Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan-July 10, 2015

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 25 Aug 2015 18:38

You know an anal-ist is an asshat when he quotes the Brookings mofo Stephen Cohen as an expert on sooth asia. The utterly cretinous US lackey Rajamohan from ORF does his anal-e-sis of the recent ufa hullaballoo. The war only lasts a hundred years because shitistan is kept on life support by the US, China, NATO, and until recently, Japan and KSA. But why mention such things when you can felch Stephen Cohen in public?

Stephen Cohen, a leading American scholar of South Asia, has often wondered if the current Indo-Pak conflict might eventually be known as the “hundred years’ war”. Sixty-eight years after Partition and given the weekend’s political spat, that prospect seems scarily real. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinio ... cAWWg.dpuf

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 18:40

Folks - We need to look at this Ufa thing from the perspective of NSA vs MEA. The ex-MEA type people (and some other types as well) have expressed that the language of the terms and conditions in Ufa was not clearly specified enough to keep the agenda for the talks confined to terrorism. This let the genie out of the bottle in terms of the K-factor. Now if Doval, his team, Sushma, her team had gotten together and drafted the language, it would have been clearer. That is the argument.

Modi is clearly driving this with Doval and leaving Sushma a bit behind. This is the wont of the action man, one who leads alone. You tend to do things in the myway-highway fashion, with your own action oriented team, leaving the slower ones behind. Sometimes this leaves no room for due process. While Sharif and Modi may have had good intentions to split the dialogue process into composite, terrorism and military-military, the lack of correct procedure in the formulation of their intentions was the wrongdoing.

It is my learning as well - sometimes I tend to march ahead without due process. Got to wear a thinking hat and take a deep breath and involve the slower but surer bureaucrats as well sometimes...!!!

RamSuresh · Post by **RamSuresh** » 25 Aug 2015 18:44

A query.

What is the parliament sanction needed for

1) Sanctifying LoC as IB. Giving up the MLA seats that the J & K assembly keeps reserved for PoK.
2) If ever a "secular" Government decides on joint sovereignty or the Chenab formula, formalising that arrangement.

Is the Parliament even a competent body to do either of these?

Is the Constitution foolproof to prevent such perfidy through legitimate means?

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 25 Aug 2015 18:45

Rajpa wrote: The ex-MEA type people (and some other types as well) have expressed that the language of the terms and conditions in Ufa was not clearly specified enough to keep the agenda for the talks confined to terrorism.

As the ex-deputy NSA has stated (posted earlier on this thread) -- exact language does not stop pakis from messing with India and changing the agenda to their purpose. Sorry to say the ex-MEA is full of sh** on this one. The ex-MEA bureaucrats need to get it through their thick skulls that their techniques to pacify pakistan via diplomacy and talks have failed -- time to try something new.

Besides, there is no such thing as "due process" in FP -- there are no rules except other than those a nation can enforce on another.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Aug 2015 18:46

Gagan wrote:Watching all these talk shows on modi's visit to UAE, one can't but help noticing the INTENSE khujli that this visit has generated.
All the loud boasts about their fauj and their parliament having taken a principaled stand have vanished and there is gloom and doom all around!

The upcoming egypt visit and a future Israel visit is going to cause even more concern and

links please.

/rubs hands in glee.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 25 Aug 2015 18:47

Rajpa, please explain why you think there is any ambiguity at all in Ufa document as regards follow up steps.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 25 Aug 2015 18:47

Well, what is unclear about this:

The Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India met today on the sidelines of the SCO Summit in Ufa. The meeting was held in a cordial atmosphere. The two leaders exchanged views on issues of bilateral and regional interest.

They agreed that India and Pakistan have a collective responsibility to ensure peace and promote development. To do so, they are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues.

Both leaders condemned terrorism in all its forms and agreed to cooperate with each other to eliminate this menace from South Asia.

