Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): July 07, 2010

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Jul 2010 14:10

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=30151

Sources said Pakistan would adopt a decisive stance on India’s violation of Indus Waters Treaty and would demand US to play its role in this regard. Pakistan during the Strategic Dialogue would also demand an increase in aid being given by the US under the Kerry-Lugar Law.

Why do Pakis demand so often?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2010 14:13

abhishek_sharma wrote:Why do Pakis demand so often?

It's just another begging position for Pakis!

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 19 Jul 2010 14:18

Dilbu - see if the link below works for you - I had some problems with it...

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/ ... =HTML&GZ=T

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 19 Jul 2010 14:39

^^^
Yes I can see the link. They should have given it in the editorial.

sum · Post by **sum** » 19 Jul 2010 14:41

Anindya wrote:aman ki aasha put to rest - available in the print version, I believe...

Times View
The Times of India has actively championed the cause of peace between neighbours India and Pakistan, and continues to do so because it believes peace is in the interest of the two peoples. However, the path to peace cannot be strewn with bad faith and blatant misconduct—both of which Pakistan foreign minister Qureshi has displayed in ample measure. ................

AoA....

The sun will surely rise from the west tomorrow morning!!!!

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Jul 2010 14:46

Anindya wrote:Dilbu - see if the link below works for you - I had some problems with it...

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/ ... =HTML&GZ=T

The Domino effect of Pillai ji "outburst" seems to be panning very well after having knocked the pants off TFTA Qureshi.

Now I just can't believe that a senior official like Pillai ji - holding the uber sensitive Home Sec post - would speak out of turn at that critical point in time.

That point combined with the unusual amount of leaks to the press from the Headley interrogation seems too much to be of a coincidence.

And now, it seems, just according to script the Good Cop, Bad Cop routine has kicked in with different newspapers reporting the same thing about how the PM was unhappy with the Pillai statement - and each newspaper quotes unnamed sources.

Do read those reports with the one which says Hillary bhenji was also "unhappy".

And the other interesting point is if our FM meets that turd in Kabul, guess what they will most likely not discuss: Kashmir.

The whole sequence of events seem to choreographed to be just happenstance. Also, I wonder if the message was for Pakistan and the US of A?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Jul 2010 14:47

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2010_pg1_8

They also wanted that Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Balochistan be included in the joint statement, to which Krishna, fearing a fallout akin to that of Sharm el-Sheikh, said a firm no.

Countering that Krishna was receiving phone calls during negotiations, they said that it was in fact Qureshi, who was getting chits from his officials during the conference.

When Qureshi referred to the AJK elected government, he received the first chit instructing him to refer to the phrase ‘Indian-occupied Kashmir’. The second chit asked him to raise the issue of Balochistan.

Why do they want to include PoK?

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Jul 2010 14:49

sum wrote:AoA....

The sun will surely rise from the west tomorrow morning!!!!

Boss,

I think the interesting point is even Aman ki Asha bhakt like ToI felt compelled to write something like that. Sure they'll probably go back to Aman even if they don't have too much Asha about it but its a start anyway.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 19 Jul 2010 14:56

ToI realised they will look nanga in public and people are soon going to realise how ridiculous this whole 'chaman ki tamasha' episode was. They did a preemptive soosai bum blast to avoid further H&D loss before 'hawkish' nationalists take them to task.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Jul 2010 15:18

Rudradev wrote: The Orbat article does not do enough to demolish the Pakfilth propaganda of Junagarh being a "mirror image" of J&K.

That's correct. The Orbat article also claimed that Pakistan had a 'moral claim' on K&K. Rubbish.

I will add to what Rudradev has already posted. The following was posted by me here several years ago.

About Kashmir

Even going by the UNSC resolution, it would be very clear who was the aggressor. The operative part of the most important UN Resolution,that of Aug. 13, 1948 states:

Having given careful consideration to the points of view expressed by the representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and ....
Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal:
As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.
2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

B.

1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.
2. Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of the cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

About Hyderabad

Firstly, a little bit of background. Hyderabad, Deccan was a princely state ruled by the Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali, at the time of the Partition. The Princely state was about 85% Hindu and surrounded on all four sides by a predominantly Hindu British India with no external access except through these lands. The Princely State of Hyderabad had no sea-ports. The Nizam, at that time, was reputed to be the world's richest man.

