J&K News and Discussion-2011

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Feb 2011 08:27

NR its a US move to scare India into signing the FMCT in order to cap TSP.

However,India knows TSP gets its maal from PRC so no cap no how. So its a charade or nautanki.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 02 Feb 2011 11:37

For every 1 Indian who wants to somehow give away Kashmir to Pakistan, There are 10000 others who would give their life to protect it.
As far Mercantile class, They were the ones because of whom India was known as Land of Gold in the past.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Feb 2011 18:34

Gentlemen,
I am looking for references to "interlocutors" and the like sent out on GOI initiative, who are apparently within their manadate if they talk of azaadi - before the last 20 years of phenomenal mercantile growth of India. This would be in the dark, dark days of a powerless India before its glorious "golden" mercantilist two decades phase - suffering from a low, low Indian "growth rate" attributed to only one community by an academic community supposedly extremely rational over justifications and nomenclature otherwise - when at least two Indian governments went to war with Pakistan to defend its own territory and to reduce Pak territory also.

If you can find such gestures from GOI side, in the indicated period, please post it here.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Feb 2011 21:04

Am moving some of the posts to GDF.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Feb 2011 09:40

brihaspati wrote:I am looking for references to "interlocutors" and the like sent out on GOI initiative, who are apparently within their manadate if they talk of azaadi - before the last 20 years of phenomenal mercantile growth of India

Interlocutors!? The GOI itself in its early days seriously talked of much more than that...Nehru-Bogra accord, 1954 (prodded on by Foster dulles), anyone? An agreement on a "plebiscite" with a third party, neutral plebiscite commissioner..Or that joker Paul Hoffman? Or even Nehru's own appointment of Sheikh Abdullah as an interloctor (hare and hounds, someone?) to Pakistan....

The Indian position (bilateral issue between India and Pak) got frozen somewhat in 1972 after teh Simla accord..And current status quo of knocking off every single WEstern allusion and trying to deal with it through an agenda set by us...It is only after India (and Indians) gained enough confidence about themselves through the last 2 decades...A new generation of Indians replaced an eariler generation of rank underperformers...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Feb 2011 11:09

Sardar Swaran Singh the MEA in 1960s did some negotiations.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 03 Feb 2011 11:33

This news is dated 23rd January 2011 about flag hoisting and Subramanian Swamy's comments. Posted here as He refers to Govt procedures and obligations regarding falg hoisting. May be shifted if not appropriate

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article ... id=4831741

Centre is Duty Bound to Hoist Flag at Lalchowk

New Delhi, Jan 23 (PTI) Holding that the Centre is "duty-bound" to unfurl the tricolour at Lal Chowk in Srinagar, Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy today said central rule should be imposed in Jammu and Kashmir if the state government fails to cooperate in hoisting the national flag there.

"The UPA government is duty bound under the Transaction of Business Rules framed under the Constitution to officially unfurl the tricolour national flag at Lal Chowk in Srinagar, J&K," he said in a statement here.

He said a resolution to this effect was adopted by the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs in January first week or thereabouts in 1991 when Chandrashekhar was Prime Minister and he was Union Minister for Law and Justice and Commerce.

"As a senior minister and member of CCPA, I had raised the issue in the CCPA because the V P Singh government had considered the matter and decided to discontinue the practice of unfurling the flag in Lal Chowk in 1990 as it might hurt the feelings of the people of the state. :-(

"After hearing the service chiefs, the intelligence chiefs, and the cabinet secretary, Chandrashekhar had agreed with me and directed that it be resolved that the government unfurl the flag and the army defend it if there was any problem," Swamy said.

He said that then chief minister Farooq Abdullah "later concurred and cooperated in ensuring a peaceful unfurling of the tricolour national flag on January 26, 1991."

Maintaining that Lal Chowk is a historic place and not some "bazaar area" "as the present chief minister blandly and ignorantly states", he said, "I demand, therefore, that on January 26th the flag be unfurled, and if the state government does not cooperate in the unfurling, then central rule be declared in the state, and the army be handed the administration of the state".

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Feb 2011 12:36

ramana wrote:Sardar Swaran Singh the MEA in 1960s did some negotiations.

Yes, in the aftermath of Tashkent and American pressure...He bored bhutto out

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Feb 2011 19:50

BRFites,
I get this "Nehru-Bogra" "accord/concession/maximum giving" etc thrown at me more in the recent days on several workshops/meets. I notice the pattern since Schaffer's 2009 book came out, so it is possible that people who try and use it as a kind of precedence for the current "gestures" all take cue from a certain school/circle of opinion that strictly bases its opinions on "approved" books/opinion makers/authors etc, more or less sympathetic to the separatist cause, and have hidden axes to grind against India[and as it often turned out in such discussions after proper pricking, also against the supposed role of the "Hindu" of India].