They also agreed on the following steps to be taken by the two sides:

1. A meeting in New Delhi between the two NSAs to discuss all issues connected to terrorism.

2. Early meetings of DG BSF and DG Pakistan Rangers followed by that of DGMOs.

3. Decision for release of fishermen in each other’s custody, along with their boats, within a period of 15 days.

4. Mechanism for facilitating religious tourism.

5. Both sides agreed to discuss ways and means to expedite the Mumbai case trial, including additional information like providing voice samples.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reiterated his invitation to Prime Minister Modi to visit Pakistan for the SAARC Summit in 2016. Prime Minister Modi accepted the invitation.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 25 Aug 2015 18:51

It is very clear from the Ufa statement that the Prime Ministers agree that India and Pakistan cannot ensure peace and promote development without discussion of all outstanding issues.

However, it is also very clear from the Ufa statement that a set of five very specific steps have to be taken next, long before all outstanding issues are up for discussion.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 18:52

A_Gupta wrote:Well, what is unclear about this:
The Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India met today on the sidelines of the SCO Summit in Ufa. The meeting was held in a cordial atmosphere. The two leaders exchanged views on issues of bilateral and regional interest.

They agreed that India and Pakistan have a collective responsibility to ensure peace and promote development. To do so, they are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues.

Both leaders condemned terrorism in all its forms and agreed to cooperate with each other to eliminate this menace from South Asia.

They also agreed on the following steps to be taken by the two sides:

1. A meeting in New Delhi between the two NSAs to discuss all issues connected to terrorism.

2. Early meetings of DG BSF and DG Pakistan Rangers followed by that of DGMOs.

3. Decision for release of fishermen in each other’s custody, along with their boats, within a period of 15 days.

4. Mechanism for facilitating religious tourism.

5. Both sides agreed to discuss ways and means to expedite the Mumbai case trial, including additional information like providing voice samples.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reiterated his invitation to Prime Minister Modi to visit Pakistan for the SAARC Summit in 2016. Prime Minister Modi accepted the invitation.

Please note this is only a critique of the structure of the text.

1. "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues". That phrase should have been worded differently. "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues strictly in the following order. 1. Kashmir and other 2. Terrorrism 3. Trade 4. Religious tourism 5. Bollywood"

"1. will be discussed only by PM and PM. or MEA and MEA"

"2. will be discussed only by NSA and NSA"

etc.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 25 Aug 2015 18:58

With Ufa, pakis are doing the whole 1947 resolutions con job again -- change the ground situation and violate the preconditions of the agreement and then pretend that India is beholden to do its part even after violation of all the preconditions.

It is amusing to see this pretense that pakis always adhere to all conditions laid out on paper by India, when that is more of the exception than the norm. So why all this drama and dance by the MEA types that things would have turned out differently if only the wording had been different? What are the people in the MEA smoking, assuming that the stances of the ex-MEA types in media coincides with theirs...

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 19:03

My impression is that Nawaz is trying to get out of the clutches of the TSPA. And Modi has caught on to it as well. They need better discipline in working out the modalities. Due process and correct specification of their requirements is the only way to do it. Ambiguity is a means by which the users or implementors can wriggle out of their responsibilities. IT folks will understand!

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 25 Aug 2015 19:06

As Stephen Colbert astutely asked someone who was going about "using reason and logic on violent people", "so what do you do, if he pulls out a knife and stabs you?".

The Paki army will just kill Nawaz Sharif is he steps too far out of line, and NS knows that damn well too. So NS will continue to operate within the parameters set by the people who have more guns and terrorists in their command than he does. All this diplomatic language etc. is not going to make a whit of a difference if the Army removes NS and replaces him someone new and resets the game to initial position.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 25 Aug 2015 19:07

rajpa wrote:Please note this is only a critique of the structure of the text.

1. "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues". That phrase should have been worded differently. "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues strictly in the following order. 1. Kashmir and other 2. Terrorrism 3. Trade 4. Religious tourism 5. Bollywood"

"1. will be discussed only by PM and PM. or MEA and MEA"

"2. will be discussed only by NSA and NSA"

etc.