On the same day the Maharajah of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession to India, Oct. 26, 1947, the Nizam was supposed to sign the "Standstill Agreement" with the GoI. The "Standstill Agreement" effectively maintained a status-quo relationship with India while the Nizam could make up his mind about the future of his state. The Nizam essentially did not want to lose his power of lordship over his citizens (I don't blame him, who would ?. But, unfortunately, his desire for perpetuating his rule, flew in the face of the realities of a changed scenario.) He wanted to strike a deal with Jinnah who promised him heaven if Hyderabad so chose to join with Pakistan (this was bribery that Jinnah had successfully done with Islamists, pirs, zamindars, ashrafs and some Princess). The draft Stand-Still agreement had earlier been approved by his Executive Council after three days of debate and had been also negotiated with the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten. However, when the time came to sign it, the Nizam was wavering. In the meanwhile, the Razaakar goons (a private militia under the patronage of the Nizam) of Ittehadul-Muslimeen surrounded the house of the Government of India delegation carrying the Standstill Agreement and forced them to flee. At last, the Nizam signed the Agreement on Nov 29, 1947. However, this incident led to a loss of trust by New Delhi in the Nizam (and rightly so). The Nizam sent an Ittihad (the same religious organization which hounded out the delegation from Delhi earlier) emissary to Jinnah for advice. Jinnah, though he probably knew the futility of a land-locked and Hindu majority state way down south ever being part of Pakistan, still decided to make life miserable for Indian leaders at the cost of the Nizam. He advised the Nizam "not to give an inch" and the Nizam promptly played into his hands. The Princely State of Hyderabad and GoI negotiated for the next nine months to reach an agreement between the Heads of States to formalize the Stand-Still agreement, but the Nizam was steadfast in following Jinnah's advice. The distrust that GoI had started to develop with the Nizam was complete when on June 15, 1948, the Nizam rejected the final draft after it had been re-drafted three times with his Executive Council. The final draft was very generous leaving the Nizam complete control except in matters of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communication. The Nizam also approached the US which refused to intervene. After considerable debate within the cabinet of GoI, after having exhausted all reasonable avenues, after having waited more than a year, after repeated obstinacy from the Nizam, after the Razaakars had started killing Hindus and raping their women, and after a couple of last-minute postponements at the instance of the First Indian Governor-General Rajagoplachari in order to give more time to the Nizam for sanity, the Indian Government finally launched Operation Polo on Sep. 13, 1948. The blame rests entirely with the Nizam and Jinnah, the former for being greedy, power-hungry and oblivious to reality and the latter for his callousness to human lives and suffering just in order to make lives of India and Indian leaders miserable, a prospect which his inflated ego always relished and which has been passed on as a legacy till this day to his successors and nation. With the end of Jinnah nearing in August, the Nizam's game was up.

About Junagadh

Junagadh was again a Princely State in the Kathiawar area on the Saurashtra coast of Gujarat with 95% Hindu population with a Muslim ruler and like Hyderabad not having any geographical contiguity with Pakistan.The story starts with an unexpected announcement by the Nawab of Junagadh on Aug. 15, 1947 to accede to Pakistan. There was no response from Pakistan till Sep. 13 when it announced its acceptance. This came as a surprise to Indian Govt because India and Pakistan had decided not to have enclaves of one country inside the other. That was why India had refused the plea of the Khan of Kalat, the largest Princely State of Balochistan, as it had no physical contiguity with India. A mass protest movement started in Junagadh as a result. An Indian representative, V.P. Menon, was sent to Junagadh to talk to the Nawab who refused to meet him. Upon this, he met the Dewan (aka, Prime Minister in modern parlance), Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto (yes, you are right, the father of Z.A. Bhutto and the grandfather of Madam BB) who agreed with VP that he personally favoured a referrendum for ascertaining the wishes of the people. Sir. Bhutto would later play a crucial role, as we would see. On the 18th of Sep, the neighbouring Sheikh of Mangrol, a vassal state of Junagadh, signed Instrument of Accession with India. Both Mangrol and Babariawad, another vassal state that had acceded to India, argued that with the lapse of Paramountcy, they were independent to take decisions. This caused resentment to the Nawab of Junagadh to order his troops to invade Babariawad. This was rightly construed by GoI as an act of aggression on Indian territory. However, the GoI desisted from taking any action till the British Constitutional experts opined on the legality of the actions of Mangrol and Babariawad. In the meanwhile, the GoI asked the Nawab to withdraw his forces from Babariawad which the Nawab refused on 25th Sep. After the legal opinion was obtained on the admissibility of the Instruments of Accession of Mangrol and Babariawad, the GoI decided to take military action by end Sep. The GoI decided to send troops to the Kathiawar region, to the borders of Babariawad and Junagdh, awaiting further orders. Even as the troop deployment was about to begin, the Nawab of Junagadh went ahead and occupied Mangrol on 1st Oct. The GoI then instructed the Indian commander to prepare a plan for the retrieval of Mangrol and Babariawad. On Oct. 5, the GoI issued a detailed press statement on the situation there. Nehru asked Liaqat Ali, the Pakistani PM, on Oct 5, to ask the Nawab to withdraw from Mangrol and Babariawad. Liaqat Ali replied evasively. More than 5 weeks after the Nawab invaded, and after repeated attempts to end it peacefully, the patience of the GoI ran out and on Nov. 1, a small Indian force accompanied by civilian administrators, re-possessed both Babariawad and Mangrol peacefully. In the meanwhile, the situation in Junagadh itself was becoming very difficult. On 27 Oct, Sir. Bhutto wrote to Jinnah thus "The Muslims of Kathiawar seem to have lost all enthusiasm for Pakistan". The Nawab had already fled to Pakistan on Oct. 24, on seeing the Indian forces, taking with him the entire cash balance of the treasury, his kennel of a thousand dogs and his Begums. It was Sir. Bhutto who was running the show in Junagadh now. On Nov. 5, the Junagadh State Council decided that "it was necessary to have a complete re-orientation of the State Policy and a re-adjustment of relations with the two Dominions even if it involves reversal of the earlier decision of accession to Pakistan". On Nov. 8, the Dewan, Sir. Shah Nawaz Bhutto requested the Indian Government to take over Junagadh. The request was promptly accepted. A referrendum was conducted on Feb 20, 1948 and the state was merged with Saurashtra on Feb 20, 1949.

