Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - July 07, 2009

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 17 Jul 2009 02:13

^^Difference in bangladesh and balochistan developements is that india had resolute leader in indira gandhi but mms is no indira gandhi.Indira had guts to defy china and usa at that time mms lacks those guts.

similarity being whole india was behind indira in supporting bangladesh war at that time even today whole india is behind mms for not supporting any war against pak.

other similarity being ---East pakistan was ripped off as BD from pak by india in 1971 this time it will be kashmir being ripped off from india by pak.

hisab barabar

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 17 Jul 2009 02:22

Tripathi Ji
I agree. This idiot has basically accepted the responsibility that it is India that is fomenting rebel in baluchistan. This picture is so cute....Layalpur meets Lahore. What a nostalgic moment? Indian diplomacy at its best, only Indians how to buckle under threat of another attack and succumb to it. I am so angry right now, if I spoke my mind some MODERATORS here will get ticked off, they are strong admirer of Statesman PM of India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2009 02:32

archan · Post by **archan** » 17 Jul 2009 02:47

ramana wrote:

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 17 Jul 2009 02:54

Anujan wrote:Things are not so straightforward.

MMS might be a mangy old dog, but he is a terrier. Unassuming, unflashy but focused.

There are several aspects to this development that need to be seriously considered. Let us calmly look at realities first.

1. India has no real leverage over Pakistan as of now. Indian diplomacy could neither insert benchmarks on progress against terrorism to aid from Unkil nor block aid from multilateral agencies.

After thinking about it and reading a bit, I have changed my mind.

MMS is no diplomat. I am at a loss to explain what the motivation is behind the current capitulation. Chanakyan motives may be ascribed to it, but there is no evidence or open source info to back this assumption up. The last major attack in Mumbai (which, incidentally took more lives than the hotels attack) was on trains in July 2006. In September 2006, MMS goes to Havana, meets Mushy, stunningly announces "India pak equal equal onlee, joint victims" and proposes "Joint anti-terror mechanism" to "share intelligence". The assumption being that there will be an institutional record for Pakistani perfidy.

Fast forward to 2008, the 2006 victims have been forgotten. Nobody knows who set off the bombs.

GP is right that MMS has committed a grave blunder equating state policy (Paki terrorism direct against india) with Blowback (Paki jihadis in Pakistan). He also indicated that the foreign policy babus were dead against the joint anti-terror mechanism. If that is true, there is no reason why they would have been suportive of the current joint statement - in this sense it seems to be a politican led initiative. GP in his writings (and other credible authors too), seem to indicate that the Jihadis are on par with the Nuke program in Pakistan. Considered to be "strategic assets", out of the control or purview of the politicians, non-negotiable and instruments of national survival. Making pakistan terrorist-nude is going to be as difficult in making them nuke-nude*. The army does what it does and the politicians do what they do best, put a spin on it, deny involvement - all the while they have no clue or control of what is going on - simply use it to get more aid or wink at the paki public to get more popularity.

Before this latest round of "charm offensive", the basic non-negotiable demand should have been that in return for recognizing "we are both victims onlee", one line in the joint declaration admitting the involvement of Pakistani nationals in Mumbai attacks was essential. This should have been a non-negotiable stand. If we are going to stick our head up our own musharrafs and say India-paki victims onlee, we should have atleast said India-pakis victims of pakis onlee.

So in essence what I am saying is that
A. MMS is inept and has no clue what he is doing and is the wrong person to set and lead India's policy towards pakistan (this is the more likely possibility)
B. Chanakyan motives seem to be the less likely possibility. All speculation as to what this motive could be, graphs, arguments, cheenis, internal support ityadi are just that. Speculations to make ourselves feel good.

The only silver lining seems to be that there is a real possibility of a "correction" in our approach....

*I am sidestepping the speculation that Pakistan is already nuke-nude.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2009 03:03

One thing I didnt understand was how did SS Menon allow the pak has information on Balochistan line in the joint statement. It implies India is involved there.

Pak could have made their statement but not in the joint statement for that sort of legitimizes it.

Wait for Friday Times to leak the nuggets.