The suggestion doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why would India want to discuss Kashmir first, when our first priority is Paki terror? Even assuming that was a mistake on your part, your sub-part (2) is already implied in earlier text and subpart (1) is irrelevent from India's standpoint.

The document was drafted in language generally understood in international dealings - but may have been far above Paki IQ levels. I really don't think Paki retardedness is India's fault.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 19:10

Arjun wrote:
rajpa wrote:Please note this is only a critique of the structure of the text.

1. "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues". That phrase should have been worded differently. "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues strictly in the following order. 1. Kashmir and other 2. Terrorrism 3. Trade 4. Religious tourism 5. Bollywood"

"1. will be discussed only by PM and PM. or MEA and MEA"

"2. will be discussed only by NSA and NSA"

etc.
The suggestion doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why would India want to discuss Kashmir first, when our first priority is Paki terror? Even assuming that was a mistake on your part, your sub-part (2) is already implied in earlier text and subpart (1) is irrelevent from India's standpoint.

The language was drafted in language generally understood in international dealings - but may have been far above Paki IQ levels. I really don't think Paki retardedness is India's fault.

There you go - you proved my point and we have to reword again now.

""They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues strictly in the following order. " should be "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues strictly in the following manner. " or even ""They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues strictly under the following topics". (it will be of course better and correct to remove the numbered points and just leave bullet points.)

The word "order" was not intended to imply "sequential order".

Could not resist:

"5. to be discussed by H.Saeed and R.Maa only."

Rajagopal · Post by **Rajagopal** » 25 Aug 2015 19:11

Not to worry folks. The NSA seems to have the exact same ideas and views as that of Rakshaks. Below are the highlights of the new Pakistan policy as per sources in NSA.

1) New Indian template for Pak: "We won't talk to Hurriyat and won’t let you talk to them". This is the new Pakistan policy architecture that Team Modi has constructed for its dealings with Pakistan henceforth. It is a take-it-or-leave-it approach.

2) No meeting in September 2015. Modi government is in no hurry to reach out to Pakistan and any substantive bilateral meeting is ruled out for 2015.

3) by January, 2016, Pakistan would be reaching out to SAARC countries for the next SAARC summit which it would be hosting. To make the event success, Pakistan will have to lower down its anti-India rhetoric in words and deeds if it wants Prime Minister Narendra Modi to travel to Pakistan to attend the multilateral event.

4) The viewpoint of key stakeholders in India’s Pakistan policy is that the ball is firmly in Pakistan’s court and it would be meaningless to engage with Pakistan if that country does not agree to the new template drawn by the Modi government.

5) Pakistan government can be assured that the Modi government’s new paradigm vis-a-vis Kashmiri separatists is a policy cast in stone.

read the complete details at:
http://www.firstpost.com/india/new-indi ... 04444.html

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 19:16

The no talking to hurriyat thing will be tested a lot going forward. But it is probably a good thing to have happened.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 25 Aug 2015 19:33

rajpa wrote: They need better discipline in working out the modalities. Due process and correct specification of their requirements is the only way to do it. Ambiguity is a means by which the users or implementors can wriggle out of their responsibilities. IT folks will understand!

That only makes sense if you think India lost out because Pakistan didn't turn up for the NSA meet.

Ufa was a win-win for Modi...a win if Pakistan did follow-through on action items and a win if Pakistan did not.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 25 Aug 2015 19:44

rajpa wrote:
Please note this is only a critique of the structure of the text.

1. "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues". That phrase should have been worded differently. "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues strictly in the following order. 1. Kashmir and other 2. Terrorrism 3. Trade 4. Religious tourism 5. Bollywood"

"1. will be discussed only by PM and PM. or MEA and MEA"

"2. will be discussed only by NSA and NSA"

etc.

Sorry, I completely disagree.