In the case of both Hyderabad and Junagadh, as in Jammu&Kashmir, it is very obvious that in spite of grave provocation, India stuck to legalities, a step-by-step process, attempt at peaceful resolution and resorted to arms as a last resort only. And, in the case of Junagadh per se, there was no military action at all

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Jul 2010 15:25

abhishek_sharma wrote:http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2010_pg1_8
They also wanted that Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Balochistan be included in the joint statement
Why do they want to include PoK?

May be to draw a comparison between the 'peaceful atmosphere' in PoK and the 'violent situation' in J&K. The spurt in violence was all orchestrated by Pakistan with various factors in mind.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Jul 2010 16:13

It would be an error to talk to Pakistan again - Satish Chandra
Excerpts

The major substantive lesson that we should draw from these foreign minister-level talks is that Pakistan is not serious about addressing our concerns on terrorism. The format of the dialogue they seek is designed to reduce the focus on terrorism and to facilitate delay in taking any meaningful action in this regard.

This should have been clear to us long ago, because we have been talking to Pakistan on terrorism ever since 1997 in the composite dialogue process to no avail. In these circumstances, it was an error on our part to resume talking to Pakistan after 26/11, and it would be an error for us to do so again.

The tactical lesson that we need to learn from these talks is that obnoxious and intemperate statements verging upon the impolite are a stock in trade of Pakistani officials and leaders, particularly when they feel that their Indian counterparts are likely to crumble.

Such statements have been made even by as polished a man as Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, they were made by Pervez Musharraf at Agra, they were made by the current foreign secretary during his visit to India in February and they have now been made by Qureshi. Such statements need to be promptly, firmly and politely rebutted.

Regrettably, our foreign minister's performance at the joint press conference was sub-standard. He allowed his Pakistani counterpart to monopolise the proceedings, failed to rebut the latter's equating our home secretary's statement with that of Mohammad Saeed, failed to point out that Pakistan had no locus standi in raking up the human rights situation in J&K, and only set the record right on Baluchistan after being prompted by officials in our delegation.

Such pusillanimity only encourages the Pakistani belief that India is a pushover, much as our refusal over the decades to penalise Pakistan for its involvement in terrorism against us has emboldened it to continue this practice.

Our weak-kneed approach vis a vis Pakistan over the last few years has been exemplified by the prime minister's statement in September 2006 equating it with India as a 'victim' of terror, our agreeing to set up a joint anti-terror mechanism with it, our agreeing to talk to it after having initially stated that we would not do so unless the perpetrators of 26/11 were brought to book, and our agreeing at Sharm el Sheikh to insulate the dialogue process from terrorism.

Such a posture both encourages Pakistan to continue in its use of terror against us and impinges adversely on our efforts to mobilise international pressure against it on our behalf to shut down the infrastructure of terror.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2010 16:25

Hillary Clinton's visit to a Shrine in Lahore

0:16 Watch her hands!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Jul 2010 16:31

Truly blasphemous.

biswas · Post by **biswas** » 19 Jul 2010 16:33

jihad jihad jihad

jagga · Post by **jagga** » 19 Jul 2010 17:56

clinton is RAW agent

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2010 18:35

Rudradev wrote: So maybe Qureishi did indeed have reason to be very satisfied (unlike dear Manmohan Singh, who is pushing a Nuclear Liability Bill to Insure future Warren Andersons against having to pay a penny of compensation for the deaths of Indian citizens.)

With apologies Rudradev - may I point out that your post reminds me of a hymn that used to be sung at assembly in my school?

"O magnify the Lord with me"
"With me exalt his name"

-meaning that the greatness of the Lord God could be judged by a comparison of the smallness of the composer of the song ("me"). "God is great because he is greater than me?" What sort of comparison is that? Am I that great in the first place? You are attributing greatness to Qureshi by comparing with what you believe to be the smallness of Manmohan Singh - which is. IMO a bogus way of making Qureshis achievements, if any, great.