Schaffer actually refers to Gopal who suggested that JLN was prepared to give up the "Valley" if the people "there" voted for Pakistan. But as yet we do not have formal docs from the PMO or Nehru's private papers that confirms his personal commitment to this "suggestion". It is not entirely impossible that he thought so - and I entirely agree with keeping such "thought possibilities" in JLN open, but until we have confirmation, perhaps we should not assume it to be true.

Schaffer's book should be read together with other pieces being written about the period, from both Pakistani and Indian sources as well as "third party" sources. Anyone who reads Schaffer's book will see that in the buildup paragraphs to the "Nehru-Bogra" "agreements", she discusses the Adlai Stevenson affair - whereby a Dem gov of Ill, (and who had just lost the Presidential race) was travelling through Asia on a private capacity and was hosted by Abdullah for a couple of days. Interestingly, Schaffer dismisses categorically the "charges" of interference by Stevenson as a mouthpiece of US admin encouraging Abdullah to try "independence", made by the Indian side - as "baseless" - "nefarious scheme" etc. Schaffer therefore crosses the line of disinterested academic analysis by taking sides with US and Abdullah. In fact Schaffer relies on claims of non-involvement of US state dept as made by Allen and Stevenson, to trash the Indian claim which said it had documentary evidence but would produce them only if US wanted "evidence". Strangely, [but not surprisingly] Schaffer does not mention or explore as to why the State Dept did not ask for "evidence".

Reading through this passages, it should be clear as to what Schaffer's agenda is - and where her sympathies lie. Interestingly, Schaffer points out in the preliminary statements of NB "accord" conspicuous lack of the "loaded word" "partition", and she also points out the "proviso" that the "settlement should cause the least disturbance to the life of the people of the state" which she reports as being widely interpreted then as de-facto sub-regional plebiscite and not of the whole of J&K&L together.

For Schaffer, JLN had refused to have Nimitz continue - and again refers to Gopal who suggests that JLN wanted a "neutral" country like Sweden/Switzerland to send a plebiscite administrator and not an American, because Nehru was convinced of US treachery about Kashmir and blocking of India's participation in Korean settlement talks inspite of substantial contribution from Indian side. In fact even then the "weakened/powerless" India forced US and Nimitz's hands - who resigned, and according to Schaffer - blamed Nehru for the latter's "unstatesmanliness" for the failure to solve the "Kashmir" problem.

Even Schaffer admits that both in the lead up to - and follow up, within the space of 6 months - JLN and India strongly suspected or accused US of collaborating with Abdullah to engineer "independence", deliberately framed accord statements to indicate that plebiscite was not intended to consider "Kashmir" as one single large state, and that both before and after the talks JLN moved against Abdullah and the US as colluding towards "independence". The first chance JLN and India had, actually almost immediately after, they used US tie-up in defence pacts [anti-Communist league] with Pak to completely derail the threads of NB talks - all within the space of 6 months.

The other sources - from, lets say Pak side are even more interesting and revealing.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Feb 2011 20:14

Are you one human being B-ji; or several using one account?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Feb 2011 20:18

Since the first "concession" by sending formal complaint to the UN by JLN, with the "conditional commitment" to hold a plebiscite given that Pak withdrew its tribal raiders and troops -while Mountbatten was still head of state : this is the sequential list of Indian "capitulations/concessions/sending interlocutors to talk about azaadi of whole of kashmir and not just the valley" :

(1) Following Minister Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan’s admission on July 7, 1948, that his country’s regular troops were in Kashmir, the UNCIP on August 13, passed a resolution calling both on India and Pakistan to conduct a plebiscite after they agreed to a cease-fire and after Pakistan’s regular troops and tribesmen were completely withdrawn.

(2) The cease-fire went into effect on January 1, 1949, while Pakistan was still in control of one-third of the state. Based on its resolution of August 13, 1948, the UNCIP sent a Monitoring Group for India and Pakistan (UNMGIP) to the region on January 24, to monitor the cease-fire line (CFL). This line was renamed in 1972 as the line of control or line of actual control (LAC).

(3) The presence of the UNMIP was approved by India and Pakistan followed by their agreement in Karachi on July 27, 1949. Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz was appointed as the plebiscite administrator by the UN Secretary General, but he could not assume his functions as India and Pakistan objected to its implementation based on their varying interpretations of the UNCIP resolutions on the issue of demilitarization.