E.g., the preamble for one of the old Five Year Plans might say - "It is understood that universal literacy is a necessary goal for India. The next two steps are:
1. Open schools so that there is a school within 5 kilometers of every village.
2. Ensure teachers come to work as scheduled".

Well, this leaves out many things, such as making sure children enroll in the schools; making sure they don't drop out; ending child labor so that children can attend school; adjusting school hours so that children in farming families can also participate in necessary farm work also; and so on.

Only the clearly retarded would say "but this does not address universal literacy and needs to be worded more clearly".

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Aug 2015 20:02

>>Folks - We need to look at this Ufa thing from the perspective of NSA vs MEA.

Actually we don’t. Here is why…

>>The ex-MEA type people (and some other types as well) have expressed that the language of the terms and conditions in Ufa was not clearly specified enough to keep the agenda for the talks confined to terrorism.

The key words here are ex-MEA. They are not MEA, and therefore not to be viewed from the perspective of NSA vs MEA, but NSA vs ex-MEA. Completely different thing.

>>This let the genie out of the bottle in terms of the K-factor. Now if Doval, his team, Sushma, her team had gotten together and drafted the language, it would have been clearer. That is the argument.

How do you know this was not the case? Who is making the case, credibly and with sourcing, that this was not the case? At the moment, all such insinuations are coming directly from the media, which will bend according to the prevailing advertising wind, or other more direct incentives. Nothing that has come out of the NSA or the MEA in terms of direct and undenied quotes suggests that there was no co-ordination at Ufa.

>>Modi is clearly driving this with Doval and leaving Sushma a bit behind.

This is your perception. What is the factual basis for this assertion? There is zero indication that such is the case anywhere and, if anything, Sushma’s fantastic press conference (as seems the BRF consensus) should cause you to reconsider that perception.

>>This is the wont of the action man, one who leads alone. You tend to do things in the myway-highway fashion, with your own action oriented team, leaving the slower ones behind. Sometimes this leaves no room for due process.

Yes, there are people like this. But this does not mean that Modi is entirely reflective of this stereotype. There are plenty of examples to the contrary, just as there are examples to affirmatory. There is no way to know that this decision was made along the lines you are suggesting.

>>While Sharif and Modi may have had good intentions to split the dialogue process into composite, terrorism and military-military, the lack of correct procedure in the formulation of their intentions was the wrongdoing.

Again, this is your perception. Others have pointed out that the formulation is perfectly fine. It is important to note that such formulations are done more with the intent of wriggling out if necessary, than of being caught in a contractual bind.

>>It is my learning as well - sometimes I tend to march ahead without due process. Got to wear a thinking hat and take a deep breath and involve the slower but surer bureaucrats as well sometimes...!!

There is no way of ensuring that the slower bureaucrats are any more surer than the faster ones. We have had the experience of slow bureaucracy for 60-odd years. The public is young and wants fast action. They have voted a government which has promised that into power. The government is doing what it was elected to do. The general public does not seem to be particularly fazed by the government’s action vis a vis Pakistan, rather contrary to what some of the broadcast media, and the print media – more politically inclined than professionally responsible – have been suggesting. It is virtually certain that the same media which is criticising the calling off of talks as a Modi fiasco, would have castigated the continuation of talks as a succumbing to the idea of dialogue during terror... In short, it is nothing more than a source of pointless noise.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 20:03

A_Gupta wrote:
rajpa wrote:
Please note this is only a critique of the structure of the text.

1. "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues". That phrase should have been worded differently. "They are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues strictly in the following order. 1. Kashmir and other 2. Terrorrism 3. Trade 4. Religious tourism 5. Bollywood"

"1. will be discussed only by PM and PM. or MEA and MEA"

"2. will be discussed only by NSA and NSA"

etc.
Sorry, I completely disagree.

E.g., the preamble for one of the old Five Year Plans might say - "It is understood that universal literacy is a necessary goal for India. The next two steps are:
1. Open schools so that there is a school within 5 kilometers of every village.
2. Ensure teachers come to work as scheduled".