Zardari returned from China a couple of weeks ago when all the media were abuzz with reports that a nuclear deal was to be signed. And not a chirp of that.

So please if you think Qureshi is a great guy who has done a lot for Pakistan, you are welcome to hold that view but please don't tell me he has a nuclear deal or that he is great in comparison to the smallness of MMS. I think I am able to reach judgements about those topics myself.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2010 18:41

Dilbu wrote:ToI realised they will look nanga in public and people are soon going to realise how ridiculous this whole 'chaman ki tamasha' episode was. They did a preemptive soosai bum blast to avoid further H&D loss before 'hawkish' nationalists take them to task.

Naah. Someone will pay them and they will be back at it. They can be bought.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Jul 2010 18:46

Pak must clear international concerns about China nuclear deal: Hillary

She indicated that there were a series of questions about the nuclear arrangement with China that need to be addressed by Pakistan.

"There is a legacy of suspicion that we inherited. It is not going to be eliminated overnight. Our goal is to slowly but surely demonstrate that the US is concerned about Pakistan in the long term," Clinton said at the joint news conference with Qureshi.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2010 19:39

Pakistan-Afghan accord on transit trade by Khaleeq Kiani: Dawn

ISLAMABAD: In the presence of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Pakistan and Afghanistan finalised on Sunday a new Afghan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement (APTTA) which allows Afghan trucks to carry export goods to Wagah border for destinations in India.

It has been agreed that no Indian export to Afghanistan will be allowed through Wagah,” an official statement issued by the ministry of commerce said after the signing ceremony.

How does this work? The Afghan trucks come till Wagah border, and bring the goods from Afghanistan. Then they go back empty handed or what?

I mean any Afghan who can work in Pakistan or a Pakistani can put up a shop, import stuff from India through the Wagah border, and after offloading Afghan exports to India, just picks up the stuff imported from India by the Pakistani Agent, and then drives over to Afghanistan! From Afghanistan the stuff can go sold further to CARs by Afghans or even Indians in Afghanistan! Am I missing something?

Of course, I mean stuff which is not on Pakistan's negative import list from India.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Jul 2010 19:47

xposted from managing Pakistan's failure

RajeshA wrote:The United States has reportedly persuaded the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan to continue the dialogue process, and meet again on the sidelines of an international conference in Kabul on Tuesday.

According to reports, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has talked to Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna as well as his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mehmood Qureshi to raise the prospect of another "talk about talks".

More chai-biskuit!

I didn’t go to Pak for sight-seeing either: SM Krishna

New Delhi: Responding to a Pakistan Foreign Minister SM Qureshi’s broadside after talks with him on Friday, Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna said he had not visited Islamabad for sight seeing.

Krishna’s response was in reply to a question by a TV channel about what he had to say about Qureshi’s statement that he will not come to India for leisure trip. Krishna has invited the Pak FM for further talks here.

Krishna responded by saying even he did not go for sight seeing to Pak and was serious about the talks.

“India has always approaches bilateral talks with utmost seriousness,” he said in his first reaction to Qureshi’s rant that almost sunk the peace process.

On the latter’s charge that India was not prepared for talks, Krishna said one can’t exhaust all issues in only one meeting.

“Talks have to gradually move from one issue to the other,” he said.

Meanwhile, sources at the Centre revealed that the reason that India has not responded again to Qureshi’s jibes is that “we do not want to have a slanging match with them.”

[snip]

On the other hand, Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have a bilateral meeting in Kabul on Tuesday.

Meanwhile No talks between Krishna, Qureshi in Kabul: Rao

New Delhi: Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao Saturday ruled out a bilateral meeting between External Affairs Minister S M Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi on the sidelines of an international conference in Kabul Tuesday.

"Both Foreign Minister Krishna and Foreign Minister Qureshi will be attending this conference. I don't believe there will be any bilateral meeting during the conference because the way it is structured and the business that has to be transacted at that conference is not going to leave much time for bilateral meetings to begin with and secondly, they have just met in Islamabad," Rao told Times Now in an interview.

Message should go to Kureji ( is it Khujli Mahmud) , FM that if he wants to come to India, invitation still stands but he should not come empty handed. Nazrana to Delhi Sultanate is long overdue.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 19 Jul 2010 20:04

Blasphemy accused shot dead in Faisalabad

FAISALABAD: Two brothers accused of writing a blasphemous pamphlet were shot dead on Monday outside a court in Faisalabad.

A Sub-inspector, who was escorting them to a courtroom for hearing, also sustained injures in the ambush.

Two brothers, Rashid and Asif, were arrested on July 2 from Warispura town of Faisalabad on charges of carrying out blasphemy.

Sub-Inspector Muhammad Hussain was taking the accused to court when unknown assailants opened indiscriminate fire on them.