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 17 Jul 2009 03:05

is there any doubt left that mms is another wkk like gujral from pakistan.BTW y only those who migrated to india after partition turn out to be wkk.y pakistan don ve its share of wkk.

archan · Post by **archan** » 17 Jul 2009 03:17

tripathi wrote:y pakistan don ve its share of wkk.

y pakistan don have a progressive economy
y pakistan don have chandrayan
y pakistan don have $262B forex reserve
y pakistan don have no IMF loan
y i talk like this
did i paanchvi fail?

bart · Post by **bart** » 17 Jul 2009 03:35

^^

---------
Ah well, at least we have our final safety net. If all else fails we can still count on Pakistan to screw up and shoot themselves in the foot with more tactical brilliance.

I wouldn't take Hamid Mir's worthless interview seriously, its just a typical Pakjabi bragging session that usually lands them with egg on their face.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 17 Jul 2009 04:27

tripathi wrote:^^Difference in bangladesh and balochistan developements is that india had resolute leader in indira gandhi but mms is no indira gandhi.Indira had guts to defy china and usa at that time mms lacks those guts.

similarity being whole india was behind indira in supporting bangladesh war at that time even today whole india is behind mms for not supporting any war against pak.

other similarity being ---East pakistan was ripped off as BD from pak by india in 1971 this time it will be kashmir being ripped off from india by pak.

hisab barabar

And sadly, Pakjabis massively outnumber the hapless Balochis, unlike the Bangladeshis.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 17 Jul 2009 04:35

tripathi wrote:is there any doubt left that mms is another wkk like gujral from pakistan.

I disagree on this. MMS is having a mandate to forget the deaths due to terror. The Indian voter's message is to forget the "once in a while dance of death" in few cities and work on the economy. He is a democrat to the core implementing the mandate given one billion strong population. Your comparision is not right. The voters endorsed to suckup( if we want to call it that way ) to any level to US or as matter to anything if there is an economic value. We only need to criticise him if the economy does not grow and anything post 2009 mandate is irrelevant.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Jul 2009 04:43

Note the joint text statement made some refs to Baluchis!
Won't Taliban be destroyed if they are found to be with Yindoos? So wheels within wheels.

Also uncle was providing info to TSP about Indian aid to Taliban and is revealing to its sources in West as card to force India to the talks. So both are still together in this dance between snakes.

Interesting times indeed... Pakiban Vs Taliban + Baluchis....

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 17 Jul 2009 04:53

I am sure some analysts might be noting the fact that Pakistan's decision to not arrest Sayeed on the grounds that UN security council resolution has no basis for the arrest takesaway the UN security council fig leaf in defence of *their* kashmir stand.

People may also be noting a subtle change in the nomenclature that has comeout since few months - now even paki ministers call it J&K and not just K.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 17 Jul 2009 05:02

This whole interpretation by media and Pakistan is very confusing. There could be surprises regarding interpretation later.

Manmohan surrenders, delinks terror from talks

After insisting for months since the November 26 Mumbai attacks that it would talk to Pakistan only after Islamabad cracked down on terror against it, India on Thursday capitulated and agreed with its neighbour’s suggestion to de-link composite dialogue with terrorism. In what is clearly a climb-down from its lofty perch, New Delhi agreed with Pakistan’s contention that terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani met to chart the “way forward” in bilateral ties.

In the second top-level meeting since the Mumbai terror attacks, Singh and Gilani met for more than two hours, virtually signalling a thaw in relations that had soured after the Mumbai strike when India suspended the dialogue process.

But Prime Minister Manmohan Singh later clarified that the “composite dialogue” will not be resumed.

A joint statement issued after the meeting said, “Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”

During the two-hour-long meeting, the two sides agreed to “create an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence”.

There was no mention of Kashmir in the statement which, however, said that Singh expressed India’s readiness to “discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues”. Under the composite dialogue process, Kashmir is one of the issues.

The delinking of composite dialogue with terrorism is seen as a climbdown by India as it has all along maintained that dialogue cannot be held till there is concrete action against terrorism emanating from Pakistan.

Later, addressing a press conference, Singh was at pains to clarify that “the composite dialogue process cannot resume unless and until terrorist acts, like the one which shook Mumbai, are properly accounted for and perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to book.”