Well, this leaves out many things, such as making sure children enroll in the schools; making sure they don't drop out; ending child labor so that children can attend school; adjusting school hours so that children in farming families can also participate in necessary farm work also; and so on.

Only the clearly retarded would say "but this does not address universal literacy and needs to be worded more clearly".

There may be several problems with your statement. However, I have this to say. You are comparing chalk and cheese. Try to reason only within the given scenario.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 20:04

Arjun wrote:
rajpa wrote: They need better discipline in working out the modalities. Due process and correct specification of their requirements is the only way to do it. Ambiguity is a means by which the users or implementors can wriggle out of their responsibilities. IT folks will understand!
That only makes sense if you think India lost out because Pakistan didn't turn up for the NSA meet.

Ufa was a win-win for Modi...a win if Pakistan did follow-through on action items and a win if Pakistan did not.

It may well have been a win-win for Modi. What this means for Indo-Pak relations is yet to be worked out. I do believe that there is some positivity on our side at this point.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 25 Aug 2015 20:05

SSridhar wrote:The following is an Editorial in DT on the recent cross-border attack on the PA from the Afghan side that killed a few soldiers. The reason I am posting it here is that what the Edit says applies more to India than Afghanistan, both victims of Pakistan for roughly the same length of time. However, the terror inflicted on Afghanistan by Pakistan is also mostly due to the India factor. Anyway, no Pakistani newspaper would have the guts to express similar truth in the Indian context.

Cross-border attack
Excerpt
Although in the past, proxy wars provided momentarily successes to the past regimes, yet these non-state actors are now proving the biggest threat to the country’s stability.

It is amazing how the word "non-state actors" has entered into the vocabulary. Take this editorial for example. They accept that these proxies were trained by the state, to help them with political objectives of the state. Then how do they become "non-state actors"?

The sentence should have read Although in the past, proxy wars provided momentarily successes to the past regimes, yet these state sponsored proxies are now proving the biggest threat to the country’s stability

I would encourage all rakshaks to pay close attention to the words that people use, especially Pakis. The words and phrases that they keep using and repeating (with much discipline I should say), serve to cover up their perfidy and to legitimize things like murder and terrorism. Be aware of it whenever they use it. Point it out whenever you can. I bet that in a few years, Indians will also start calling them "non-state actors", just like how a few in India call it "Azad Kashmir" and make the argument "Pakistan itself victim of terrorism".

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 25 Aug 2015 20:06

More exacting language in the past has not had any effect of how pakis behave w.r.t. India -- that alone nullfies any pretense that better specification of the Ufa agreement would have yielded different results. It is not like such things have not already been tried w.r.t. pakistan in the past, and failed miserably too. India and Pakistan are well beyond the point of engaging each other via diplomacy -- the pakis have made sure of that. Most of the Indians nowadays are aware of this too, if we go by the smattering of polls on pakistan in the recent months in vernacular papers.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 25 Aug 2015 20:07

^^^ Someone had posted a Doval video from around August 10 or so. Doval takes an explicit question about NSA-MEA coordination from the audience. The context was NSA talking to the Pakistani High Commissioner about firing on the border & LoC and whether MEA was in the loop. Doval says the teamwork is very good, they are a great team, and they understand that on important and urgent (as opposed to important but not urgent) matters the normal, formal process need not be followed.

I think this answers both concerns raised in the thread above.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 20:09

JE Menon wrote:>>Folks - We need to look at this Ufa thing from the perspective of NSA vs MEA.

Actually we don’t. Here is why…

>>The ex-MEA type people (and some other types as well) have expressed that the language of the terms and conditions in Ufa was not clearly specified enough to keep the agenda for the talks confined to terrorism.

The key words here is ex-MEA. They are not MEA, and therefore not to be viewed from the perspective of NSA vs MEA, but NSA vs ex-MEA. Completely different thing.