The Police cordoned off all the Christian localities after the firing incident. SAMAA

archan · Post by **archan** » 19 Jul 2010 20:26

Land of the pure, indeed.

menon s · Post by **menon s** » 19 Jul 2010 20:39

M J Akbar`s article in Deccan Herald.
Pakistan has no foreign policy; it has only client sate relationships.
i liked him calling quershi a jack ass, with street rhetoric.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/821 ... -left.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2010 20:45

menon s wrote: i liked him calling quershi a jack ass, with street rhetoric.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/821 ... -left.html

And a jackass is what he is. Make no mistake about it.

sum · Post by **sum** » 19 Jul 2010 20:46

Indian Shining in Islamabad

In actual fact, India [ Images ] was shining in Islamabad [ Images ] by its restraint, firmness and general demeanour of reasonableness.

The Indian delegation was even better dressed at every event, with S M Krishna's [ Images ] well tailored suits and fashionable ties and Nirupama Rao's [ Images ] magnificent saris, says former diplomat T P Sreenivasan.

The breakdown of the recent talks between India and Pakistan was not difficult to predict. (See my article of July 14: 'Futile quest for trust'). The expectations were low, the results were lower. It was a demonstration of deep distrust, not just deepening of the trust deficit.

Political and diplomatic careers are made and destroyed on the India-Pakistan front. The search for scapegoats follows every diplomatic fiasco. Failures are attributed to omissions or commissions on the part of the Indian negotiators even if the crass hostility of the other side was on public display.

We have no qualms about blaming the Indian side for not reacting with equal force to every nasty move or remark.

By all accounts, the six hours that S M Krishna and S M Qureshi spent in the privacy of their conference room were productive to the extent possible. They discussed not only terrorism, but also Kashmir [ Images ] and Siachen, and also agreed to meet again.

The problem was that Pakistan's insistence on a timeframe for resolution for some of the problems was unrealistic, particularly since there was no timeframe for punishing the terrorists or for dismantling the terrorist outfits.

When there was no joint statement, going for a joint presser was a grave error and both sides must take the responsibility for it.

Driven by the journalists, rather than by the negotiators, it opened every wound, exposed every gap in approaches and took the situation back to square one and beyond.

Qureshi emerged the villain of the piece, with his penchant for punches. His manner of speaking gave the impression that he was determined not to miss any opportunity to score points, not to salvage the gains of the talks.

The Indian side, on the other hand -- S M Krishna, Nirupama Rao and Sharat Sabharwal -- was the picture of tranquillity, poise and perseverance. Krishna spoke in measured tones, but firmly and convincingly. Except for failing to defend the home secretary, Krishna's performance was faultless.

In the case of the home secretary, Krishna was silent, perhaps because he was truthful enough not to deny that the home secretary's statement was 'unhelpful' in the context of the talks.

One feature of public opinion in India is the belief that Indian diplomats are easily outwitted by Pakistani diplomats at every step. Indians never fail to note that Pakistan is able to get support from the United States and China by hook or by crook, while India, with a much better case, is unable to secure such support.

Geopolitical considerations are never taken into account in arriving at such a judgment. But the other side of the coin is that the Pakistani public considers Indian diplomats far superior to their counterparts in Pakistan.

Neutral observers say the two sides are so well poised equally that no change is possible either between India and Pakistan or in the global attitudes to them.

Even in the present instance, some Indians insist they were impressed that Qureshi spoke well, his accent was good and his diplomatic skills were evident. But, in actual fact, India was shining in Islamabad by its restraint, firmness and general demeanour of reasonableness.

The Indian delegation was even better dressed at every event, with Krishna's well tailored suits and fashionable ties and Nirupama Rao's magnificent saris.

Nirupama Rao was the star of the show in the days following the fiasco in Islamabad, although her performance at the meeting will remain unknown to the outside world.

Instead of drawing herself into a shell for fear of being blamed for what went wrong, she took the bull by the horns by giving a series of interviews to national television channels. She outlined the Indian objectives in the talks, claimed that much was accomplished in them and played down the damage made by the press conference.

She was confident that the progress made in the talks could be salvaged and asserted that there was no breakdown of the talks, only the usual problems generated by a reluctant Pakistan.

She explained the failure to defend the home secretary as part of the 'pellmell' of the press conference. It was, of course, beyond her to justify the timing of the talks or to defend the decision to seek trust in a relationship which is patently distrustful.

S M Krishna too was his dignified self at the press conference, even after Qureshi hurled insults at him by saying that Krishna lacked a mandate and was constantly on the phone to consult New Delhi [ Images ]. A sense of disbelief rather than anger was the dominant emotion on his face when he answered Qureshi. Krishna's strength lies in some of the weaknesses the media has highlighted.

