( Madam Mazari lost her dress)

SS ji,SSridhar wrote:But, GoI went far beyond all that, from Havana, Yekaterinburg, SeS, Thimphu and now Addu. If the intention was for having talks merely for 'namesake', where was the need for implicating ourselves in Balochaistan, liberalizing visas, allowing TSP banks to open here, offering PTA, withdrawing objection to EU's GSP+ concession to Pakistan etc ? What has TSP done to merit such friendliness ? If words are to remain as mere words, we should not see any actions, aren't we ? Trade under terrorism is not an option for us.
It is necessary to ask because no one who wants peace with Pakistan must be let off without asking the terms of an agreement for peace with Pakistan. No agreement with Pakistan should be allowed without India gaining every bit of mileage possible. And even if such agreement is reached it should be reached over the objections of Indians who oppose such a deal and who will be ready to fight and damage Pakistan and Pakistaniyat of they should one again fail to meet their side of any "bargain".Satya_anveshi wrote:Is this really necessary to ask? Given that there are so many parties with competing stakes should we really be the one shunning to derive any value out of those or encouraging agents of change?shiv wrote:But it is necessary for us to ask if any wisdom is there.
Even if we start from Zero (assuming there is no one currently exist in Pak who is willing to do business with India), should we still stop trying? What does that achieve us knowing that there are people with huge bank balance ready to take advantage making situation go worse to super worse? What does that do to SAARC as it is pak is shifting to SCO?
The level Pakistan has descended to, I think we should pay Pakistan that playing music, speaking non-arabic languages, women education is haram. We need a Taliban rules to be implemented in Pakjab and Karachi with no exemption to the elite,for their elite and Indian elite to learn they are playing with fire.shiv wrote:It is necessary to ask because no one who wants peace with Pakistan must be let off without asking the terms of an agreement for peace with Pakistan. No agreement with Pakistan should be allowed without India gaining every bit of mileage possible. And even if such agreement is reached it should be reached over the objections of Indians who oppose such a deal and who will be ready to fight and damage Pakistan and Pakistaniyat of they should one again fail to meet their side of any "bargain".Satya_anveshi wrote:quote="shiv"]But it is necessary for us to ask if any wisdom is there./quote]
Is this really necessary to ask? Given that there are so many parties with competing stakes should we really be the one shunning to derive any value out of those or encouraging agents of change?
Even if we start from Zero (assuming there is no one currently exist in Pak who is willing to do business with India), should we still stop trying? What does that achieve us knowing that there are people with huge bank balance ready to take advantage making situation go worse to super worse? What does that do to SAARC as it is pak is shifting to SCO?
India has no plan for Pakistan and it irritates me no end to see the likes of Karnad saying "Hey we have china problem. Let's ignore Pakistan". What problem will be conjured up in 20 years by someone else who says "Let's now ignore China, we have some other problem to think about no"
In 2010 I attended a talk by Pillai the home secretary and asked him at question time what India would do to demand that Pakistan amend their textbooks and their inculcation of hate in their schools. He said "Nothing". It is not the job of the Indian government to demand that Pakistanis stop educating their children to hate Hindus. He too was taking the line that Pakistan was not the problem. But Naxals were.
But tell me. If the Indian government does not even see what the problem is. If the Indian government does not recognize that millions of Pakis have been educated to hate India, how can I trust that government and its apologists to reach any "agreement" with Pakistan?
It is absolutely necessary to ask what the government is thinking, if it is thinking at all.
At least Indian Army does not think so. They talk about possible war on both front, at least in recent memory. There are plans to strengthen Army by giving importance to the neglected front on China, albeit slowly to our discomfort. So I am sure IA would not be taken in by such talks. China would show its true colours in few years time as it believes in arrogance of a Bully. It can only recognize strength of opponent. The moment it thinks opposition is weak it would try to dominate them.shiv wrote: the likes of Karnad saying "Hey we have china problem. Let's ignore Pakistan". What problem will be conjured up in 20 years by someone else who says "Let's now ignore China, we have some other problem to think about no"
Just to clear up something so we don't confuse my position:shiv wrote:It is necessary to ask because no one who wants peace with Pakistan must be let off without asking the terms of an agreement for peace with Pakistan. No agreement with Pakistan should be allowed without India gaining every bit of mileage possible. And even if such agreement is reached it should be reached over the objections of Indians who oppose such a deal and who will be ready to fight and damage Pakistan and Pakistaniyat of they should one again fail to meet their side of any "bargain".
India has no plan for Pakistan and it irritates me no end to see the likes of Karnad saying "Hey we have china problem. Let's ignore Pakistan". What problem will be conjured up in 20 years by someone else who says "Let's now ignore China, we have some other problem to think about no"
In 2010 I attended a talk by Pillai the home secretary and asked him at question time what India would do to demand that Pakistan amend their textbooks and their inculcation of hate in their schools. He said "Nothing". It is not the job of the Indian government to demand that Pakistanis stop educating their children to hate Hindus. He too was taking the line that Pakistan was not the problem. But Naxals were.