>>This let the genie out of the bottle in terms of the K-factor. Now if Doval, his team, Sushma, her team had gotten together and drafted the language, it would have been clearer. That is the argument.

How do you know this was not the case? Who is making the case, credibly and with sourcing, that this was not the case? At the moment, all such insinuations are coming directly from the media, which will bend according to the prevailing advertising wind, or other more direct incentives. Nothing that has come out of the NSA or the MEA in terms of direct and undenied quotes suggests that there was no co-ordination at Ufa.

>>Modi is clearly driving this with Doval and leaving Sushma a bit behind.

This is your perception. What is the factual basis for this assertion? There is zero indication that such is the case anywhere and, if anything, Sushma’s fantastic press conference (as seems the BRF consensus) should cause you to reconsider that perception.

>>This is the wont of the action man, one who leads alone. You tend to do things in the myway-highway fashion, with your own action oriented team, leaving the slower ones behind. Sometimes this leaves no room for due process.

Yes, there are people like this. But this does not mean that Modi is entirely reflective of this stereotype. There are plenty of examples to the contrary, just as there are examples to affirmatory. There is no way to know that this decision was made along the lines you are suggesting.

>>While Sharif and Modi may have had good intentions to split the dialogue process into composite, terrorism and military-military, the lack of correct procedure in the formulation of their intentions was the wrongdoing.

Again, this is your perception. Others have pointed out that the formulation is perfectly fine. It is important to note that such formulations are done more with the intent of wriggling out if necessary, than of being caught in a contractual bind.

>>It is my learning as well - sometimes I tend to march ahead without due process. Got to wear a thinking hat and take a deep breath and involve the slower but surer bureaucrats as well sometimes...!!

There is no way of ensuring that the slower bureaucrats are any more surer than the faster ones. We have had the experience of slow bureaucracy for 60-odd years. The public is young and wants fast action. They have voted a government which has promised that into power. The government is doing what it was elected to do. The general public does not seem to be particularly fazed by the government’s action vis a vis Pakistan, rather contrary to what some of the broadcast media, and the print media – more politically inclined than professionally responsible – have been suggesting. It is virtually certain that the same media which is criticising the calling off of talks as a Modi fiasco, would have castigated the continuation of talks as a succumbing to the idea of dialogue during terror... In short, it is nothing more than a source of pointless noise.

I am happy to believe it to be part of Modi's design to put Doval as the tip of the spear and use Sushma to deliver the hammer. That may have been the reason why Doval and not Sushma was there at Ufa.

I think something good has been achieved by keeping the hurryrats out. On the overall question of the Indo-Pak bonhomie, I think there is a lot of work to be done. It will pay to have the NSA and MEA work together. Rest of your points well taken on the need to expedite things fast etc.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 25 Aug 2015 20:09

rajpa wrote:It may well have been a win-win for Modi. What this means for Indo-Pak relations is yet to be worked out. I do believe that there is some positivity on our side at this point.

Win-win for India, same thing...Ufa fallout is obviously negative for Indo-Pak relations.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 25 Aug 2015 20:11

In a democracy, people have elected the Prime minister and given the Prime minister the power and the authority to act on their behalf. NSA and MEA are both organs of the executive through which the Prime minister exercises his/her authority and policy. If the Prime Minister feels like it, he/she can even appoint the electrician who fixes light bulbs in PMO as the point person for Pakistan. Dont get caught up too much in the babudom of debating whose responsibility is what.

Edit: Overheard from my fourth cousin: Pakistan has a strong case that Dawood is not in Pakistan: Dawood seems to be using a phone and seems to have electricity.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 20:12

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ Someone had posted a Doval video from around August 10 or so. Doval takes an explicit question about NSA-MEA coordination from the audience. The context was NSA talking to the Pakistani High Commissioner about firing on the border & LoC and whether MEA was in the loop. Doval says the teamwork is very good, they are a great team, and they understand that on important and urgent (as opposed to important but not urgent) matters the normal, formal process need not be followed.