Describing meeting with Manmohan Singh as a “major breakthrough”, Gilani claimed New Delhi was “convinced” that dialogue was the “only way forward”.

“All core issues that were pending under composite dialogue should be discussed... That should not be bracketed with this Mumbai incident,” he told reporters after the meeting on the sidelines of the summit here.

Gilani said his feeling was that India was “convinced” that the “only way forward” was dialogue. He said he had told Singh that terrorism and Mumbai attacks should not be bracketed with dialogue and he agreed. “They are satisfied with my commitment that whosoever was behind Mumbai attack will be brought to justice,” he said.

However, Manmohan Singh said that “if acts of terrorism continue to be perpetrated, there is no question of dialogue, least of all, the composite dialogue... If there is no attempt (by Pakistan) to contain terrorism, no dialogue can succeed.”

He emphasised that “So long as Pakistan territory continues to be used for perpetrating acts of terrorism directed against India, I think, the dialogue, even if it starts, cannot move forward.”{mms fans can claim this as Chanikyan}

Noting that there is no option but to have dialogue with Pakistan, he said, however,that he could not say what kind of talks will happen. This, he said, will be determined by the Foreign Secretaries of the two countries who will keep meeting as often as possible.

Singh said that any recurrence of Mumbai-type attack will be “intolerable” and that would affect the ties from moving forward.{this line is repeated by every PM as though Pak will keep its word}

India has particularly been maintaining that the dialogue process cannot resume till Pakistan takes “concrete” and “visible” action against perpetrators of Mumbai attacks.{Pakistan did do some action. Arrested and released LeT chief} On top of it, the joint statement also contains a reference to “threats” in Balochistan, where Pakistan has been alleging Indian hand in terror incidents.

The statement said that Singh emphasised the need for action against perpetrators of Mumbai attacks and Gilani had promised to “do everything in its power” in this regard.

During the talks, the two sides also decided to share “real-time, credible and actionable information on any future terror threats”.

Singh disagreed when pointed out that Pakistan’s projection was that the composite dialogue will not be held hostage to terror incidents. “That’s not my interpretation.”

Gilani said he had raised the issue of “terrorism” in Balochistan for which Pakistan accuses India.

Asked about the mention of Balochistan in the joint statement for the first time, Singh quoted Gilani as having said that people in his country were saying that India was “active” in that province. Singh said he had told Gilani that if Pakistan has “evidence, we are ready to look at it. We are an open book. We are not afraid of discussing any of these issues.”

Singh and Gilani agreed that their Foreign Ministers will meet on the sidelines of UN General Assembly in New York. Prior to that Foreign Secretaries will be in constant touch. Gilani said Pakistan has provided updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information or evidence from the Indian side. Singh said he had not studied the dossier so far as he has been travelling.

Noting that Indo-Pak relations have been subjected to “too many accidents”, Singh said “with all uncertainties, we have an obligation to engage Pakistan to the extent we can to resolve differences, to contain them... Whether we will succeed or not, only time will tell.

There should be serious and honest actions (by Pakistan) to address issues that separate the two countries.”

To a question, he said “I really cannot say hereafter I have a roadmap. There may be no surprises.”

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 17 Jul 2009 05:20

Pakistan madrassa reforms in tatters

Education Ministry official says government could not utilise US-aided Rs 5,759 million for reforms programme

So much for accountability. Hey, lets send the porkis more aid to help the internally displaced persons. They will certainly get those millions.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 17 Jul 2009 05:22

Another one of those "Porkiland is safe for minorities" BS)

First convoy of Hindu, Sikh IDPs returns to Swat

ISLAMABAD: The rights of minorities, including Hindus and Sikhs, living in the country will be protected at all costs, Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETBP) Chairman Syed Asif Hashmi said on Thursday. “Today, I am very happy to see the Hindu and Sikh Pakistanis displaced by the operation in Malakand division returning to their homes,” he said during a ceremony held at Panja Sahib Gurdwara, Hassanabdal to see off the first convoy of Hindus and Sikhs returning to Swat. Hashmi said he was honoured at being the custodian of Hindu and Sikh worship sites in Pakistan, adding that he would not only protect the rights of minorities but would also provide all possible facilities to Sikh Yatrees in accordance with the instructions of the president and the prime minister. The chairman said he had been responsible for allocating a substantial amount of funds on decorating religious places of minorities. app

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Jul 2009 05:22

Anujan wrote: MMS is no diplomat.