(4) In December 1949, the Security Council entrusted its President General A. G. L. McNaughton of Canada to negotiate a demilitarization plan in consultation with India and Pakistan. Pakistan agreed to simultaneous demilitarization but India chose to ignore it by raising moral and legal issues about the plan. Without India’s support the initiative failed.

(5) On March 14, 1950, the Security Council passed another resolution to follow up on McNaughton’s proposals and appointed the noted Australian judge, Sir Owen Dixon, as UN representative to replace the UNCIP. In September 1950, Dixon suggested a proposal limiting the plebiscite only to the Kashmir Valley of the predominantly Muslim population, which both countries rejected.

(6) In April 1951, the Council appointed Dr. Frank Graham, former US Senator, as UN representative. Between December 1951 and February 1953, Graham frantically tried to convince both India and Pakistan to accept his Security Council-supported demilitarization proposals that required the reduction of the military presence of both countries in Kashmir and Azad Kashmir preceding the conduct of a plebiscite but to no avail.

(7) Against the backdrop of this stalemate, Nehru and Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Mohammed Ali Bogra, met in June 1953 at the commonwealth conference in London. Following that meeting on August 20, 1953, both India and Pakistan temporarily agreed to take the issue out of UN’s hands and resolve it directly. Nehru’s offer failed to materialize as disputes immediately arose about the interpretation of the terms of the joint statement.

(8) Following Pakistan’s joining of the US-led Baghdad Pact in April 1954, and the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in September 1956, Nehru reversed his position on plebiscite as he considered this decision by Pakistan as inimical to India’s interest as a nonaligned state. He argued that Pakistan’s alliance with the US, rendered all plebiscite agreements in Kashmir obsolete.

(9) Following the February 1954 States’ Constituent Assembly’s declaration that Kashmir’s accession to India was final; India took the position that the Assembly’s action was equivalent to a plebiscite. Based on that position it informed the Security Council that the issue of Kashmir was “finally settled” notwithstanding that Pakistan and the Council rejected that assertion.

(10) The Security Council met in January 1957 and reaffirmed its earlier resolutions that required a plebiscite. In February of that year, the council authorized its president Gunnar Jarring to mediate between India and Pakistan on the proposals of demilitarization and plebiscite. But like his predecessors, Jarring, did not have any success during his visit to the region and proposed to the Council in April that the issue be referred to arbitration, which Pakistan accepted, but India rejected.

(11) In September, 1957, following Pakistan Prime Minister Sir Feroz Khan Noon’s declaration that his country was willing to withdraw its troops from Kashmir to meet India’s preconditions, the Security Council once again sent Frank Graham to the area. He tried to secure an agreement between India and Pakistan but to no avail as India again rejected it.

(12) In March 1958, Graham submitted a report to the Security Council (CSC) recommending that it arbitrate the dispute but India rejected the proposal.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Feb 2011 20:21

Sanku wrote:Are you one human being B-ji; or several using one account?

Students have a demo today - requested me to cancel lectures! Using the time to clear bad air!

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Feb 2011 20:38

^You mean just like 'Jaspal Bhatti' in 'flop show' (remember the PhD episode ? ).

--runs for cover

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Feb 2011 20:51

Bji, Good summary.
A few points

- Schaeffer is a "she" not "he". Its Teresita Schaeffer.
- UNMOGIP not UNMGIP
- After Shimla agreement earlier arguements are null and void. In other words after an agreement has been reached one can't go back to earlier offers made under duress and extenuating circumustances.
- I see no locus standi for West in the Kashmir issue.
- If they want to appease TSP its at their cost and not from Indian khaata.
- Pulling Kashmir won't unravel India as the old game plan assumed.

Frederic · Post by **Frederic** » 03 Feb 2011 20:59

brihaspati wrote:BRFites,
I get this "Nehru-Bogra" "accord/concession/maximum giving" etc thrown at me more in the recent days on several workshops/meets. I notice the pattern since Schaffer's 2009 book came out, so it is possible that people who try and use it as a kind of precedence for the current "gestures" all take cue from a certain school/circle of opinion that strictly bases its opinions on "approved" books/opinion makers/authors etc, more or less sympathetic to the separatist cause, and have hidden axes to grind against India[and as it often turned out in such discussions after proper pricking, also against the supposed role of the "Hindu" of India].

Brihaspatiji,

I have a hunch.
Check out this professor Sugata Bose guy.
His effusions have been dangerous of late.

http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/bose.php

Also check out CRamS's postings on the now archived J&K thread.

*Looks like he has the proper credentials (history professor at Harvard).