I think this answers both concerns raised in the thread above.

Interesting point - on Ufa - I think you will agree that important probably preceded the immediate.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 25 Aug 2015 20:14

rajpa wrote:Folks - We need to look at this Ufa thing from the perspective of NSA vs MEA. The ex-MEA type people (and some other types as well) have expressed that the language of the terms and conditions in Ufa was not clearly specified enough to keep the agenda for the talks confined to terrorism. This let the genie out of the bottle in terms of the K-factor. Now if Doval, his team, Sushma, her team had gotten together and drafted the language, it would have been clearer. That is the argument.

Actually, whoever authored it, the UFA statement was issued by the Foreign Secretaries, Indian Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar and his Pakistan counterpary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry. e.g., see
http://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/ ... 407431.ece

If the Foreign Secretaries read it out, on what basis do the ex-MEA types say that MEA didn't have any input into the language, and imply that it was NSA + Prime Minister that put this together without MEA review?

PS: the news says that the Indian delegation that met Pakistan in Ufa included NSA and Foreign Secretary. e.g., http://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/ ... 407431.ece

Are the ex-MEA types saying that there should have been no Ufa statement without Sushma Swaraj being physically present?

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 20:14

Anujan wrote:In a democracy, people have elected the Prime minister and given the Prime minister the power and the authority to act on their behalf. NSA and MEA are both organs of the executive through which the Prime minister exercises his/her authority. If the Prime Minister feels like it, he/she can even appoint the electrician who fixes light bulbs in PMO as the point person for Pakistan. Dont get caught up too much in the babudom of debating whose responsibility is what.

Dude everybody has a job to do. The NSA, MEA all do useful things. You take away one and there will be a deficit of functionality.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 20:18

A_Gupta wrote:
rajpa wrote:Folks - We need to look at this Ufa thing from the perspective of NSA vs MEA. The ex-MEA type people (and some other types as well) have expressed that the language of the terms and conditions in Ufa was not clearly specified enough to keep the agenda for the talks confined to terrorism. This let the genie out of the bottle in terms of the K-factor. Now if Doval, his team, Sushma, her team had gotten together and drafted the language, it would have been clearer. That is the argument.
Actually, whoever authored it, the UFA statement was issued by the Foreign Secretaries, Indian Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar and his Pakistan counterpary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry. e.g., see
http://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/ ... 407431.ece

If the Foreign Secretaries read it out, on what basis do the ex-MEA types say that MEA didn't have any input into the language, and imply that it was NSA + Prime Minister that put this together without MEA review?

I think it may simply be purely on the basis of the fact the minister was not there. F.Sec may not take orders from NSA. There is a rapport between F.Minister and F.Sec etc. Things getting done out of turn tends to upset the rhythm. Take it or leave it.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 25 Aug 2015 20:19

Seems like the ex-MEA clique does not include serving folks in the MEA going by the ex-MEA bickering that sidelines the contribution of the MEA team in the Ufa process. Need to remember that next time one of the ex-MEA types makes grand proclamations of the kind seen recently. Pretty silly behavior from these ex-MEA types that undermines the Indian side's cohesiveness between NSA/MEA and other orgs.

All of these claims from "informed sources" of organizations being sidelined and this regime acting in a dictatorial manner seem to be coming from politically partisan types that have their own axe to grind, and has nothing to do with the inner workings of this government.

The current govt. seems to be allowing ministries to function independently while keep a firm grip on leaked information and running a tight ship -- that does not mean every org is running on the "dictatorial orders" from the PM and NSA, as is being made out by some people here and elsewhere by political cronies.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 25 Aug 2015 20:20

Lahore declaration was strongly specified. That didnt stop Kargil. Dont get caught up too much in the Ex-MEA "We would have said it better" types. It is a red herring.

Let me tell you a relevant story from the Panchatantra:

A frog and a scorpion are sitting on the side of a river. The frog wants to swim over.