...seem to indicate that the Jihadis are on par with the Nuke program in Pakistan. Considered to be "strategic assets", out of the control or purview of the politicians, non-negotiable and instruments of national survival. Making pakistan terrorist-nude is going to be as difficult in making them nuke-nude*.

Dont lose heart Anujan-ji.

UPAv2.0 too has came up with its own indigenous (democratically acceptable) instruments of political survival. This works as long as Indians relate corruption only to monetary aspects leaving out the intellectual/character corruption/slavery.

The so-called visibly-knowledgeable (from elite institutions), honorable (lots of humility), visibly-non-corrupt (simple/soft-spoken) individuals in top ministries. They will ensure that public-anger, if any, is not linked to the party (lead by the family and their controllers elsewhere) and cannot undermine their re-lectability.

My examples: MMS, PC, AKA, PM, SD, SP,MSA.... {Can anyone question the decision of AKA if he selects super-horneys?}

Anujan wrote: The army does what it does and the politicians do what they do best, put a spin on it, deny involvement - all the while they have no clue or control of what is going on - simply use it to get more aid or wink at the paki public to get more popularity.

Are you sure? Did you see any Paki politician making an sincere attempt to correct the situation?

If you ask me, a Paki Politician is the mukhada for TSPA for inept nations like India. Strong nations like USA/PRC/RUS/FR deal directly with TSPA.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 17 Jul 2009 05:25

On the lighter side....

Eunuchs up in arms against ‘guru’

RAWALPINDI: The twin city eunuchs on Thursday accused their leader Bobi of extorting money from them, and demanded police action against him.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 17 Jul 2009 05:47

chetak wrote:
ramana wrote:I was going to post this form the Intel&NS thread

quote="mohan" quote="AmitR" India, Pak delink terrorism from dialogue
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS ... 785330.cms

IBNLIVE says something subtly different:
No peace talks till 26/11 is settled: Manmohan
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-peace-tal ... 282-2.html

On the face of it, the article appears to contradicts itself - not sure what to read into this:

quote Composite dialogue cannot begin unless and until and terrorist heads which shook Mumbai are properly accounted for, (the) perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to book," said Singh.

Perhaps we are saying, yes, we can delink terrorism from other parts of the composite dialogue, but bring the terrorists to boot first - a round about way of saying the same thing we've been saying all along.

[/quote]

I think the 'confusion' stems from the timing issue. Pakis think that the joint statement may be applied retrospectively. I think for India the Joint statement is 'with effect from 17 July 2009'. What MMS is pointing to is that if the pakis can show verifiable and sustained actions against the mumbai terrorists, then India will agree not to link any terror acts with composite dialogue etc etc. This is probably being given as a sop to show that if pakis can indeed change their ways (doubtful), India will help.

I wouldn't read too much into 'provided information on balochistan'. This may be interpreted as discussing where their pipeline from iran will be laid or an assurance from Groper that Hingalaj is safe

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 17 Jul 2009 06:33

arnab wrote: India, Pak delink terrorism from dialogue

IBNLIVE says something subtly different:
No peace talks till 26/11 is settled: Manmohan
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-peace-tal ... 282-2.html

On the face of it, the article appears to contradicts itself - not sure what to read into this:

quote Composite dialogue cannot begin unless and until and terrorist heads which shook Mumbai are properly accounted for, (the) perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to book," said Singh.

I think the 'confusion' stems from the timing issue. Pakis think that the joint statement may be applied retrospectively. I think for India the Joint statement is 'with effect from 17 July 2009'. What MMS is pointing to is that if the pakis can show verifiable and sustained actions against the mumbai terrorists, then India will agree not to link any terror acts with composite dialogue etc etc. This is probably being given as a sop to show that if pakis can indeed change their ways (doubtful), India will help.

Too many convolutions and unnecessary chankianism. The joint communique' is very clear--dialogue will not be linked to terrorism. The other claim--that dialogue is conditional on bringing Mumbai attackers to justice--is just damage control, IOW bare-faced lying, with full collusion of media.