*I see references to South Asia this South Asia that ad nauseum.

*Looks like he has the support of the state dept types (check out CRamS's posting about a lecture in NY by Bose.)

*He has the ears of the upper echelons of our Raashtra setup, especially Pranab Mukherjee.

Best Regards
Fred

munna · Post by **munna** » 03 Feb 2011 21:08

The 1st month of 2011 has brought only good news so far and has seen the "peace AT ALL COSTS" lobby on a retreat on under heavy fire from many fronts. Just to make it easier for people not given to reading long posts and looking for concise important points of note. Here is a recount of positives after a long and gloomy 2010

1) The interlocutors and their backers stand undercut politically and legally after the Ekta Yatra challenge. The opposition was successful in getting the "peace lobby" to expend precious political capital in keeping it at bay.

2) New measures in the offing for a "Kashmiri Summer" have been prematurely let out by opposition and others, thus making a surprise ambush proposal via thinning of troops a mighty tough act now

Plan to reduce troops in J&K

GK Pillai wrote:As part of the confidence building measures in Jammu and Kashmir, the Union government on Friday said it was contemplating reducing nearly 25 per cent of the security forces in the State
<also>
Home Secretary G. K. Pillai said it planned to unilaterally issue six-month multiple entry permits for the people of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) who intended to visit Jammu and Kashmir through the Line of Control (LoC).

3) Brajesh Mishra in an interview to MJ Akbar has clearly stated how Prime Minister's "differences" over Pak policy led to MKN's ouster

Brajesh Mishra Interviewed by MJ Akbar: India Today

Akbar then referred to former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf's statement that some people in the Indian government were out to sabotage the talks. " When there was no agreement, how can there be sabotage? The cabinet had decided against the terms of the agreement," Mishra said.

To a question concerning speculations that the former NSA M. K. Narayanan's term was not extended owing to his differences with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over Pakistan, Mishra said: " Maybe what you are saying is right."

4) The wikileaks have damaged a lot of political actors who could have played neutral statesmen to enforce a "losing formula" on India. Especially now even the PM has been alleged to be an uncompromising peacenik!

MK’s N-bomb alert- Leaked cable speaks of jihadi attempt

KP Nayar wrote:He regretted, however, that “those forces have since returned to the Indian border”. These facts on the ground may account for the differences between him and Manmohan Singh during the former national security adviser’s final months in office over the Prime Minister’s unremitting drive to talk to Pakistan and the diplomatic debacle in Sharm-el-Sheikh during a meeting between Singh and Gilani

5) The rouge media elements who were huge players in the track II are battling for their reputation. They know that any zealous attempt by them on K front will expose them to bitter personal attacks hence they are lying low on this front. They are instead getting crews beaten up in Midan Tahrir and having their cameras smashed.
Think the Unthinkable

Veerji wrote:Whatever happens, how can India lose? If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do. And even if you don’t, surely we will be better off being rid of this constant, painful strain on our resources, our lives, and our honour as a nation?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Feb 2011 21:11

ramana ji,
apologies for the error. I read the book on my tablet, and was so enraged by the tone, that I did not look up anything on the bio of the author. I have edited my post accordingly.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Feb 2011 21:13

Can you point a source for each of your statements to avoid forum mayhem? Short quote will do. Thanks, ramana

---
Bji, No problem. Didn't want nit pickers nitting away.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Feb 2011 21:15

Frederic ji,
many thanks for the pointer. Two Bose's are quite active on the "solving J&K" front, Sumantra and Sugata. The first one is active in promoting the Northern-Ireland style model. The second often talks of thinking-out-of the box, etc, the need to break out of old "thought patterns" etc. Ironically India had been talking of that "breaking out" from as early as 1954 - in converting LOC/LAC into IB. It is Pak which harps on Plebiscite and therefore tries to relive "history". No one accuses them of being revisionists or "living in the past", to get a life and smell the coffee!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Feb 2011 21:38

brihaspati wrote: The second often talks of thinking-out-of the box, etc, the need to break out of old "thought patterns" etc. Ironically India had been talking of that "breaking out" from as early as 1954

I started using the term thinking out of the box in 2002 in BRF. It has to be for the advantage of India and not just for the sake of it.

Frederic · Post by **Frederic** » 03 Feb 2011 21:51

brihaspati wrote:Frederic ji,
many thanks for the pointer. Two Bose's are quite active on the "solving J&K" front, Sumantra and Sugata. The first one is active in promoting the Northern-Ireland style model. The second often talks of thinking-out-of the box, etc, the need to break out of old "thought patterns" etc. Ironically India had been talking of that "breaking out" from as early as 1954 - in converting LOC/LAC into IB. It is Pak which harps on Plebiscite and therefore tries to relive "history". No one accuses them of being revisionists or "living in the past", to get a life and smell the coffee!