Not sure what to make of the article and its title..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2010 20:55

Rudradev wrote:
sum wrote:
From orbat:

The second Pakistan claim is that in the kingdom of Junagarh, a Muslim king ruled a Hindu majority - mirror image of Kashmir. The King's subjects begged for Indian intervention when the king decided for Pakistan. Saying a Hindu majority could not be ruled by an Muslim, India annexed Junagarh.
*

The Pakistanis say it is only after this outrage and breach of the independence agreement that they invaded Kashmir. This may be, but they would have invaded regardless, because as far as Pakistan was concerned, Kashmir was destined to be part of Pakistan.
*

The Orbat article does not do enough to demolish the Pakfilth propaganda of Junagarh being a "mirror image" of J&K. While the Maharaja of Kashmir was the victim of Pakistani military aggression against his state, Nawab Mahabat Khanji of Junagarh on the other hand showed his Pakistaniyat by not only choosing to accede to Pakistan but himself carrying out military aggression against states that were HIS neighbours.

Here is how it played out. Nawab Khanji of Junagarh, despite ruling over a princely state that was 80% Hindu, wanted to accede to Pakistan. India was not happy but per the India Independence Act of 1947, Nawab Khanji was very well within his rights to do this (just as Maharaja Hari Singh was completely within his rights to sign a legal, irrevocable and final Instrument of Accession to India). So GOI at the time could NOT (and did NOT) do what the Pakfilth liars say... ie, they did not oppose Junagarh's accession to Pakistan on the basis of it's Hindu majority.

However, the Nawab of Junagarh did not stop at merely choosing to accede to Pakistan. He invaded and annexed two adjoining princely states of Saurashtra... Babariawad and Mangrol... and tried to compel them ALSO to accede to Pakistan. Using typical Pakfilth techniques... Razakars, organized pogroms against Hindus, military intimidation etc. This is the part of the Junagarh story that completely diverges from any parallel that the Pakfilth try to draw to Kashmir.

Babariawad and Mangrol had no intention of acceding to Pakistan but Nawab Khanji of Junagarh invaded their territory and tried to force their rulers to accede to Pakistan along with him. The rulers of Babariawad and Mangrol, under threat from Junagarh, acceded to India and asked the Indian government for help. Sardar Patel sent IA troops to their rescue.

Immediately Nawab Khanji of Junagarh Pakistaned in his shalwar. He did not even wait to find out what would happen. In true Martial Paki style, he gathered up his riches and his women and fled his princely state for Pakistan as the IA troops approached.

At this point Junagarh was a leaderless state abandoned by it's princely ruler. There was no question of it's acceding to any country because there was no ruler to sign any instrument of accession. So the only alternative (as conceded in writing by the Dewan of Junagarh, the pro-tem in charge after Nawab fled) was to hold a plebiscite. Note that this justification for plebiscite does not apply to J&K AT ALL, because J&K very much had a sitting ruler (Maharaja Hari Singh) who signed his state's accession to India when Kashmir was illegally invaded by Pakistan. Junagarh was *abandoned* by it's ruler so plebiscite was the only option. With an 80% Hindu population, Junagarh of course voted for India in the plebiscite. But had the Nawab not abandoned his state there could never have legally been any plebiscite.

That is how plebiscite came to be held in Junagarh but not in J&K. There was no legal basis for holding it in J&K because Maharaja Hari Singh with full authority to sign an instrument of accession, signed it to India; whereas Nawab Mahabat Khanji of Junagarh, a landgrabbing Paki pig to the core, fled his own state after his Paki stunts of intimidating his neighbours that backfired on him. QED.

Incidentally the Dewan of Junagarh who agreed to a plebiscite after the Nawab fled was one Shahnawaz Bhutto. He himself went on to Pakistan and raised a long line of especially fetid piglings, including Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Can you write this so it can be put in a blog? Refs and quotes the whole nine yards.

Thanks, raman

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2010 20:59

Sum, TPS is an ex-IFS person. He is right on the money on Indian delegation's stance.

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 19 Jul 2010 21:02

Exports to Africa on the rise

Security forces have arrested more than 20 people, including five Pakistanis, for two bombings last week that killed at least 73 people in the Ugandan capital, the police chief said.
In terms of those who are in custody, certainly it is more than 20," Kale Kayihura told reporters. Among them were five Pakistanis who had a shop in a Kampala suburb, Kayihura said. "They are being questioned.... They have to explain themselves," the police chief said.

NikhilB · Post by **NikhilB** » 19 Jul 2010 21:03

RajeshA wrote:Hillary Clinton's visit to a Shrine in Lahore

0:16 Watch her hands!

kufr baallywood influence !!

I have noticed many times, even pakis in thier TV shows pray spontaneously like "namaskar" ! seems that centuries old habit in DNA does not get washed away in few decades !

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Jul 2010 21:09

amit wrote:
Anindya wrote:Dilbu - see if the link below works for you - I had some problems with it...