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 17 Jul 2009 06:36

anupmisra wrote:On the lighter side....

Eunuchs up in arms against ‘guru’

for a moment there, I thought you were talking about the eunuchs in India

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 17 Jul 2009 07:39

TFT is out

Such Gup

Losers!

Last month, our intrepid and mentally challenged agency wallahs nabbed the culprit behind the tragic Marriott bombing. A certain Qari Something, he outwitted them even in captivity. Once they began giving him the third degree, he sold them the line that he was ready to turn approver and lead them to a top Al-Qaeda operative in South Waziristan. So, off they all went, terrorist and his handler officers to the bowels of hell. The terrorist led them straight into a trap. They all got kidnapped, the terrorist ran free and the brilliant agency had to pay Rs 1.3 million in ransom to get their officers back. The demand was Rs 1.5 million but the go-betweens brought the terrorists down a notch! May God have mercy on us all, if these losers are our intelligence agents.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 17 Jul 2009 07:46

IOW, the "intelligence agents" were set up by their own bosses and so the ISI got the Marriott bomber freed. This is the standard operating procedure in Pakistan.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 17 Jul 2009 07:56

^^^ The statement is a bit puzzling, but quite frankly joint declarations are not worth too much more than the paper they are written on...Remember the famous Musharraf-Vajpayee declaration about "not allowing Paki territory for terror attacks on India"? Well, lots of attacks followed after that - state policy is not guided by foreign policy declarations, they are guided by intent...

The reference to Balochistan is very very intriguing...The begining of the internationalisation of the "Baloch issue"? After all, in case we are to talk of disturbances there, we would be also talking of "root causes", wont we?

It is a fact that conversations need to go on. Struggles between countries with far greater power asymmetry than Indo-Pak have realised, or realising the futlity of not talking (think Us-NK, US-Iran)...Question is what do we "talk about"? And what do these talks lead to?

and how much are these joint statements about shoring up political equations within Pak to our advantage? Zardari is an obvious buffoon, Gilani is seen as a more credible civilian voice...The perpetuation of tension between the civilian and military establishments is an honourable goal!

bahdada · Post by **bahdada** » 17 Jul 2009 08:02

It's truly sickening. No one, not even the uber lefty-douche side has yet to explain how in the hell Balochistan was allowed into any context of a diplomatic declaration.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 17 Jul 2009 08:10

tripathi wrote:is there any doubt left that mms is another wkk like gujral from pakistan.BTW y only those who migrated to india after partition turn out to be wkk.y pakistan don ve its share of wkk.

Be careful Tripathi
Moderators here will ban you for it. They think paki migrant who became India's PM are the best thing since fire was invented.

Since there are no JATT Moderators here, we have to live with it.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 17 Jul 2009 08:12

anupmisra wrote:On the lighter side....

Eunuchs up in arms against ‘guru’

RAWALPINDI: The twin city eunuchs on Thursday accused their leader Bobi of extorting money from them, and demanded police action against him.

When did statesman went on Pakistan Yatra to visit ancesterol home.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 17 Jul 2009 08:13

Tomorrow, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone if Balochistan declares independence and India seriously considers recognizing it and work with friendly countries to also do so.

Let's just say, if there is no more Pakistan (NaPakistanNoMore is my handle:)) tomorrow, we can use this fig leaf (on platter) to establish some legitimacy. I know..I know this sounds toooo much chankian but I hope things work along these lines.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 17 Jul 2009 08:19

I see a repeat of the tactics used during the run-up to the Nuclear Deal.
All through the time between the Singh-Bush joint declaration and the finalization, there was a considerable double-speak done by all and sundry related to the discussions. I suspect that those tactics have been internalized by the core group and it will be played in the same manner and suddenly the country will be presented with a situation where some sort of major climbdown (handing over cashmere?) will become a logical step. I give it another 18 months before we see such a thing happening.
Just look at the way MMS gave a spin of "no talks till ....". It was the same way he was saying different things in the parliament and the media.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 17 Jul 2009 08:23

Does anybody have any idea how Baloch question would have entered the draft?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Jul 2009 08:26

Anujan wrote:
Anujan wrote:Things are not so straightforward.