Brihaspati ji,

*Have you come up with anything on your research about the specific usage of the word "interlocutors"?

*I can't recall that we ever had such a thing as a group of "interlocutors" during the talks with the ULFA or the extremist groups in Punjab during the insurgency.

*Also, has anybody talked of Suzanne Arundhati Roy being an "interlocutor" in the feelers and talks with the Maoists?

*The nomenclature itself might hide a clue as to where the "push" is coming from.

*By whom and when was the term "interlocutor" used in the West, be it the Northern Ireland talks or the Balkan talks?

Best Regards
Fred

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Feb 2011 22:31

Frederic ji,
I have a nagging suspicion that you know more about this than you are choosing to write on!

My limited explorations were primarily based on studying the Northern-Ireland process as a trust formation game. In due course I followed up on the precursor moves, and it could be traced to such personal factors as the assassination of Mountbatten to more general public scenarios following up on sealing "leaks" in the global/social control by the west when the Soviets have fallen and the bipolarity could not be used to protect both sides of a conflict.

Interlocutors however have been used as a term from long ago, and it appeared even in connection to Israel, as well as historically. I recently started comparing and modeling the Kosovo moves, and was struck by the use of "interlocutors" in the "Bosnia/Kosovo" manipulations to create the Islamic enclaves. The term was specifically used by US side in Kosovo. The interlocutors were sent in by hubby Clinton, in what seems a well planned sudden change of stance to classify the KLA as "freedom fighters" from the previously dubbed category of "terrorists". The invading forces coordinated with the KLA on ground, and there were accusations almost from the beginning of KLA being involved in mafia activity and atrocities on Serbs - but which was ignored and dismissed by the US led forces.

The northern Ireland situation is different from the Kosovo/Croatia/Bosnia case in that - in the US both the Catholics and Anglicans are in sufficient numbers, and against a "third" religion they still identify with each other to a certain level as being Christians. However, there is a much wider division from both the above to the Orthodox, which in many senses are seen by the first two as nearly pagan. In the Balkans, neither the Muslim communities nor the orthodox are therefore likely to be seen as people to be identified with in any way by dominant circles in US. Here, the religious and racial identities can therefore be used in more "gain/interest" terms and the Serbs would be seen as targets for destruction because of their Orthodox contiguity with Russia [ something similar complicated the situation also for the Greek uprisings and suppression post WWII, even though it was carried out under cover of fighting communism].

So where a "Christian" or a "white" community is not involved on both sides of a long-standing conflict, the US trend is to intervene on the side which helps in the wider or global power alignments [in the Kosovo case it was a foregone conclusion since post-Soviet world demanded consolidation of the Islamic world behind USA] and against the "pagan" in favour of the "Abrahamic". The humanitarian interventions really do not happen if the accusations of genocide [or intended genocide - a term that appears to have been invented in the Kosovo case] are on Islamists against pagan targets.

The specific use of term "interlocutors" and their importance in hubby Clinton's move on Kosovo makes me worried since we still have a Dem gov with wifey Clinton in a significant position.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Feb 2011 23:17

[

url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/Think-the ... 31689.aspx#]Think the Unthinkable[/url]
Veerji wrote:Whatever happens, how can India lose? If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do. And even if you don’t, surely we will be better off being rid of this constant, painful strain on our resources, our lives, and our honour as a nation?

Munna Ji,
Good reminder to BDY now hiding in the Khudd. No indian will write like this. Indian democracy dont rest on giving concession to mortal enemy out to cut your throat or limb. May be one day MMS might come to learn this. When NSA quit telling PM about the negative impact of J&k Policy and when 3 Army Cheifs have protested or shown their displeasure at the PM's initiative not in the interest of country then there is no reason for this PM to keep beating the dead horse . His personal committment or ego ought to have no negative bearing on national interests.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2011 00:16

X-post...

Johann wrote:
JE Menon wrote:I have to agree with SSridhar here. The comment coming from Gen. Rodriguez is most disappointing. There are two possibilities:

1. This is a lull before the storm - and I fail to see how much more stormy it can be given the apparent pace of attacks set By Gen. William McRaven in that theatre. Unless the storm this time is going to blow over Pakistan. In other words, the comment by Gen. Rodriguez about not needing much from Pakistan in Waziristan could suggest that the reason is American anticipates to act on its own. But I doubt it. This may, ultimately, be a political statement more than anything else. The Obama drawdown is to begin in a few months... and this might be the opening shot in the media to indicate that, yes, things will go according to "plan". Of course, that's crap. Uniformed American soldiers in fairly significant numbers will be in Afghanistan for a while to come.