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/ ... =HTML&GZ=T
The Domino effect of Pillai ji "outburst" seems to be panning very well after having knocked the pants off TFTA Qureshi.

Now I just can't believe that a senior official like Pillai ji - holding the uber sensitive Home Sec post - would speak out of turn at that critical point in time.

That point combined with the unusual amount of leaks to the press from the Headley interrogation seems too much to be of a coincidence.

And now, it seems, just according to script the Good Cop, Bad Cop routine has kicked in with different newspapers reporting the same thing about how the PM was unhappy with the Pillai statement - and each newspaper quotes unnamed sources.

Do read those reports with the one which says Hillary bhenji was also "unhappy".

And the other interesting point is if our FM meets that turd in Kabul, guess what they will most likely not discuss: Kashmir.

The whole sequence of events seem to choreographed to be just happenstance. Also, I wonder if the message was for Pakistan and the US of A?

The bolded part is point in contention here at BRF. Many(including me) believe that it was a coincidence that Pillai spoke about Headley the day before talks. While you and others believe it was part of the script.

The fact that Krishna hasn't refuted reports of having disagreed with Querishi on Pillai's announcement being unhelpful, and was silent at the press conference too, does indicate to me that it wasn't a good cop/bad cop routine. And MMS is too focused on talks to play the good cop/bad cop routine.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 19 Jul 2010 21:15

abhishek_sharma wrote:http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=30151

Sources said Pakistan would adopt a decisive stance on India’s violation of Indus Waters Treaty and would demand US to play its role in this regard. Pakistan during the Strategic Dialogue would also demand an increase in aid being given by the US under the Kerry-Lugar Law.
Why do Pakis demand so often?

When you are weak, browbeaten, and have to beg, but cannot accept an insult to your ego, you do 2 things: 1) Making your begging look like a legitimate right that is denied to you, and 2) you browbeat somebody else weaker than or you or someone who can't hit back so you get an elated sense of H&D. Both of these are at play. I mean with Hilary pretty much demanding this, this, and that, or else; you think the TSP TFTA are not furious? So, what do they do? Demand, and browbeat India. With India, everyhting they do is out of a sense of hurt and jealousy, and they turn around and make it sound that whatever they are demanding is becasue the villian and theif India denied them that.

Vadyaar SS, RduraJi, and others who are more adept at looking at the fine print that I am, please help me with this. I do recall distinctly that when the KL bill was firste enunciated, there was specific reference to LET, which US demanded that TSP must dismantle. This, as we all know, threw TSP into a tizzy, so much so, that Jihadhi Sethi, Jihadhi Lodhi, Jihadi Haider and all RAPE and sundry were furious as to what US interests are served by going after LET. Now it seems TSPians are embracing KL bill, as per latest resports, of course demanding more moolah be included. The question I have for you diligent readers, has the KL bill been diluted to remove the reference to LET and make it acceptable to TSP? .

arun · Post by **arun** » 19 Jul 2010 21:25

shravan wrote:Blasphemy accused shot dead in Faisalabad

FAISALABAD: Two brothers accused of writing a blasphemous pamphlet were shot dead on Monday outside a court in Faisalabad.

A Sub-inspector, who was escorting them to a courtroom for hearing, also sustained injures in the ambush.

Two brothers, Rashid and Asif, were arrested on July 2 from Warispura town of Faisalabad on charges of carrying out blasphemy.

Sub-Inspector Muhammad Hussain was taking the accused to court when unknown assailants opened indiscriminate fire on them.

The Police cordoned off all the Christian localities after the firing incident. SAMAA

What Samaa TV has failed to disclose is that the victims were Christians.

Associated Press via Google:

2 Pakistani Christians killed at courthouse

wig · Post by **wig** » 19 Jul 2010 21:31

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

the new york times has an article on the fact that very few persons in pakistan pay direct taxes. wealth is never redistributed and festers inequality. not to mention that the rule of law is non existent
“This is a system of the elite, by the elite and for the elite,” said Riyaz Hussain Naqvi, a retired government official who worked in tax collection for 38 years. “It is a skewed system in which the poor man subsidizes the rich man
While Pakistan’s income from taxes last year was the lowest in the country’s history, according to Zafar ul-Majeed, a senior official in the Federal Board of Revenue, the assets of current members of Parliament nearly doubled from those of members of the previous Parliament, the institute study found.

The country’s top opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, reported that he paid no personal income tax for three years ending in 2007 in public documents he filed with Pakistan’s election commission. A spokesman for Mr. Sharif, an industrialist who is widely believed to be a millionaire, said he had been in exile and had turned over positions in his companies to relatives.