MMS might be a mangy old dog, but he is a terrier. Unassuming, unflashy but focused.

There are several aspects to this development that need to be seriously considered. Let us calmly look at realities first.

1. India has no real leverage over Pakistan as of now. Indian diplomacy could neither insert benchmarks on progress against terrorism to aid from Unkil nor block aid from multilateral agencies.
After thinking about it and reading a bit, I have changed my mind.

MMS is no diplomat. I am at a loss to explain what the motivation is behind the current capitulation. Chanakyan motives may be ascribed to it, but there is no evidence or open source info to back this assumption up. The last major attack in Mumbai (which, incidentally took more lives than the hotels attack) was on trains in July 2006. In September 2006, MMS goes to Havana, meets Mushy, stunningly announces "India pak equal equal onlee, joint victims" and proposes "Joint anti-terror mechanism" to "share intelligence". The assumption being that there will be an institutional record for Pakistani perfidy.

Fast forward to 2008, the 2006 victims have been forgotten. Nobody knows who set off the bombs.

GP is right that MMS has committed a grave blunder equating state policy (Paki terrorism direct against india) with Blowback (Paki jihadis in Pakistan). He also indicated that the foreign policy babus were dead against the joint anti-terror mechanism. If that is true, there is no reason why they would have been suportive of the current joint statement - in this sense it seems to be a politican led initiative. GP in his writings (and other credible authors too), seem to indicate that the Jihadis are on par with the Nuke program in Pakistan. Considered to be "strategic assets", out of the control or purview of the politicians, non-negotiable and instruments of national survival. Making pakistan terrorist-nude is going to be as difficult in making them nuke-nude*. The army does what it does and the politicians do what they do best, put a spin on it, deny involvement - all the while they have no clue or control of what is going on - simply use it to get more aid or wink at the paki public to get more popularity.

Before this latest round of "charm offensive", the basic non-negotiable demand should have been that in return for recognizing "we are both victims onlee", one line in the joint declaration admitting the involvement of Pakistani nationals in Mumbai attacks was essential. This should have been a non-negotiable stand. If we are going to stick our head up our own musharrafs and say India-paki victims onlee, we should have atleast said India-pakis victims of pakis onlee.

So in essence what I am saying is that
A. MMS is inept and has no clue what he is doing and is the wrong person to set and lead India's policy towards pakistan (this is the more likely possibility)
B. Chanakyan motives seem to be the less likely possibility. All speculation as to what this motive could be, graphs, arguments, cheenis, internal support ityadi are just that. Speculations to make ourselves feel good.

The only silver lining seems to be that there is a real possibility of a "correction" in our approach....

*I am sidestepping the speculation that Pakistan is already nuke-nude.

We are all misreading the situation.

Its like having @#%$%^$%## IK Gujral all over again.

Sharing intelligence in "real time", with the isi????

It will take decades for the Indian state to recover from the gentle ministrations of this "superior diplomatic team" Has the damage been caused willfully? or because of some misplaced sense of dhimmitude? Parliament should ban Indians born in porkiland from dealing with the porkis. Delink pappi jappi from real world politics.

I would have expected, at the very least, better drafting skills from "rhodes scholar" krishna and his wretched "team".

Baluchistan??? what were these guys smoking??

Bring G Parthasarthy back into the govt. If we can have nilekani as a "cabinet minister" why not the infinitely more accomplished, erudite and patriotic GP?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Jul 2009 08:28

kenop wrote:Does anybody have any idea how Baloch question would have entered the draft?

Its called ambush.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2009 08:35

kenop wrote:Does anybody have any idea how Baloch question would have entered the draft?

There has been a report or two from PakiLand that India is interfering there.

But, that does not seem to be the issue. The entire joint announcement seems rather odd. Who wrote it and was it ever brought to the attention of the two PMs?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 08:36

There is a tendency to paint any disappointment or anger as whine.

So, let me whine a little bit more. I think GoI is thoroughly confused. On the one hand, the joint statement says that the issue of terrorism cannot be linked to composite dialogue. On the other hand, our PM says the opposite. It is the joint statement that would matter and not the weak attempts by the PM to provide a fig-leaf cover to his dramatic climbdown.