But tell me. If the Indian government does not even see what the problem is. If the Indian government does not recognize that millions of Pakis have been educated to hate India, how can I trust that government and its apologists to reach any "agreement" with Pakistan?
It is absolutely necessary to ask what the government is thinking, if it is thinking at all.
Agreed. If we are doing the same thing under the same circumstances. Should we let pak go totally cheena way and make situation super bad to super worse? do nothing other than status quo - strategic disengagement with 180 million people who have more issues to fight between themselves than 1B+ of us do?A_Gupta wrote:Satya_anveshi, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is called insanity.
Sometimes you have to kill the patient to save him. In this case, India risks giving a further lease of life to the very coterie that is the threat to India.Satya_anveshi wrote:Agreed. If we are doing the same thing under the same circumstances. Should we let pak go totally cheena way and make situation super bad to super worse? do nothing other than status quo - strategic disengagement with 180 million people who have more issues to fight between themselves than 1B+ of us do?A_Gupta wrote:Satya_anveshi, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is called insanity.
Mr Anand Sharma stated that the visit of the Pakistani delegation is truly a “defining one and that we have talked in an environment of freshness and frankness. Let us resolve to change the paradigm. Our relations are historic with centuries of partnership in food, culture, arts, and even Sufism.” He further added that “ASEAN has become a region of vibrant economic activity and growth and is emerging as the largest integrated economic force. My question then is, why not then SAARC?” He very frankly said that “India and Pakistan’s relationship has been turbulent and marked by events that should never have happened. We are neighbors and we have to co-exist in peace, love, and harmony. We have not overcome the baggage of history, of deprivation, of poverty, etc. The benefits of progress should percolate down to all citizens, especially the youth. This is the guiding and motivating principle. The world is watching what is happening in New Delhi and Islamabad and whatever happens would resonant not only here but in capitals in many countries of the world.”
Makhdoom Amin Fahim began his speech by stating that “I am finding it difficult to differentiate between the Indian and Pakistani businessmen sitting here.” He said that in his opinion, “composite dialogue has resumed and that trade will influence politics as trade flourishes in times of peace and cooperation.” He further stated that “we lost the semi-final in Mohali but we won the friendship match since the atmosphere of fear and distrust has reduced considerably.”
Whereas factions running anti-India operations are left untouched??? SO there is Good Terror and Bad Terror eh?menon s wrote:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_u ... Policy.PDF
The transcript of Mullem Memo is here, makes interesting read though.
" The new security team, will dismantle section S of ISI, which is in charge of relations with the Taliban and haqqani factions, and will dramatically improve the ground situation in Afghanistan"![]()
Kiyani you have become a laughing stock in front of your own people.
Satya_anveshi saheb, let me make myself very clear. I am convinced just like most others here (I hope) that redeeming Pakistan is impossible any longer. They are moving towards the state of 'toxic corpse' (which seems the politically correct description these days). They have also dug up their own grave. So, everything is ready for the burial, bar the death itself. Some helping hand will be needed, after the death, to carefully nudge the 'toxic corpse' into the dug-up grave and cover it with cement & steel that even the MOP bunker-burster could not as much as shake. This later part is a very tall order and that is where our energies must be spent (along with other stakeholder nations). Let us not fritter our time and efforts away on hopes of 'turning around' Pakistan in its present shape, form and content. This means that we do not prolong the agony of Pakistan on the death bed. As a man of compassion, I advocate Euthanasia for Pakistan. I have no specific do's and don'ts as far as Pakistan is concerned. However, whatever means are used, there should be convergence on the end-result. If going to bed with a corpse-like Pakistan will hasten its death, I am all for even that. But, let us be clear about this 'ray of hope' in Indo-Pak relations. There is no such ray.Satya_anveshi wrote:If we can counter cheeni moves, we can still sustain black/white relationship with pukes. If we can develop a capability to scuttle all cheeni investment in pak at a time and place of our choosing, we can still maintain black/white relationship with pukes and yet deter massive cheeni buildup. However, If we are saying no engagement, it needs to be complimented with blocking those moves else we paint ourselves into corner. What are suggestions towards that?