2. This is the final acceptance by the US that Pakistan is unwilling to act in that area. What does this mean? It means that the operations in the Pak theatre might be winding down. And this is not a good thing at all. It could mean, despite the full knowledge on the part of the Americans, from Obama & Biden down to the platoon commander on the ground, that the Pakistanis are "the cancer", nothing is going to be done about it. What is clear is that although everyone identifies the problem, the solution that first appears to go through their minds is "India must do something on Kashmir". They know they can't really raise this issue with us either, because they know how idiotic it would be to do so. They know what we will say and they know they have no answer for it.

While it is disappointing, the disappointment may be temporary. It seems to me, judging by the various scratches and itches that the US is executing, that something rather bad for Pakistan is taking shape within the American strategic machinery. There are few takers for the argument in the US now that Pakistan is anything but a double-dealing reptile. So far, they seem to think however that to keep this snake from lunging at them every now and then, they have to give "massive aid". They can hardly string together two sentences about Pakistan without that phrase in there somewhere. But, even that assessment is on its last legs.

As we know, Satyam eva Jayate. We can wait.
The Americans will not give up on having North Waziristan cleaned out, they can not. This is about whether the PA can be pushed in to acting on Obama's electoral timetable.

If the Obama Administration can make big and deep improvements in Afghan security he can have a bigger draw down and a national security victory he can brandish at Republicans, while having something to offer his left-wing, anti-war wing of the party. America would remain deeply engaged regardless.

A Pakistani invasion of N. Waziristan would allow a bigger drawdown, with troops levels reducing in Eastern Afghanistan.

If the improvements on the ground are more limited, or fragile, then the 2011-2012 drawdown will have to be largely symbolic.

It is all a matter of degree - this Administration's policy has been calibrated for flexibility. They don't want to lose Afghanistan, but they don't want to lose the 2012 elections either, and they are looking for the cheapest mean path between the two.

The riskiest option the administration could take would be to go for the kind of reduction in forces that would have taken place if the PA had gone in to N. Waziristan anyway, and count on increased drone strikes to balance things out. That is something DoD all the way up to Gates, and State all the way up to Hillary Clinton would oppose.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 04 Feb 2011 00:26

Sanku wrote:Are you one human being B-ji; or several using one account?

Let be known, I was the first one to ask this question in BRF. All praise goes to me onlee.

Added: I always hated this complex word - interlocutors. I even said so - it wants me to run to my nearest dictionary and thesaurus. It should have been a simple word. Like Fred points out, if we can trace the origin or its popularity, we can have an idea of who is pushing which buttons.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 04 Feb 2011 00:41

Searching google, I found that one "Sucheta Mahajan" {author of Independence and Partition} taking to task Sugata Bose (Cambridge subaltern pedigree), Jaya Chatterjee (Obtuse logic) & Partha Chatterjee (rejection of secularism). The colorful descriptions are in parenthesis.

It is be noted that Radha Kumar has association with Cambridge. See my posts: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1015246 and http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1015278

munna · Post by **munna** » 04 Feb 2011 01:42

"censored party" to move NHRC on 'discriminatory policies' in the Zanskar valley

"We assure the people of Zanskar that we will file a case with NHRC within 15 days against the discriminatory policies of the state and Central governments towards the region and its people," "censored party" president Nitin Gadkari said at a programme where party spokesperson Tarun Vijay presented him a report on the plight of the people in Zanskar.
<snip>
A delegation of leaders from Zanskar, who was present on the occasion, demanded completion of the Nimoo-Padum-Darcha road, a separate assembly constituency for Zanskar, additional councillor seats for the region in Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council and separate district status for Zanskar sub-division

A principle national opposition party being approached by people from remote places in J&K "mainstreams" the state and also helps to break the myth of uniformly "azadi pasand" populace beyond the Peer Panjal Range.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 04 Feb 2011 08:25

PC asks Cong to prepare document on J&K issue

While ruling National Conference had prepared a document proposing autonomy to the State, the opposition PDP has its detailed self-rule formula. The BJP is opposed to both documents and wants abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. Mr Chidambaram wanted the State unit of the Congress to prepare their document based on aspirations of all three regions and proposing a solution to Kashmir problem keeping in mind the interests of all sections of people. He is reported to have said that the document should be widely circulated and submitted to the Interlocutors as well.