He said he told Mr. Gilani the composite dialogue could not begin until there had been an accounting of what had happened in Mumbai and the perpetrators were in the dock. “We felt the two issues should not be and cannot be linked and this has been accepted by Pakistan,” he added. {Isn't that exactly the point Mr. PM ? You are yourself admitting that you suggested delinking, which will be to the enormous advantage of Pakistan, and claim that as a victory too ?} “We were clear that if acts of terrorism continue [from Pakistani soil], then dialogue cannot continue, let alone the composite dialogue… And even if it starts, it cannot move forward. {Again a play with words, IMHO. Mr. PM is linking dialogue to 'future' terror acts, thereby already letting Pakistan off the hook for 26/11}”

I think Man Mohan Singh is making a distinction between dialogue and composite dialogue. Or, at least he would make us believe so. Having said that "Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these [sic] should not be bracketed", how can he also say composite dialogue "cannot begin unless and until the terrorist acts of Mumbai are fully accounted for and the perpetrators are brought to book" ? Some may see chankianness in this, but I don't.

In fact, it is more than a mere climb down; it is acceptance of equality in matters of state sponsorship of terrorism between India and Pakistan. We have allowed Pakistan to insinuate India in Balochistan issues, thereby implicitly accusing India of not practising what it preaches. The Pakistani media and diplomats will now paint the town red with accusing India of being a terrorist state as well and such accusations will ring true because of this surreptitious sentence in the joint statement . However much Mr. man Mohan Singh now says that "we have nothing to hide in Balochistan; we are an open book" etc., the unmistakable impression has been created through the joint statement that we are meddling in Balochistan. It is a callous failure on the part of Man Mohan Singh and Shiv Shankar Menon.

It is a known fact that when Indian PMs have a one-on-one meet with his/her counterpart from another country, they normally tend to give up way too much.Joint Statement came after one-on-one meeting

Till the one-on-one meeting between the two Prime Ministers began here on Thursday morning, there was uncertainty about whether a joint India-Pakistan statement might be issued at all. A senior South Block official told The Hindu there was no statement on the cards when the meeting began and even a sense of deadlock. But the hour-long meeting between the two leaders changed everything.

Obviously, this means that it is PM Man Mohan Singh who has to take the responsibility/blame for the reference to Balochistan in the joint statement.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 17 Jul 2009 08:38

Chetak
I disagree. There was no ambush. How can there be an ambush when Lay-all-pur and LaWhore are making goo goo eyes at eachother for two hours. Now who got some brain knowledge after these talks

is a different subject. For now it seems gilani took the statesman for long ride.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 17 Jul 2009 08:38

ramana wrote:Looks like the resumption of talks is a OA goal to ensure TSPA moving its forces to combat the terrorists.

What is the US motive behind this? They are not stupid to not know the nature of TSPA, and it is not as if the TSPA can defy the US.

Added later: Maybe all this is to reduce the amount of money the US has to pay TSPA

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2009 08:41

The only Chanakyan aspect I can see is related to Clinton's visit. Perhaps to keep the US from making too much noise during her visit. For the record she seems to have made the right noises from her end - no interference on K, etc.

All this may make sense - hopefully - after she leaves India.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 08:45

NRao wrote:Perhaps to keep the US from making too much noise during her visit. For the record she seems to have made the right noises from her end - no interference on K, etc.

How does it matter if Ms. Clinton makes a lot of noise ? Nobody could have made a bigger noise than Robin Raphael, Albright and Clinton and we have weathered these unholy threesome when India's own position was far more precarious and the US was far better off than it is today. In any case, the US has always said, at least for the record, that it won't interfere unless asked to do so by both parties and that has been so for ages. Nothing new in that as well.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jul 2009 08:47

Or during her visit to Delhi.
The pakis have not done a major terrorist atrocity in kashmir for a while now. from their pov, kashmir is begging for some good ol' internationalization about now.

Well cochin, chennai, bangalore, and goa had better be secured, but I would also watch the kashmir valley like a hawk

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 17 Jul 2009 09:38

Ties with US prove injurious

During the Cold War, Pakistan stood aside USA as its most allied ally while India stood in the opposite camp with Soviet Union

Starting a school of journalism that specializes in proof reading in pakistan might turn out to be a very profitable venture