Rudra Ji: That is an interesting and provocative discussion. I am a little disappointed, I must say, at the lack of innovation and imagination. That doctrine of racing to the nearest Baloch border has been around a long time. It will give us no permanent gains unless the aggression is followed up with more aggressive policy of a long term presence among secessionist Baloch supporting us. Frankly, I am asking if a truly comprehensive policy of "benign neglect" can be successful against the paki. That, coupled with a calibrated reactive policy of well publicized escalatory responses with clear red lines. In a nut shell, we are going to leave the paki alone, undisturbed from our side. If the paki is proactive in its interactions with us, we will react in the manner I stated - escalatory ladder with well defined red lines. Fundamentally, we have no intention of attacking the paki, of promoting this or other actions within its borders, among the pakis. At least if the rest of the rational world accepts that we have no aggressive designs on the miserable paki, then the monkey of all conflicts will be on the paki's back, where it belongs. As to where our escalatory ladder will lead, at the top of it would be the prc - we should make it clear that we would retaliate to a paki nuke by nuking the prc, not by dirtying up our own neighborhood with fallout. The prc should understand in crystal clear terms that if the paki persists in climbing the ladder to the point of a nuclear attack, south east china will be the target of our retaliatory nukes - all areas some what north of HK and extending west to the Tibet border - places like Chengdu, in the industrial heartland, to showcase urban centers like HK & Canton on the coast, within a range of about 1200 st. miles from Lido (Q: our missiles cover this?). That should keep the paki nukes contained, and give us a variety of options including hot pursuit. But again, all that need not happen if the paki minds its own business and leaves us alone, just as we would do. In a nutshell, this would be a policy of Benign Neglect with small and big sticks, aimed appropriately. Added to that strong positive engagement with other neighbors, particularly Mynmar, Nepal, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, most, that is, except Beedi, with whom we would actively pursue conflict resolution requiring repatriation of illegal Beedi immigrants in India. In short, I think such an approach to its neighbors, particularly the paki and prc taken together from a security perspective in addition to separate policies towards the two based on bilateral relations. I could write more on such a passive-aggressive package of Foreign Policy options that will suit India just right, given the situation it finds itself in at this time, and by posting the question as I did, I am hoping to get input from forum members along these lines.Rudradev wrote:Parsuram ji, this might suggest some tangential answers.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1197208
Things are not that quiet in Karachi as we are made to believe.Two days back five terrorists were killed in the Seaview beach area when they blew up a Suzuki van they were travelling in after being chased by police.
If it was a fake, it reminds one of the audacious phone call that Omar Sheikh made from his jail cell to Zardari mimicking Pranab Mukherjee. That such subversion could be done at the highest levels, shows the bankruptcy of Pakistan. That also puts in question the security of nuclear weapons.Aditya_V wrote:Whereas factions running anti-India operations are left untouched??? SO there is Good Terror and Bad Terror eh?menon s wrote:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_u ... Policy.PDF
The transcript of Mullem Memo is here, makes interesting read though.
Kiyani you have become a laughing stock in front of your own people.
Here's the list of Erdoo / pakjabi words that have been banned. Benis worthy!! Rinse, soak, spin, repeat and enjoy. Der List.
I wasn't aware that Punjabi has such diversity - The one with the "maindak" was good.anupmisra wrote:Here's the list of Erdoo / pakjabi words that have been banned. Benis worthy!! Rinse, soak, spin, repeat and enjoy. Der List.
Philip wrote:I think thay Karnad was not ignoring Pak,but focussing atention on China,since so many Indians have a fixation the Paki problem .Remember a former COAS,Gen Roddy I think it was,who said some time ago that "Pak is an irritant,China the threat",or words to that effect.
.
A_Gupta wrote:Satya_anveshi, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is called insanity.
My reading (of news posted on here and other sources) suggest that the GoI plan for Pakistan is at least in part based on "hope". By that I mean that the recent overtures and going soft on Pakistan is based on an assessment (and GoI understanding) that Pakistan is in deep shit. The NSA does not say things like "multiple power centers" working in countries like the USA or even KSA or Denmark. No one in the USA or India or anywhere else really knows which way Pakistan will fall. Like Uneven Cohen's predictions of multiple futures of Pakistan based on different developments, it seems to me that the GoI is (possibly with some US wink and nod) hoping for a moderate faction to strengthen its hold on Pakistan if those so called moderate factions are given leverage and support. So far so good. i might even agree with GoI and Karnad in some ways.Satya_anveshi wrote: Just to clear up something so we don't confuse my position:
I am not in agreement with a stance that says "we have a china prob, let's ignore pak" (if that is what is said by shri karnad). More than half of cheen problem is via pak so we cannot ignore it. Infact my suggestion is to try developing multiple leverages while keeping the current working ones intact or even strengthen.
It is just that we seem to be coming across as a perfect victims of "plausible deniability" strategy of some elements in pileofsheetstan or even of that of entire establishment with no effective counter strategy.
Terrorist attacks happen->India considers actions (cost benefit skewed against action)->"international community" weighs in and talks about dangers of escalation->we back down-> come across as losers;
Proactive and reactive covert measures are high risk / high involvement but have their place in the overall scheme of things.
But can we also have other rings of safety or interests developed that provide us with leverages - kind of have them do the "cost benefit analysis" of their actions? If the “cost” in their cost-benefit analysis is less than the cost in our “cost benefit” analysis and buys us some deterrence, is it not a better move all things remain same?