On their part, there was a virtual consensus among both factions of the Congress that Regional Councils should be granted to all three regions of the State to end discrimination, return to pre-1953 situation was not acceptable and there were reservations about Rehabilitation Policy for the militants in Pakistan and PoK though the policy has been approved by the Union Home Ministry. The Home Minister listened to the Congress leaders and said the Government would act in a way that regional aspirations of all three regions are met.

Choudhary Lal Singh, MP from Udhampur, who is affiliated to Azad group said he along with other party leaders have made it clear that Jammu and Kashmir would remain united and can’t be separated under any circumstances. Mr Singh said he didn’t favour any cut in troops as this could lead to killing of people in his Doda-Udhampur constituency.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Feb 2011 08:45

ramana wrote:Bji, Good summary.
- Schaeffer is a "she" not "he". Its Teresita Schaeffer.

Not at all, not at all, its very much a "he"...Its Howad Schaffer, Teresita SChaffer's husband if I am not mistaken...He himself is a foreign service veteran..

For those who doubt the veracity of Schaffer's accounts on the Nehru-Bogra pact, well he is neither teh first, nor would eb the last to reference the same...Sumit Ganguly says pretty much the same thing as well in his "Conflict Unending"...(Frankly, didnt think Amb Schaffer's book covered any great new ground)...

BTW, it does not end with NEhru-Bogra accord..There was a full fledged US effort after the China war to mediate a solution..India was at its weakest then, and JFK took personal inetrest in the whole thing...VArious options were floated up, including the "soft borders" one which got resurrected during ABV's time and since has gained currency with various dispensations..Those were also te days when every two bit US official (people would remember Averrell HArriman) would dont eh mantle of a "mediator"....But of course, nothing came out of it, and the US finally lost interest...

(BTW, its quite intersting for people to ask for "PMO notes" - there wasnt any PMO in Nehru's time (JLN worked with a very small personal staff)!

This "interlocutor" busienss too isnt new...Ram Jethmalani tried something, which was ostensibly a "self appointed" private group, but really had t have official sanction to be put together...

But there are advantages of the "system"...It allows the govt to throw up ideas for mass consumption, with plausible deniability in case something turns out to be too radical..The problem is that the real cunterparties, the separatists, dont take these guys seriously..They want to be engaged at the highest political level, like they were in ABV's time (by LKA)...

The grand strategy, if there is one, is likely to be more mundane than anything radical...The idea is to simply wear the separatist down, lessen the excuses for unrest in the sullen KMs, and keep the issue off the media radar....

There is likely to be some progress on "talks" with Pak, precisely on the same count...We will start from "talks about talks", or at best talks about "soft borders", and a few years would have gone by the time anything happens beyond...Irrelevance of the issue is the relevant point

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2011 08:54

It doesn't matter somnath now after Shimla. At that stage an agreement has been reached. One cant say after agreeing to it, no I want your old offer and lets start from there!

Howard or Tersita of Dr Choos it doesn't matter what is trudged up now. As Colin Powell said Past is Past. Lets talk future.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Feb 2011 09:58

ramana wrote:It doesn't matter somnath now after Shimla.

Well, we have gone beyond Simla as well...Thats not the point..

But when people say that this UPA govt is the first one trying out various formulations (including intelocutors etc), they are simply not right..Thats all...

As I pointed out in the past, in terms of discussions, the ABV govt even discussed (mind you, discussed), the Chenab plan...The bottomline is nothing came out of it, as the bottomlines are etched out in PArliamentary stone....

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2011 10:07

Dont worry what people say UPA/NDA the focus should be TSP.

As they say in Telugu "varu veeru ayyaru"
They became them! In other words all all be same.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 04 Feb 2011 13:03

Anyone know what the financial situation would be under the 'regional council' system. Does Jammu get to keep its money? That's what would really light a fire under the Valley Wallahs.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Feb 2011 17:24

Friends,
since terminological accuracy is absolutely important for our lives, except of course when we associate "poor" growth rates with particular communities and not even the with leaders or governments who are most responsible for economic policies - I am still looking for the explicit terminology of "interlocutors" being formally employed by the GOI in its pre-golden pre-two-decades-phenomenal-mercantilism, dark days - who also at the same time declare publicly that they have the mandate to discuss "azaadi" without specifying whether that "azaaadi" is for the whole state or parts thereof.

If you can find such a reference, please do post!