A month of requests for similar documents for Pakistan’s president and prime minister went unanswered by the commission; representatives for the men said they did not have the figures.
Much of the tax avoidance, especially by the wealthy, is legal. Under a 1990s law that has become one of the main tools to legalize undocumented — or illegally obtained — money made in Pakistan, authorities here are not allowed to question money transferred from abroad. Businessmen and politicians channel billions of rupees through Dubai back to Pakistan, no questions asked.
The overwhelming majority of Pakistan’s tax burden is carried by the manufacturing sector for the domestic market, which, according to Mr. Majeed, makes up only 19 percent of Pakistan’s economy but pays 51 percent of its taxes.

Most economic activity takes place in the shadows. Merchants — the most vociferous opponents of a value-added tax, a tax the International Monetary Fund has pressed Pakistan to adopt largely because it would require documentation — make up a fifth of the economy, but carry 6 percent of its tax burden. Out of millions of shops in Pakistan, just 160,000 are now registered for a general sales tax, Mr. Majeed said.

the base exemption limit in direct taxes is presently USD 3488

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 19 Jul 2010 21:32

shiv wrote:
menon s wrote: i liked him calling quershi a jack ass, with street rhetoric.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/821 ... -left.html
And a jackass is what he is. Make no mistake about it.

M.J.Akbar's artcile was a sheer class act. Would beat even a vintage Laxman's on drive

.

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 19 Jul 2010 21:38

Why Pakis?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2 ... a-bombings

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 19 Jul 2010 21:49

shiv wrote:
menon s wrote: i liked him calling quershi a jack ass, with street rhetoric.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/821 ... -left.html
And a jackass is what he is. Make no mistake about it.

Good news - folks like Krishna and desi babudom are unemotional and methodical.
Bad news - is they do not know media management, especially in the face of maverick maneuvers.

When 'Jack Ass Qureshi' equated Pillai with a terrorist - Krishna could have said, "It is for the people of Pakistan and India to decide if such a comparison is legitimate and if this reduces the trust deficit which are the goals of current talks"...
I am sure there is a smarter response, and that is why I am not running the show

This whole mess by 'Jack Ass Qureshi' was a preplanned act -

Indian babudom can use a lesson from Al-Quaida-a-Alam himself of "rose between two thorns"
that the Pakis are capable of.... and making a mockery of themselves!

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Jul 2010 22:36

Can we resort to name calling babooze ? I am sure I can pull out something from my Musharraf and attribute it to 'chankianness'.

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 19 Jul 2010 22:49

Revelations by David Headley shared with Pak: Hillary Clinton

PTI
Monday, July 19, 2010 22:54

The interrogation of David Headley, a Pakistani-American terror suspect linked to the Mumbai attacks, has thrown up a "revealing set of facts" that have been shared with Pakistani authorities, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said in Islamabad today.

"I don’t know the specifics (of the revelations made by Headley) but I know that it has been quite a revealing set of facts that we’ve shared with the Pakistani authorities," Clinton said during an interaction with a group of television anchors.

Responding to a question on whether the US will book Headley for the murder of six Americans during the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Clinton said, "I don’t know everything he’s been booked for... but he has been connected with many different events, including Mumbai, but others as well.”

Headley's interrogation by American investigators, which "brought much of this to light", is continuing, she said.

Headley was "fully cooperative and he was willing to explain in great detail a lot of what he had done over the years", she added.

Asked if Pakistani authorities would be granted access to Headley, who is currently in the custody of the FBI, Clinton said a decision in this regard would have to be made by the US justice department.

Headley, the son of a Pakistani broadcaster and an American woman, has admitted that he conducted surveillance of the sites that were targeted by 10 Pakistani terrorists during the Mumbai attacks.

He had also told Indian and American investigators that the attacks were carried out by the Pakistan-based Lashker-e-Taiba.

Clinton also said Headley and Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistan-American responsible for the botched car bomb attack in New York, were radicalised in the US but were "facilitated, directed and operationalised" from Pakistan.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 19 Jul 2010 22:50

shiv wrote:
CRamS wrote:So the honorable PM and his brigade are upset with Pillai for speaking the truth about ISI. So next what? The honorable PMJi is going to be upset at someone in his cabinet mentioning Mumbai 26/11 as prepares to embrace TSP?
Are they really upset? This whole drama could have been planned and now the GoI is washing its hands off. "We are talking but our people want action. What can we do?"

Did you notice how the "leak" about ISI paying a few lakhs to buy the boat to Mumbai came the same day as the talks disagreement spat broke?

I dont think so. If this was planned then one must expect a smart remark from SMK but he was stunned too! Forget defending his own home secretary, he couldnt even defend himself! I think this shows MMS and camp was caught off guard.

With all due respect we cannot expect such a mastery of cunningness from a person like MMS. There was only one, Indira Gandhi. MMS do not come even a mile close to her. Otherwise we are just convincing ourselves.

SeS, aman ka tamasha, first refuse to talk and then initiate talk with pakistan, not to condemn insults to SMK and Pillai...all blunders. List will go on and on till he stays.