The scorpion says "Let me sit on your back, we can both cross".

The Frog says "But you might sting me"

The scorpion says "But if I do that we will both drown because you cannot swim anymore"

The Frog says "So do you promise to not sting when I am swimming"

The scorpion says "I do not wish to commit suicide" and hops on the frog's back.

The frog is swimming swimming reaches middle of the river and the scorpion stings the frog. Surprised and betrayed the

Frog asks: "You promised me that you wont sting!! why did you do that"

The scorpion says: "It is my nature".

An owl watching from the riverbank, who was retired from MEA then goes on a a talk show and says "I would have worded the frog-scorpion agreement better. The problem was the wording. The agreement was ambiguously worded"

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 20:21

Every org needs to be included with input from PM. When that happens nobody will complain. Thats just how it is.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 25 Aug 2015 20:21

I think Rajpa is working under the assumption that Indo-Pak relations have to be good in order for India to gain diplomatic advantage. Asinine, if you ask me.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 25 Aug 2015 20:22

rajpa wrote:
I think it may simply be purely on the basis of the fact the minister was not there. F.Sec may not take orders from NSA. There is a rapport between F.Minister and F.Sec etc. Things getting done out of turn tends to upset the rhythm. Take it or leave it.

I leave it and trash it. The Prime Minister is there to mediate any issues between Foreign Secretary and NSA. This claim that things were done out of turn is Becturbation, pure and simple. And you assume that Sushma Swaraj was out of reach of the telephone, and only her physical presence would do.

PS: also completely forgotten by the ex-MEA types is that a statement completely worded by the Indian side would hardly be accepted by the Pakistan side.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 25 Aug 2015 20:23

There is also something known as "need to know", just saying. And besides how does anyone know that orgs were not involved, outside of the claims made by the ex-MEA types? As other people have pointed out the ufa draft was signed off by the MEA and the FS, implying they were in the loop, so all of these claims of it being otherwise are politically motivated.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 20:24

Anujan wrote:Lahore declaration was strongly specified. That didnt stop Kargil. Dont get caught up too much in the Ex-MEA "We would have said it better" types. It is a red herring.

Let me tell you a relevant story from the Panchatantra:
A frog and a scorpion are sitting on the side of a river. The frog wants to swim over.

The scorpion says "Let me sit on your back, we can both cross".

The Frog says "But you might sting me"

The scorpion says "But if I do that we will both drown because we cannot swim anymore"

The Frog says "So do you promise to not sting when I am swimming"

The scorpion says "I do not wish to commit suicide" and hops on the frog's back.

The frog is swimming swimming reaches middle of the river and the scorpion stings the frog. Surprised and betrayed the

Frog asks: "You promised me that you wont sting!! why did you do that"

The scorpion says: "It is my nature".

An owl watching from the riverbank, who was retired from MEA then goes on a a talk show and says "I would have worded the frog-scorpion agreement better. The problem was that the agreement was ambiguously worded"

Your story can be rewritten to support both sides. There is another panchantantra story for that.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 20:24

Arjun wrote:I think Rajpa is working under the assumption that Indo-Pak relations have to be good in order for India to gain diplomatic advantage. Asinine, if you ask me.

I think I can hear the sound of where you come from. If you ask me.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 25 Aug 2015 20:25

A_Gupta wrote:
rajpa wrote:
I think it may simply be purely on the basis of the fact the minister was not there. F.Sec may not take orders from NSA. There is a rapport between F.Minister and F.Sec etc. Things getting done out of turn tends to upset the rhythm. Take it or leave it.
I leave it and trash it. The Prime Minister is there to mediate any issues between Foreign Secretary and NSA. This claim that things were done out of turn is Becturbation, pure and simple. And you assume that Sushma Swaraj was out of reach of the telephone, and only her physical presence would do.

You can *turbate all you like - but facts will remain facts and perceptions cannot be changed just like that.