot of damage already.

Other thing to note is that the rage on BR was similar soon after 911 when Pakis did a U and we thought we couldn't prevent Pak terror to be dismantled as part of GOAT. But we somehow leveraged those circumstances inspite of $hits like MMS, I believe our folks will not dissappoint us and our efforts (and sacrifices) will bring fruit.

sum · Post by **sum** » 18 Jul 2009 10:16

Great that some people still have the confidence in our "strategic thinkers" even after the clear as daylight bungling..

Wish the men in charge prove my pessimism wrong and outdo themselves ( though i highly doubt it)

From the Telegraph article:

“But you see there’s no mention of Kashmir,” one of them retorted, trying to suggest India had had its little victories too. But then what about the agreed dialogue on “all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues?” Surely Kashmir remains on the table; and now, Balochistan too, enshrined as a Pakistani grouse on an official bilateral document. 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.

Scary if the men in charge of our policies are running around like headless chicken within a minute of signing of a joint declaration. Were they drugged when signing it given that they seem to have come to their senses within 2 minutes after the signing?

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Jul 2009 10:21

S. Sridhar,

Please accept my compliments on your very solid post made above.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 18 Jul 2009 10:25

KV Rao wrote: Please don't complicate things unnecessarily. No one is going to "give" any role to India.
.
.
Being as antagonistic as possible towards Pakistan is the only rational course for India. All other rhetoric is just rationalization of the defeat and eventual destruction that we are inflicting on ourselves.

Arre boss, I said outside of Indo-Pak bilateral. We can HATE Pakis all we want, sometimes we need to ACT magnanimous to corner Pak in the international community infested with sharks.

If no one is going to "give" India role in Afghanistan, then why are we asking people to make us important stakeholders? Why we are not already there in big enough numbers as desirable by us. Obviously we don't control or call shots there. Those who can need us to cozy up with Pak.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 18 Jul 2009 10:33

Maybe its time to start an Indian edition of the thread Bakistan: Emirate of New-clear Inquilabi States-Bojitiv Newj starring MMS and SM Krishna, with a focus on GUBO'ing. Channelizing our frustrations via humor would help prevent ulcers amongst many a BRF jingo.

Duangkomon · Post by **Duangkomon** » 18 Jul 2009 10:37

Like most of our institutions, the MEA which is supposed to be populated with the best and the brightest strategic thinkers leave a lot to be desired. I hope this gig is not just about throwing swingers parties or jazz festivals at the tax payers expense.

The question is why after 60 years of wheeling and dealing we still are not any good at tackling these treacherous pakis? People here keep alluding to the legendary long memories of babus. Then why do they come across as naive and unprepared and keep getting caught with their pants down everytime there is a major negotiation with the pakies. Why does it come across as what is now becoming a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

It can be argued away as just chai biskoot to humour the pakies while they keep killing each other. But what about the victims of terror in India? This chankian bs of playing the great game by sending messages to pakies and unkils while ordinary Indians, who keep paying the price for the inaction of these overated babus, are treated with contempt is a throw back to a time when the rich and bored reveled in their collective self importance.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jul 2009 10:47

In Tashkent in 1966, FM Ayub Khan H.J.,H.P. pleaded with Lal Bahadur Shastri in his one-on-one that India should give him something so that he can go back to Pakistan and face his people. Shastri gave him Haji Pir and some more.

In Shimla, ZAB pleaded with Mrs. Indira Gandhi in his one-on-one and asked her to believe him that he would stop interfering in Kashmir. This is what he said:"I have been saying in Pakistan: how can we fight for rights of Kashmiris? I have prepared public opinion for days ahead. But we cannot do it under compulsion." So, he asked Mrs. Gandhi not to rub salt into his wounds by making their oral agreements explicit in the final written document. He also brought a large contingent to Shimla from many political parties to drive a point of support from across the political spectrum for his Kashmir efforts, just like Gilani did at Sharm-el-Sheikh. Mrs. Gandhi, the hard-nosed person that she was, succumbed to ZAB's charm or wrong political advise from Dhar or whatever, we missed a golden chance to settle the Kashmir issue.

In Agra, Mr. Vajpayee, for all of BJP's brave talks almost succumbed to Musharraf's arrogance and bluster in a one-on-one and we were saved in the last minute.

All the reverence and magnanimity that we show in one-on-one meetings lead only to more pain for India.

That saga has continued at Sharm-el-Sheikh, only this time we have equated ourselves with the Terrorist State of Pakistan by branding ourselves as terror sponsors.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 18 Jul 2009 10:53

At least one blogger in Headlines Today (Gaurav Sawant) has called a spade a spade:

Sell out at Sharm El Sheikh

http://headlinestoday.intoday.in/index. ... ntid=52233