Or then we might have to interpret the "term" "interlocutors" to fit any apparent initiative to appear to talk with Pakis over anything concerning the state. Or whatever they loosely talk about as "solutions" to explicitly also mean possible azaadi for all of the state away from India. That is a possibility - since we can then blame whoever does not think of that wide,wide completely stretchable interpretation as someone who fails to comprehend. The trick is perhaps not to clearly state the limits of stretchability of the term beforehand - and later on add on suitable interpretations and ridicule those who apparently fail to comprehend - that all such stretchable interpretations were what was really being alluded to.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Feb 2011 17:27

Theo_Fidel wrote:Anyone know what the financial situation would be under the 'regional council' system. Does Jammu get to keep its money? That's what would really light a fire under the Valley Wallahs.

You make it sound as if Jammu contributes a big chunk of J&K's revenues...FActually, about 80-90% of J&K revenues are grants/loans from the centre...

A regional council should work very similar to the Bodo council, or the Darjeeling council...The key is how much financial powers are devolved from the state govt to the council..Reality is in the past, very little...These coucils only become patronage vehicles for local politicians....As a concept therefore, there is no harm in trying out...

ramana wrote:Dont worry what people say UPA/NDA the focus should be TSP

It is, always so...It would be interesting to understand if people have an alterantive PoA on dealing with the Kashmir issue..I mean a realistic, objective approach - not a slash and burn "remove 370", attack Pak with nukes and some sort...

It would be interesting to feature a "gaming" exercise on alternative approaches to resolving Kashmir...

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Feb 2011 17:30

brihaspati wrote:I am still looking for the explicit terminology of "interlocutors" being formally employed by the GOI in its pre-golden pre-two-decades-phenomenal-mercantilism, dark days - who also at the same time declare publicly that they have the mandate to discuss "azaadi" without specifying whether that "azaaadi" is for the whole state or parts thereof.

If you can find such a reference, please do post!

There wasnt an "external interlocutor" required, as the political leadership of the day itself was willing to discuss such (and more blasphemous) ideas! JLN himself was an "interlocutor", and appointed shekh Abdullah (in his last days) as one to parley on the issue with Pak!!

You see the "hindu" mind is quite Chanakyan, we keep confusing the advesary around semantic exactitudes!!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Feb 2011 17:38

Just for once somnath ji, I am not replying to your posts per se. I have already said in another thread, that I will not engage with posters who continue to use terms that explicitly associate the "Hindu" with negative allusions and that they are not my "friends" which does not necessarily mean that they are my enemies. As you might have noticed, I am not quoting your posts. For all practical purposes you do not exist for me! I may respond to ideas being floated, but not to you. I hope you return that courtesy and not quote my posts for reply.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Feb 2011 17:43

No problem Brihaspatiji, it is usually a bit dangerous to engage when asked for hard evidence on vague assertions (like East Asian ccies being pegged to European ones, or a JPY peg being resopnsible for the criiss

), I can understand! It is an "unhindu" style if argument, if I may

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Feb 2011 17:48

In general folks, it might be worthwhile to look up the "term" "interlocutor" and Bill Clintons moves on Kosovo. The term really became fashionable in the modern period only from that period, and typically with a group of academics and US-EU politicians. From Indian side there has been a characteristic joining by a section of academics who curiously are also very eager to appear "secular" in their works by almost always bashing what they dub "Hindu nationalism/fundamentalism" - both Sumantra and Sugata Bose are examples. Incidentally they also predominantly appear to have a "Bengal" connection, with a predominantly "forward Hindu caste" origin as obvious in their surnames - which may or may not mean anything.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Feb 2011 18:00

Touche Somnath ji,
I understand your difficulties too - since I asked you the details of the methods of estimating the "basket" coefficients, and you gave "regression" and stopped when I asked about the specifics and small details like what error distribution were you assuming. Obviously you need your escape route too - when asked to run the estimation on data that you must have by your own claims! Your small "honest" habits of insisting that "India could go and encash a cheque for 1.3 billion anytime it wanted to and if the Bank could not pay it then it would run up a sovereign..." and then later on claiming that you of course meant such "encashment" with restrictions and blocks, is a sign of your modus operandi - by which your own lies become half-truths - and the half that is not apparent is failure of comprehension in the other.

You will never clearly state what you mean when you use a term - thats a sign of a financial adviser or a lawyer trying to keep as much as possible vague, so that later on you can wriggle out of any negative consequences. It is indeed dangerous to continue to engage with the likes of you. Is it any wonder that I find you also in the "Hindu bashing" camp?

This is OT and not about J&K. My post rejoinder to you simply asked for reciprocal behaviour in not explicitly quoting each other and replying. as is typical with "Hindu bashers" and "secular pretenders" you had to add on to that with a dig at the person too! I had to comment because of your personal attacks - but I hope you take it as squaring for what you said and let us stop replying to each other.